Yea.....

I don't think people fresh out of college count either. Many of them either haven't had jobs beyond some summer work, or they had jobs on campus they were no longer eligible for the second they graduated.

What about those of us who have been on twelve interviews since graduating, and refuse to take a fucking retail job making minimum wage, yet because Obama doesn't give fuck all about the economy, and is therefore doing NOTHING about it, companies will not hire you without years and years of experience, even if you have a bachelor's since it's just too big of a financial risk to invest in new employees, and, thus, we're motherfucking screwed. How about us, huh?

Thank you for wasting billions upon billions of the dollars we haven't even printed yet, Bush and Obama. How swell of you to think of the big picture.

The state of the economy is not so much Mr. Obama's fault, as it is, the GOP. During the years between 2000-2008, the GOP removed a number of watch dog groups, regulators, rules, and concepts, to help make companies 'more profitable'. This as you may know, resulted in preditatory lending and grossy irresponsible business practice of companies. The downward spiral of industries, would have been hampered if not stopped, if we had regulations, rules, regulators, and watch dog groups in place. That was the lesson learned from Black Tuesday (not to be confused with Black Friday).

But, the level of irresponsiblity gets better...

Mr. Bush gave the American people (read: the upper 8%, although 'everyone' techincally got) tax cuts. I recall three, but there could have been additional ones. Paying for two wars, and everything else, did not help matters. In fact, the Iraq War costed Americans $550+ billion a year on average (alittle over $3 trillion after 6 years). Now, if Revenue = 2 and expenses = 9, 2-9= -7. So where did we make this negative funding up? That's right: DEFICIT SPENDING!

A concept used by the Reagan Administration (which ended his administration in the largest deficit at the time). Then Bush, Sr used it again (which ended his administration in the largest deficit at the time....BIGGER...then Reagan's). And then Bush, Jr, did the same again (resulting in the largest deficit to date). Now, that Tax & Spend liberal scum, Mr. Clinton, ended his administration with a surplus (meaning, we weren't going further in to debt, AND, paying off the current debt.

So really, if your going to blame some politican for the problems of the economy, why not put it squarely on the GOP's shoulders. Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bush, Sr, and Mr. Bush, Jr, where all 'Fiscal Conservatives'. So, let it be known, not to hire anyone who claims they are a fiscal conservative.

The unemployment rate is, as the video states, lower then what it actually is. The reason for this, is, there's no way to acturally measure the correct unemployment number beyond those who recieve state/federal unemployment checks. Those who are not working due to health problems, are unemployed. Those who have a job at 1/8th their previous salary, are NOT, considered unemployed.

And you've been on 12 interviews since graduating, and your complaining?!?!?!?!?!

(Plays world's smallest violin for ForgedReality)

Actually, Mr. Obama is thinking on the big picture. I could explain it, but, as you said, your too young to understand the wisdom. Maybe in a decade, you'll learn.

Your problem has been around for decades. We have all had to compete upon graduation in a market full of experienced people. I would suggest going to grad school and getting a masters. Or even offering to work for a reduced amount or for free as a probationary measure. A friend of mine's son, recently graduated with a BS in engineering, did just that and it worked. He negotiated to come on as a contractor at $1000 a month; 3 months later they raised his salary. He will probably get taken on as a full worker; but even if they let him go, he has gained some valuable experience.

However, on the contrary, many companies are laying off workers who have years of experience in favor of less expensive new graduates. So, people on the other side of your situation are feeling the same pressures but in a different direction.

Lastly, what's wrong with getting a low paying retail job until you start your career? I worked as a waiter for a few months after I graduated (with a BS in physics) and was able so save some much needed money.

>> ^ForgedReality:
What about those of us who have been on twelve interviews since graduating, and refuse to take a fucking retail job making minimum wage, yet because Obama doesn't give fuck all about the economy, and is therefore doing NOTHING about it, companies will not hire you without years and years of experience, even if you have a bachelor's since it's just too big of a financial risk to invest in new employees, and, thus, we're motherfucking screwed. How about us, huh?
Thank you for wasting billions upon billions of the dollars we haven't even printed yet, Bush and Obama. How swell of you to think of the big picture.

This would be a really fantastic video if the implication wasn't that the BLS is purposefully trying to hide the true unemployment rate. If the real gist had been "the U3 unemployment statistic the media and gov't officials cite is horseshit" it would have been better. Better still if they'd mentioned that the BLS does release the U6 statistic, which they actually included at the end without citing (17.2% unemployment). U6 unemployment includes every example cited here, including the "employed" guy, since he wanted full-time hours and could only get part time.

No statistic for "I'm working a menial job that I feel is beneath my station". I suspect if that were the criteria, we'd pretty much permanently be over 90% unemployment.

Still, I think the real problem is people just look at the number and don't really get a feel for it. 10% doesn't sound too bad, that means 9 in 10 people still have a job, right? Even 17.2% still leaves us with a bit more than 8 in 10 still employed. Some people don't get that this is a humanitarian catastrophe on a massive scale, and that we should be doing something about it.

>> ^ForgedReality:
What about those of us who have been on twelve interviews since graduating, and refuse to take a fucking retail job making minimum wage, yet because Obama doesn't give fuck all about the economy, and is therefore doing NOTHING about it, companies will not hire you without years and years of experience, even if you have a bachelor's since it's just too big of a financial risk to invest in new employees, and, thus, we're motherfucking screwed. How about us, huh?
Thank you for wasting billions upon billions of the dollars we haven't even printed yet, Bush and Obama. How swell of you to think of the big picture.


