No Labor Market Recession for America's Affluent

[Mari333]

The highest group, with household incomes of $150,000 or more, had an unemployment rate during that quarter of 3.2 percent. The next highest, with incomes of $100,000 to 149,999, had an unemployment rate of 4 percent.


Contrast those figures with the unemployment rate of the lowest group, which had annual household incomes of $12,499 or less. The unemployment rate of that group during the fourth quarter of last year was a staggering 30.8 percent. That's more than five points higher than the overall jobless rate at the height of the Depression.









http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/10/no-labor-market-recession_n_456797.html?fbwall


are we there yet?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. It never is.

[Craftsman]

2. The rich get the gold mine and the working and middle class get the shaft

[Sanity Claws]

3. But isn't that because when they lose their job they no longer have that income?

Something sounds terribly wrong with this.

People who lose their jobs lose income. So if a highly paid worker loses his job then he loses that income and is no longer counted in that high income bracket. Right?

I live in NYC and know many formerly high-income people, like lawyers, who are no longer employed.

[nimvg]

4. Between My Wife And I...

...we make about 250K (two tech salaries, no kids) but I've been unemployed for about six months, so we're way down from normal.

There are plenty of folks in our league who are losing their homes and cars but we rent and we don't have debt of any kind. We saw all this coming as far back as five years ago and got ready for it. Any moron knew real estate was a bubble and the government was propping it up.

If you're college educated and didn't see this coming, they should take away your degree!

[bvar22]

6. You got ready for this....

...by renting?

"we rent and we don't have debt of any kind."

You also have no equity of any kind,
but the people you are giving your rent money to do.

[nimvg]

13. You're Not Gonna...

...have equity anyhow if you can't afford the house. You'll lose it in foreclosure.

California is a little different. Normal rules of real estate don't apply here. It's strictly a Ponzi scheme economy.

[niyad]

16. they aren't underwater with a crippling mortgage, for one. about 5 years ago, I remember some

financial expert (don't remember who) saying that smart people were not buying houses, that the situation was going to be in such a state of flux that people would have to be able to change quickly--and being stuck with a house one cannot afford, and cannot sell, is not an ideal situation.

[Statistical]

19. By renting over last 5 years he avoided the 30% decline in house prices and risk of foreclosure.

Sounds smart to me.

If/when he decides to purchase a home in the future it will be at a substantially lower price.

We had money to buy a home in 2006 but kept renting for 2 more years because prices were too high and it just felt like things were ready to drop.

My only regret was jumping in too soon. Had we waited another two years we could have bought our current home for another 8% less.

Still I am glad my home is only down 8% as opposed to us buying at the peak and losing 30%.

[Lars39]

20. He was still at risk of his landlord being foreclosed upon.

[Statistical]

21. Which may be a pain in the ass and involve moving expenses but not a personal financial loss.

[niyad]

15. welcome to DU

[Dappleganger]

17. Welcome to DU

and if you're in CA you were wise to not buy, that's for sure!

[Recursion]

5. I was wondering that too

I'm missing something about this.

[cbdo2007]

7. Not to mention that the affluent have the means ($$$) to start something else up as a business.

I know that from experience as I know affluent people who've lost their jobs as well and many of them have started their own businesses as a result doing consulting or an internet business or I know another guy that started a cleaning service.

[Dappleganger]

18. Just the other day a laid-off man was on tv...

he took his HUGE severance pay and giant savings account and started his own green energy business in 2009. Well goody for him, he could afford to create his own job from his own money, LOL!

[handmade34]

8. weathy continue to be weathy

I have noted in other posts that my daughter works at Stowe Ski resort and she was telling me in our last call that the resort is busier than she has ever seen. Lots of people with lots of money still play...

[MercutioATC]

9. Skilled labor is harder to let go of than unskilled labor.

Harder to replace when things turn around, too.

[SoCalDem]

10. The higher up in status, the more control over your life

the more contacts you have (who will bail you out in a crunch), the more assets you have to sell in a real emergency

nothing new under the sun:(

[DCBob]

11. You want guillotine everyone who makes over 100K ??

That's a bit unfair.. Many worked very hard to get to the point of making that kind of money including myself. I took out student loans, worked part time, delayed graduation to save up money, joined the Peace Corps to help get student aid. Eventually I got my PhD and now I make good money because of it. Did I do something wrong?

[change_notfinetuning]

22. Congratulations. No guillotine for you. How does slow torture sound? Get real

DCBoob, I mean DCBob. Suggesting the guillotine for everyone earning over $100,000 would be as stupid as claiming the OP implied that. Only one of those happened. You with the PhD should be able to figure out which one.

However, a progressive income tax would be in order. One like we used to have when there was not this unequal distribution of income which is damaging to the fabric of America.

[-wulf-]

26. unequal?

Get over yourself.

The majority of people's incomes are a direct reflection of their skill set, qualifications and job performance. Someone who makes $100,000 dollars a year makes more than someone who makes $12,000 dollars a year for a reason, not because they're hoarding all the wealth.

Most anyone can replace the 12k worker, but the pool of available qualified replacements is smaller for the 100k worker.

[dmallind]

12. Wait a minute. PLEASE tell me that the income figures are time phased

IOW that those who earned $150K in, say 2008 are NOW unemployed only at a rate of 3.2%.

Because if we are using CURRENT income figures isn't that just obvious and self-definitional?

But this should not be a surprise, and I'm not making some silly kill the rich argument either. There are fewer $100K jobs and fewer $100K workers, so fewer to be cut (and yes at a level of the company that generally has a BIT more say in whether they are cut or not). There are even fewer of them doing low and semi-skilled labor which can easily be outsourced or automated.

[Fumesucker]

14. Guillotines are *so* 18th century..

These days we have wood chippers.. :evilgrin:

[melm00se]

23. as a general rule

if you pull down that level of coin you have a high demand, low availability skill set.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Well, why would bosses, owners and upper-level management fire THEMSELVES?

[dysfunctional press]

25. "annual household incomes of $12,499 or less."

wouldn't that include retirees on social security, and people on unemployment...?
wouldn't that skew the numbers?