The effects of the Bush recession wear on. In 2009, Rutgers University commissioned a study not just of unemployment statistics, but real world impacts of the recession, job layoffs, and personal economics of those impacted.
It's difficult for anyone who has retained a decent job through the ongoing economic crisis to fully grasp how many of your friends, neighbors and families have been truly gutted by both job loss and GOP-inspired social safety net reductions. The simple rapid nature of this sea change in personal economics should be a big cause for concern in the ranks of the 1%.
This is what it's all about for me: a bit further down, I explain why I'm cherry picking one statistic from the study that floored me (but please, read the entire study - it's not that long, but there's a treasure trove of information contained within). This infographic is pretty easy to understand:
- [Unemployed] workers who have MADE IT BACK consider themselves in excellent, good, or fair financial shape and have experienced no change in their standard of living due to the recession.
- People ON THEIR WAY BACK have largely experienced a minor change to their
standard of living, but say the change is temporary. They also consider themselves in excellent, good, or fair financial shape.
- Workers who have been DOWNSIZED meet one of three conditions; they have
experienced: a minor change that is permanent; a minor change that is temporary, but they are in poor financial shape; or a major change in their standard of living that is temporary and they are in at least fair financial shape.
- Workers classified as DEVASTATED have experienced a major change to their
lifestyle due to the recession. They can be either in poor financial shape and think the change is temporary, or in fair financial shape but think this change is permanent.
- Workers that have been TOTALLY WRECKED by this recession have experienced a major change to their lifestyle that is permanent and are in poor financial shape.
The Rutgers study is isn't a specious, one-off graduate course six month disseration requirement. It's thorough, and there's been followup for three years. Here are the parameters:
The research began with a cross-sectional sample of 1,202 who had said they had lost a job at some point in the preceding 12 months (between August 2008 and 2009). They were resurveyed in March 2010, again in November 2010, and then in August 2011.
A total of 3,972 individual surveys were completed over the two years. Well over half of the original respondents participated in all four waves of the project, meaning they spent, on average, 50 minutes of their time responding to roughly 200 questionnaire items.
Here's a chart from the study that I found very interesting, and personally applicable to me, as an unemployed male of a "certain age":
Under the "age" demographic heading, you'll find the range, 45 - 59. Scroll to the right, and look under the heading, "devastated". The highest percentage on the entire chart - 49% - is shown in this category. (Refer to the definitions above for a description of the categories.)
My interpretation? Those who are in this age demographic (such as myself), and who have lost their jobs, have been the most severely impacted across all age impact typology. What this means is that if you've lost your job, and you're over 45, the financial hit and personal toll that it's taken on you and your family is catastrophic. Implied, but not specifically discussed, is that if you've lost your job, the chances of getting another one even marginally close to the one you lost is slim.
The ongoing Rutgers study (latest data points collected in August of 2011) is the first study I've found that actually speaks to the personal impact of the economy, and the hopelessness that many of us feel.
There's much to be gleaned from the information provided in the study that this short article doesn't address. It should be made clear, though, that this study is a continuing analysis of unemployed individuals, and the impact on their lives, both financial and personal.
Losing one's job is about more than just losing a paycheck. It's about losing dignity, self respect, self worth, and questioning one's own ability to contribute both to their family and society as a whole. I've only focused on one aspect of the Rutger's study in this article, and once again, I encourage you to read the entire study. It's not that long (11 pages), and there are literally nuggets in there for everyone, in every demographic (age, ethnic, and education).
While the Rutger's study might not be personally applicable to those who haven't suffered a job loss in the past five years, almost everyone knows someone who has been directly impacted by layoffs, downsizing, offshoring, or business failures. The primary takeaway is that there is major fraying of the social and financial fabric of this country that isn't being adequately explored or addressed at either state or federal levels.
There are real stories behind the sterile U3 and U6 monthly unemployment statistics that the Rutger's study just begins to reveal.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Frank Michels
Brassawe
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
a chain doesn't have to fail in every link to become unfit to purpose, it only needs one.
9/11 was nothing compared to the devastation of money worship. All the real terrorists wear suits.
Speaking out about the problem is the only way and the Occupy movement is gathering steam from us all. Thanks for this piece.
Oh and by the way, Obama has been President for 3 years and the Democrats have controlled Congress for 5 years. The “blame Bush” rhetoric, outside of places like OS, is so 2008.
To Johnny Fever - there is a straight line connection between economic conditions in this country today and the eight year regime of George W. Bush & Dick Cheney.
