Ms. Jarrin, 49, wound up at a motel here, putting down $260 she had managed to scrape together from friends and from selling her living room set, enough for a weeklong stay. It was essentially all the money she had left after her unemployment benefits expired in March. Now she is facing a previously unimaginable situation for a woman who, not that long ago, had a corporate job near New York City and was enrolled in a graduate business school, whose sticker is still emblazoned on her back windshield.
“Barring a miracle, I’m going to be in my car,” she said.
Ms. Jarrin is part of a hard-luck group of jobless Americans whose members have taken to calling themselves “99ers,” because they have exhausted the maximum 99 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits that they can claim
I have had a similar fall from "grace." Let's see, I made upwards in the 40s in salary, then plunged into "making" $21,000 in unemployment, and now nothing.
Right now I am in Reno getting my things together to put into storage. I hope I will be able to afford to keep it.
Naturally Congress doesn't give a tinker's shit about us.
I was talking with my sisters today; they were in Reno for a couple of days. One of them said she thinks our elected officials are listening to the likes of Fox "News" and Rush Limbaugh and really think this is the opinion of people in the real world. They are in for a rude awakening if that is the case.
Following the Luo article there are the usual number of ignorant comments from people self-righteous or haven't a clue as to just how BAD it is out here. It isn't that there are 5 applicants for every job opening; the fact is there are four people who can't find jobs for every person who can find one. You can't find a job if there are no jobs to be found.
And of course age discrimination is playing a huge role in this mess. Here is an excellent comment following the article (comments are closed, or I would have put my comments there):
I guarantee - I absolutely 100% guarantee - that the haters will flood this thread with their vacuous comments and "she should haves" without reading the article.
They will say "she should have upgraded her skills."
The article says she had gone back to school and gotten her BA in 2003 while working full-time.
The article says she was working on an MBA but couldn't afford to finish it after losing her job. (And no, student loans are a lousy option because she already has a huge amount that will be very difficult to pay back before retirement. And no, grants do not go to older adults for grad school. And no, Pell grants do not go to grad students.)
They will say "her kids should support her.'
The article says none of her three adult sons are in a position to help her. (And no, there is no law that makes adult children support their parents.)
They will say "She can go on welfare"
The article says (correctly) that welfare is not an option, because she does not have young children
They will say "she can go live in public housing or a homeless shelter.
The article says she contacted a local shelter but learned there was a waiting list. (And in fact the wait lists for subsidized housing are years long and closed to new applicants in virtually every state.)
They will say "she should have had enough money saved to live on for at least 1 year"
The article says she made $56,000 a year and has $92,000 in student loans. Granted she may have taken a package vacation or two to Mexico or other places but those are only a few hundred dollars. The real question is who, but a complete loon and nasty selfish individual, would think that anyone could say 1 -2 or more years living expenses out of a $56,000 in the 5 years ('03-08) where she made that much??!! Any saving she had pre-'03 would have went to getting that degree.
They will say "she should have started her own business." While the article doesn't address this, before bablling vacuous advice, consider:
(1) 50% of small businesses fail in 2-3 years and 70 % fail in 5 years; and
(2) more importantly it TAKES MONEY TO START any kind of business or self-employment. And when you are unemployed, money is the last thing that you have.
They will say "she should have done this", "she should have done that" "she should have cut back on the food - look at her weight" --- and they will even say "she should get rid of the cat" who is her only companion and whose food only costs $5 or so a month."
They will say all these things out of spite, vindictiveness and fear that if they admit it could happen to someone who did everything she should (more education, move for jobs etc), it could happen to them.
In fact, the group with the longest average length of unemployment ARE the over-45s with a BA or higher.
In fact, the percentage of the long-term unemployed who are over-45 with a BA or up is 42% higher than their numbers among the workforce or all unemployed.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com...
They didn't get "out-dated' on their skills just because they are 49 instead of 42. They didn't become less educated just because they are 49 instead of 40. Their fault is in being over 40 or 45 years of age.
They are not turning down work because it is 'beneath them' or no applying for any job that would give them some money. They are hearing from employers "over-qualified", "not a good fit", or any of the other excuses used to cover the fact that
(a) employers do not want workers over 40 or 45 years of age if they can get a younger; and
(b) employers will not hire the person with a lot more education for jobs that require only a high school or associates degree because they figure that person will be gone the minute they find something that is more commensurate with their education.
And for all those who will post the comments about "she should have done a, b,c or whatever', well, you have a reason to be afraid and blame the victim to mask your reaf and pretend it can't happen to you. It can happen to you simply because no matter what you do, no matter how many degrees or certificates you get, you can NOT stop the fact that one day you too will be over-45. And when you are over-45, you are at higher risk of losing your job during a cutback than a younger worker, and once you are out, you are out forever.
Recommended Recommended by 870 Readers Report as Inappropriate
Thank goodness many people agreed with this comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment