Is the underemployment crisis worse than the unemployment crisis?

scifi97 · Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:50 pm

I am in booktalk because of writing for 30 years, but I made my living as a professional customer service manager in computer and power industries. My position was eliminated in February 2009. (I was making around $100K a year, a nice living but certainly not rich.) After ten months, being a fighter, I have 2 entry level sales jobs working 60 hours week on commission only. 1 selling internet advertising, (brutal), and one selling appliances at Sears. (Fun but not a lot of money). Many people working with me are professionals in other fields who lost their jobs as well. There are millions like us. We are 'full time' employees according to the government so do not show up in any statistics thus the media does not cover this hidden group, yet we unable to support our family, are losing our homes, and usually have no health insurance. Many people who are on unemployment now normally have a chance at these jobs.

Just wondering how many booktalk members are in this situation or know someone who is.

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

James L. Butler
Author: Raptor Ravine
Amazon.com

DWill · Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:01 pm

I'm not in your position, James, but I think almost anyone can appreciate how hard this is for you and others in the same boat. I have what I think is a secure, if much lower-paying, job in county government. I certainly wish you the best of success in finding a way to use your talents and earn a reasonable wage.
DWill

etudiant · Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:03 pm

I can certainly relate to what you are saying James. I think you are right in that there are many in the same boat, underemployed and somewhat below the radar. The city I am in used to be well known for this situation, and it was joked that we had more PhD holding cab drivers than anywhere else. This has changed a little in recent years, as a number of research and high tech industries have moved in.

I think it is safe to say that the economy, and the nature of employment, have both changed substantially over the past few decades. Human nature being what it is however, I believe there is often a time lag between the prevailing common view of society and the latest developments, even if these have changed the paradigm considerably. So too with the world of employment. Politicians today try to reassure us that we will return to full employment soon, it is just a matter of tweaking here and there to get back on the right track. But full employment today, even by the loosest definition, is very hard to achieve, at least in any sort of meaningful way.

With the industrial economy of, let’s say, fifty years ago, employment was not such a big deal. All hands were needed on deck as long as things were going reasonably well. If there was a down cycle, it was reasonable to expect that it would be temporary, and could be covered by programs like unemployment insurance, and that eventually jobs would return. Many jobs were more labor intensive than they are today, hence more hands needed.

Needless to say, efficiencies have increased by a large order of magnitude. That 1960 office worker would be astounded by what one person with a desktop computer could accomplish in their workday currently. The fact is, less people are needed today to run the system. But what to do? Everyone needs money, and also a feeling of being useful and contributing to society. We all expect to have a slice of the pie.

And politicians, dear fellows and ladies that they are, will often say what is expedient and what voters want to hear, rather than engage in honest discourse about fundamental social problems. And so we will return to full employment, soon….

This is not impossible, but what IMO is not said, is that there are some very hard choices to be made. There is a certain amount of wealth that can be produced, and if it is done with utmost efficiency, then not all members of society can be given a meaningful position. They are surplus. There are different ways to proceed with this, and we have in fact seen various approaches.

The old Soviet approach was to just bumble along and try not to change. The national airline, Aeroflot, used to fly with a four person crew: pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, and radio operator, until relatively recently. Modern airliners of course have only two pilots, and really this is just for safety and training purposes rather than workload requirements. One would do otherwise.

Many Western European countries have taken the approach of high tax, high service economies. The increased productivity generated is taxed and redistributed, giving more a (smaller) piece of the pie.

As the economy has evolved in North America, I think we have seen greater polarization of wealth. Some have dived in quick, and done well by new technologies, others have not been so quick, and have suffered.

We have also witnessed, I believe, a trivialization of work in society today. This may be considered another way of dealing with increased productivity. A company can become keenly competitive, and lay off half of their workforce, and then do well in the marketplace, but for the larger society there is still a problem. What to do with the excess? If there is no meaningful work then those who are desperate will gravitate to whatever else is there. This is now an underpinning of our consumer society. Today so much depends on people going out and buying bobbles that after 9/11, President Bush felt the need to tell people to keep spending (i.e. keep the economy afloat).

Whatever we eventually choose, it will require trade-offs. None of the above examples is without some problems. What we have today I would say though is not a good solution. We have trivialized much of work, and the consumer mentality is complicating serious environmental concerns. And it is probably not doing wonders for our value system in general either.

Chris OConnor · Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:14 am

I've made this thread the featured post on our home page. Great topic.

scifi97 · Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:59 pm

Just a follow-up. It is realy hard to look for a good job when working 60 hours a week at bad jobs.

poettess · Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:26 pm

I am in the same industry that you are in James, Customer Service and phone support. I have been facing layoffs and relocations to new jobs every couple of years. I decided to go back to school two years ago and get a Masters degree so that I would not be left in a lurch when my job finally ended. Once again, I have the wind down of my current job looming in the near future, but now I am prepared. It sounds like it would have been very difficult for you to replace or supplement your salary on unemployment, but is it possible to go back to school or start your own business? The industry that we work in (especially me since I've been supporting the auto industry for over 10 years) is not coming back and its time to face the fact that you need a career change. Good luck and take care.

Kevin · Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:59 am

Yes.

I was among a large percentage of employees who were axed in a layoff late last year. So, while the initial inclination is to say that unemployment is the worst of the two I think that underemployment, being a condition of what our society in effect considers to be a healthy condition in that it makes companies more profitable, is the bigger problem.

I say 'Yes' but I don't see that underemployment is generally considered a crisis except in times of high unemployment.

Forum rules

Is the underemployment crisis worse than the unemployment crisis? Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!