I know this may not fit into Blair’s storyline but perhaps the capitalists decided to take their ball and go home after it was clear McCain/Palin was not to be. Based on that storyline, this is clearly the Obama/filibuster-proof Democratic Congress recession. Or we could stop looking for scapegoats and start enacting/retracting the laws which encourage/inhibit economic growth.
Two conclusions are possible from this: One, Democrats were actually complicint with policies from 2006-2008, and are therefore partially culpable for the state of the economy, or, two, based on the ability of a single man (Bush) to do more than all of Congress and the White House combined, Democrats, as a group, are the stupidiest, most clueless group in our society, and therefore have no business running for, or holding public office.
Pick one. Blaming Bush for your own failed agenda, when you needed not one Republican vote to pass any legislation you wanted for a two year period, proves absolute incompetence and lack of leadership on the part of this President.
If we were stupid, we could lay the blame on Obama, who didn't turn surpluses into massive deficits and a doubling of debt or refuse to regulate toxic loans. If we were really stupid, we'd say something like the capitalists were upset that McCain lost. If we were dumb on an astronomical scale, we could blame it on Fannie/Freddie, and stupidly insist they forced banks to make bad loans. If we were mentally challenged half wit troglodytes, we could blame it on laws and regulation that stifle growth and not on the fact the consumers have been wrung dry and have no ability to grow the economy.
We could be that stupid, but we aren't. Fortunately we have really airheaded simpwits like Fever, baltimore and Chipk to be stupid for us, sparing us the shame of being dull-minded, economically-ignorant and unashamed low IQ fools.
Thanks, guys.
Mr. Clinton kicked the first domino (with full backing of old Bush) when he signed us up for those lopsided trade agreements with China in exchange fr some vague promise of "democratizing".
Yes siree-Bob, The Clintons and the Bushes took real good care of their Wall Street handlers and did just what they were told.
Three major factors plopped us into the shitter:
1) Bad monetary and economic policy.
2) The new banking model where there is more money in bad spending habits than good.
3) Lopsided trade agreements that put Americans out of work.
Just look at the history:
Consumers when from managing their money to managing their debts.
Artificially low interest rates and predatory, high-risk lending got us into even more personal debt.
Then the law of supply and demand reared it's ugly head and all this access to mortgage money sent housing prices sky-high.
While everyone was drooling over the phoney savings at WalMart - the Chinese were setting the condition that if you want to trade here, you have to make it here. To which Washington said -- "okay -- sounds weesanable."
Then around 2005 or 6, Americans sated to notice that the jobs were disappearing and they got nervous.
So, they slowed down on the house buying--which caused panicked speculation about a bubble--which scared everyone even more.
Then they stopped buying houses -- and cars -- and durable goods -- and services.
Kaaaaaboom! Whaaaaa?
This major poopoo plater has been served up by all of Washington (it takes a village -- of idiots).
It's called "Corporatism", and as long as you all keep supporting the present establishment players, on both sides of the aisle--hoping they'll do something this time around...
...You are all el-fuk'd.
Say hello to the new boss--same as the old boss.
--i.f. stone
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
--supreme court justice louis brandeis
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
--upton sinclair
"One withstands the invasion of armies; one does not withstand the invasion of ideas."
--victor hugo
occupy party reaches critical mass/seismic effect--now what?
Another thing I've noticed is that many of the jobs in the "middle" are gone. On one end there are jobs for the janitors, receptionists, file clerks, and so on. On the other end are jobs for the department directors, senior engineers, senior analysts, and so on.
But when you try to look in the "middle" -- the specialists, the technicians, the junior analysts, and so on -- those jobs are gone. When those jobs are available they are often temporary or limited duration.
This is especially true in the public sector. In previous recessions the public sector could be counted on help cushion the blow. But now, the public sector, especially, local, county, and state government, has been gutted. Where I live, the public sector analyst jobs have all but disappeared; there is an entire kind of work that has almost disappeared. The people who do the work, and the people who supervise the work are still there. But the people who analyze and report on the work are gone. When the occasional analyst job does open up there are a ton of applicants, the great majority of whom never get interviews.
With the jobs in the middle gone, older workers have a particularly hard time. Many don't qualify for the senior jobs, and many of those jobs are filled internally anyway, and the older worker is forced to apply for the lower-level jobs. So the older worker has to explain why a former auditor is interested in taking drivers license photos in the department of motor vehicles. And that doesn't work very well.
--i.f. stone
Yes and the only "pepper spray" they get is the one the waiter offers to put on their salad while they bribe someone over lunch...