I'm just going to go out on a limb here but is your "bachelor degree" simply a passing grade? I apologise if it's not but otherwise please be aware there is actually a difference between getting a degree and getting a degree that actually shows you have the the relevant level of experience.

Also what Nithern and longde said. Life's tough when people stop holding your hand, you're not the first graduate who *gasp* has to take more than 12 interviews. You're also not the first graduate to find themselves with only retail jobs available, please get off your high horse, you're not God's gift to the employment world.

Companies WILL hire any candidate they see a FUTURE in, I suspect if your attitude comes off as it does in this comment, it is no wonder you don't scream "employ me".

This site would be so much more pleasant if it wasn't completely overwhelmed by 16 year old liberal nutjobs like Nithern who haven't done enough research to realize that both Dems and Repubs have been complete fiscal retards for a really long time. Nithern, you bring up the old Clinton surplus myth. Read this:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

If you can't understand it, let me break it down for you: there was never a surplus under Clinton. Ever. There are two parts of the national debt. Imagine you're a household and you have a mortgage and credit card debt. You take out a second mortage on your home and pay down some of your credit card debit. Home debt goes up, credit card debt goes down. Then you go all over the city and tell people you reduced your credit card debt! Whee! You don't tell them you went deeper into debt elsewhere in order to do it. Do you realize how ridiculous of an accomplishment this is?

Moreover, Social Security payments are adjusted for the CPI. The CPI is the government's way of calculating rises in the cost of living. In the 90s, the Boskin commission was formed to look for "bias" in the way the CPI was calculated. Let me translate that for you: hey guys, we need reduce Social Security obligations without anyone noticing by subjectively omitting certain price increases, thereby artificially lowering the CPI against which SS payments are adjusted.

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html

Perhaps there is no accurate measure for the underemployed, but discouraged workers (jobless for over a year) are no longer counted when they used to be prior to the Clinton admin. It's a goofy new category created to intentionally make the number look more timid that historical numbers and nothing more. Both the CPI and the way unemployment are calculated changed during the Clinton administration as short term "fixes" of problems that need real solutions that no citizen is ever going to vote for. So if you think Clinton solved jack shit fiscally, I've got news for you: we're going to need something 100x more potent. And it won't happen, because people are retards like you. Think about it. You bitch about the Iraq war, and rightfully so, but before you were born the Democrats started a useless little war called "Vietnam" that led to Nixon severing our currency's last link to gold. Oh, and we lost about 50k soldiers. Which is sad, because you can always count on communism to fail by itself, which is exactly what happened after we pulled out.

You cry about the lack of Republican regulation. We need more regulation like we need a hole in the head. You don't even know what the word means, it's just some magical decree for officiating infractions in a game that can't exist without "subsidy fever". I mean, there's laws against stealing and killing and defrauding, and then there's handing out free money while impossibly trying to stop people from gambling with it. People's hope for gain is NORMALLY offset by their fear of loss. That goes out the window in an economy where anyone can borrow foreign money cheaply for a depreciating asset that they're convinced is an infinitely appreciating piggy bank. It goes out the window WITHIN the government, because politicians are by nature operating with money it appropriated rather than labored for. A "GSE" like Fannie and Freddie need way more regulation that any bankruptcy-fearing company.

Moreover, no one cares what bank they give their money because all bank deposits are insured by the FDIC. No investor gave a shit what loans Freddie and Fannie were spewing out because they were implicitly backed by the federal government. The home bubble got a huge boost from a 97 tax law excepting certain home sales from capital gains taxes. Because politicians like being the candyman. They don't think about the unintended consequences of creating artificial demand and employment in certain sectors with all their subsidy intervention bullshit. TO THIS DAY, FHA loans are being made requiring only 3% down. All the private subprime lenders? Couldn't have happened unless a politically motivated central bank exists to PRICE FIX the cost of borrowing in the market. Spike the punch, see mayhem that ensues, then resolve that the solution isn't to kill the spiker, but rather to hire more police officers to regulate the effects caused by the spiker. That's great logic. I hope you're regulating your regulators, too, because the SEC was told of Madoff's scheme 8 FUCKING TIMES and didn't do jack shit about it. I have more confidence in genuine personal risk of loss regulating behavior than some fucknut at the SEC. If only you would support an economy that wasn't so awash in fucking subsidies.

Social Security is another Democrat timebomb. Why not bring that shit up? It operates like a ponzi scheme and if you know how ponzi schemes work, you know that early investors win at the supreme expense of later investors. Guess who that later investor is? It's you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999-2001) which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and/or an insurance company.

^Happened under Clinton. Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't really matter, they are all corrupted by lobbyists, campaign contributions or even bribes.

This game gets played all to often. During the bush administration re-heating burgers for BK means you were counted as having a job in 'manufacturing' which of course also falsely inflated job numbers in that sector by a massive amount.

Frankly this country wont be 'right' again until we get big business out of politics and government. As long as every last legislator is legislating based on which trillion dollar a year company lined his pockets last, the USA will never be 'by the people, for the people', let alone a Democracy (baring the one day every few years that we actually are a democratic republic.)