The most important question for Americans, particularly African Americans, today is: “Where are the jobs?” But, another question is circulating in the wake of Friday’s jobs report: “Where did you find yours?”
As reported recently on Politic365.com, the unemployment rate for African Americans fell from 16.7% in August to 16% in September.
The number of Blacks easing into the labor market and making themselves available for hire increased to 18,103,000 in September from 17,930,000 in August.
The number of Blacks employed climbed to 15,209,000, up from the August total of 14,941,000. Just where are people finding work? It’s hard to say exactly.
The U.S. Department of Labor, which issues the jobs report, did not provide any specific data about what sectors of the economy added African American employees. Source
24 comments:
It has been recently reported and documented in many publications that employment opportunities are directly correlated to ones educational background. A better, more relevant question might be - why don't those most in need of jobs place a greater importance on becoming educated (skilled)?
Anonymous, what you forgot to check out in your study was the statistics as to the number of qualified black Peorians who leave Peoria to go to college and to start their careers elsewhere. I could give you a fairly long list. I think that says something about the opportunities that aren't open to educated black young people in Peoria.
Amen! Specifically in this community there is a long list of job opportunities posted on CAT, ATS, the hospitals, etc. but . . . they all require specific skills, training, and education.
Tis the season for HS Seniors to be applying for colleges -- I am amazed in talking with parents how little they are guiding their students to majors that will result in real job opportunities upon graduation.
Those protesting on Wall Street have been doing so for a month - in that time, the protesters could have been one-quarter way through a college course.
Instead of expecting the U.S. to create jobs for the unemployed -- the unemployed need to recreate themselves to seize the jobs now & in the future that will make up job market.
Sharon - I think that says more about the offerings of the community in general than just the Peoria job market.
Sharon - they got educated - they made or received opportunities - my point was made. Thank you. Look - no FOIA needed either.
Are any of you willing to admit that the middle class is dwindling. I think the protestors are just protesting too soon for most of us. However, I believe that the signs point to the rich getting richer and the poor and the middle class getting poorer. I am definitely amazed at the large numbers of middle class people who so often take the side of the rich in any discussion (I guess the capitalist economic system is predicated on the premise that we can all be rich).
If the middle class were to disappear (and all signs seem to point to that possibility), where will most of us end up. History tells us that in a two-class system, the upper class is usually a very small percentage of the population.
I know that whenever poor people are mentioned, the vision that pops up in most people's mind seems to be a single mother on welfare or gang bangers walking the streets, committing crimes.
The image of the working poor selcom pops up in our minds.
Some District 150 examples of the working poor would be the cafeteria workers and the bus drivers.
We live in very unusual times and our thinking hasn't caught up. The poor aren't the ones who can "recreate" themselves. Those who can recreate themselves might be the ones protesting on Wall Street, etc.
Besides, face it (and I admit to cynicism), the system doesn't want all our young people to be high achieving college grads. The system needs people who are forced to work for minimum wage to serve us in many, many ways.
Lest anyone accuse me of being anti-capitalism, that isn't so. I'm not against it; I just don't think it's a system that will endure. Capitalism created the middle class; if capitalism fails, the middle class goes just as quickly as it came.
Frustrated, those protesting with Occupy Wall Street aren't merely complaining about the lack of jobs. They're complaining about a broken system that is worsening. Many who already have jobs - at CAT, ATS, OSF, etc. are supportive of the concerns expressed by the protesters.
When the recession hit, productivity increased. Employees worked harder to keep the jobs they had. Many businesses needed that to survive. The problem is when the recession ended (technically it did a long time ago - but it was a jobless recovery), most companies kept the accelerator on with respect to productivity. Corporate profits returned to all-time highs, but wages have actually deteriorated. Corporate balance sheets are repaired and now flush with cash. The jobs you quote on company website are a drop in the bucket (and in many cases, the companies simply aren't filling them with available candidates - instead waiting for the perfect candidate at an unrealistic cheap price - all the while claiming that they want to hire and have many jobs to fill, yada yada yada).
Income inequality is increasing exponentially at the upper end. Wall St bankers are generally very smart people, no doubt. Thirty years ago they made on average twice what the private sector employee did. Today it's nearly 6X.
I might add - having the technical skills of which you speak isn't a cure-all. Companies are far more likely to lay off skilled people than they did 30 years ago. A few years ago, ATS laid off 1/2 its workers. Necessity dictates taking crappy jobs in times of turmoil. When fortunes improve, those with the means must fight to change the system. (hint: politicians don't care much about poor people - sure, their vote is worth the same as anyone else - but they can't contribute money to the campaign - and money talks)
I have long suspected that companies were not hiring new employees or not raising salaries of current workers who were picking up the slack--even though they actually could afford to expand job opportunities. I have thought these companies were simply taking advantage of "hard" time hype by stockpiling profits.
