Just a reminder: The US still has ludicrously high long-term unemployment

[n2doc]

Since the Department of Labor began keeping track in 1948, the US has rarely had more than two million workers go without a job for more than six months. At the height of the recent Great Recession, nearly seven million people who wanted jobs faced extended joblessness, and today that number sits at a cool 4 million. (That’s also historically large as a share of population or the workforce). Despite many positive signs in the economy, that stands as perhaps its largest failure: The US just can’t put its people to work.
+
As US lawmakers return from their winter vacation, president Barack Obama and the Democrats want to reverse the expiration of unemployment insurance for some 2 million of these people—1.3 million last week, and another 850,000 at the end of March. Typically, unemployment insurance only lasts 26 weeks, but during recessions the federal government offers extensions for as long as 99 weeks; the currently expiring extension is set at 73 weeks.
+
Republicans support the expiration, or at least want an equal reduction in spending elsewhere in the government. The economic question is whether taking away an average $300 a week from these people will make them more or less likely to wind up with jobs. With roughly three unemployed workers competing for every job opening in the United States and the long-term unemployed among the most-discriminated against potential hires, it’s not clear that unemployment insurance is the main obstacle to their hiring.
+
Still, critics of the payments contend that ending them will force people back to work at minimum wages. But at least one natural experiment suggests that’s not what’s going to happen: North Carolina cut its unemployment benefits significantly last summer, and since then, there hasn’t been a boom in employment. Instead, people are leaving the workforce in droves, putting stress on local charities and the economy there. Absent renewal of the benefits, we can expect the US workforce to stay shrunken—which doesn’t bode well for rebuilding America’s economic capacity or its middle class.

http://qz.com/163850/just-a-reminder-the-us-still-has-ludicrously-high-long-term-unemployment/

[joeglow3]

1. Percentages would be a lot more honest

While I am sure the trend is still there, anyone with a brain would know that with a growing population, percentages would present a more accurate picture. I am forced to ask why they would choose to go with the less accurate graph.

[n2doc]

2. Percentages ain't people

Much as you might like to minimize their number, the fact is they still count.

What I would like to see is how much of the change since 2010 has been due to people leaving the workforce involuntarily.

[joeglow3]

3. Numbers aren't people either

What is your point? I made mine clear: I want an accurate picture.

[Egalitarian Thug]

4. The system has failed on a fundamental level. The longer we ignore that fact, the

worse the inevitable result will be.

There is no "fix" possible without sucking many billions out of Wall Street and getting it to Main Street. Once that is accomplished it should take enough pressure off that fixing the banking industry becomes possible.

[stopbush]

5. Three people looking for work for every job available?

Don't think so.

I had a couple of interviews in the past weeks where the recruiter/interviewer told me that I was one of 20 people they were interviewing for the job. That 20 number was whittled down from the HUNDREDS of resumes they received in response to their listing the position.

Some of those resumes are from people who are employed but who are considering changing jobs...which makes it even worse for the long-term unemployed, as most employers give preference to a person who is currently employed over a person who is unemployed, or worse (gasp!), unemployed long term.

[BobUp]

6. If you ask the job creators

why they haven't created any jobs, they'll tell you "well, it's due to market uncertainty"

https://www.google.com/search?q=dow+jones+industrial+average&rlz=1C1LDJZ_enUS511US512&oq=dow+jones&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.6031j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

That must mean the DOW needs to top 20,000 before they begin hiring again. <sarcasm>

[joeglow3]

7. Intentionally distorted chart

Exhibit 1 (page 14) in this attachment shows percentages. First, the decision to 0-2, 2-5 & 5-7 sizes is used to make the spike more dramatic. This also makes it so that the recovery doesn't look good.

All in all, I still must ask they felt the need to use a distorted chart when less that three minutes of searching yielded this more accurate one:

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7t719MpSc3wAeSFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzNGpvNm5qBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDI2NF8x/SIG=130f6aduo/EXP=1389061493/**http%3a//www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412885-who-are-the-long-term-unemployed.pdf