I appreciate Jon's explanation--certainly seems believable to me.
I do appreciate Jon's explanation
Repeating myself--but emphasis is OK. :)
Children today will never know the retirement years that many have today. Most will grind through work their entire lives. Pensions are a thing of the past, yet many believe they have funded them and are entitled. Math teachers know better.
I wasn't a math teacher, so I don't know how long a time or how short a time, we would have to live to get back what we put into pension funds. However, the fact remains that we teachers did put some of our own money into the pension fund. Aren't those who put the money into the pension funds in the past entitled to a return on the money they invested in the retirement fund?
Pensions are funded in one of three ways: employee contributions, employer/state contributions, and investment returns. Of the non-investment contributions, public employees, on average, contribute 40%, with employers/states making up the 60% balance. Especially since the 90s, employees were given promises of higher benefits without the necessary funding on the state level. Couple that with the delays in funding the state's share (and the resulting lack of investment returns) and other structural issues such as bumping up salaries before retirement and early retirement packages, and the system has reached a point where drastic changes are necessary.
A pension plan is a defined benefit plan as opposed to a defined contribution plan such as a 401k. As such, the state/employer bears all of the risks (investment risks, life expectancy, etc.) With 401k plans, rarely does an employer match more than dollar for dollar what the employee contributes, and then there is a % cap to the match. Thus the absolute highest contribution on behalf of employers would be 50% - and in reality is much less, and thus considerably less than the 60% contributed to public pension plans.
In my opinion, early retirement plans did create much of the drain on the pension system--and insurance benefits. Of course, the early retirement plans represent the desire of school districts to get rid of older teachers in order to hire younger teachers at lower salaries. I assume such plans occurred elsewhere, especially in the public sector. These plans were shortsighted. Early retirement may have helped the short term financial problems but led to too many people drawing retirement benefits for much longer periods.
Those of us that taught until the once normal retirement age of 65+ both paid in longer and left the money in the system 10 years or more longer.
When the state of Illinois began draining the retirement programs, they did every Illinois citizen a disservice.
I bet the police and firemen would appreciate 20% raises for years before they retire to "save" money. Sure, it happens all over. Terry, buy us another round. Somebody needs to drink more "tea".
The teachers' union doesn't vote in the raises--it just negotiates. Teachers did get a good deal during that era (made up a bit for the many years with below standard pay), but that was just for a very short time. Teachers are not faring very well any more.
What other districts in Central Illinois pay teachers lavish bonuses before retirement to continue inflating their pension? State can't pay current bills, let alone these windfalls. Are there any?? But don't judge them on their students test scores and CERTAINLY don't expect them to challenge for greater parental responsibilty through "accountable state aid". We already receive so much for so little......excuse me while I puke....cafeteria food resurfaced.
Anonymous, you do have a way with words. Also, I am all for holding parents accountable; I just don't know how you expect teachers to do that. By the way, as to the parent university, do you know something I don't know? I don't believe teachers have been asked to be involved in any way. I have heard, however, that two speakers from San Diego were brought in to speak to the handful of parents who showed up for its first session.
As to the bonuses, I don't believe that is happening any more. How many years and how many more retired beneficiaries of those bonuses have to die before you can let go of that gripe?
Sharon, I agree. Two thumbs up!
Teachers from Hines were involved to do a session on PBIS. The Parent University is a good program and will continue to improve. It started with Martha Ross and Sandra Burke, but now York Powers is overseeing the program. I attended the first one, it was well put together.
That is the problem with Parent Universities Emerge. Although it's nice that great, involved parents like yourself attend these function, how many that NEED to be there are there? I'm guessing ZERO. So, the district is spending money and resources for the wrong people. When you have 10 teachers and 47 parents (out of 24,000) show up, what does that say?
At least, it's good to know that it was well put together--that's encouraging. Who is York Powers? I'm, also, glad to hear that Hines teachers were involved, too. I really shouldn't criticize this endeavor as I really don't know much about it. It is true that the parents who are already involved will probably be the ones to go. What is being done to entice the parents whose children really could benefit?
Sharon, aren't you really asking; what kind of REWARD are we passing out to parents we never meet, to attend these meetings? How about money, dinner, free babysitting....shouldn't the fact that they created these children be ENOUGH of an incentive to want them to be successful? I am tired of "rewarding" poor parenting just because they showed up for a "class", received a FREE meal, got free babysitting, yet NEVER take one second out of the BUSY lives to meet the teacher.......just saying!
I did ask what is being done, not what is being given. No, I don't want any promise of meals, etc. That isn't what I had in mind. So far, I am still a bit of a cynic with regard to the parent university. Unless the parents who really need help show up, then the effort might not produce desired results. Besides most involved parents need direct contact with their children's school. Going to an off-site location with no contact with their children's teachers is not of much value. I really don't know what the focus is for the parent university--what it offers to whom.
Post a Comment