Not Working for a Living

Hot headlines from the holiday weekend:

Unemployed Left With Congressional Inaction on Jobless Bill Being unemployed is tough. Being unemployed during the holidays is even tougher. Having Congress blow off extending unemployment benefits before the end of the year, shameless. I suspect Congress will somehow patch together a bill to finally fund those extended benefits, especially with both houses of Congress run by the GOP, but it would sure make thousands of unemployed people banking on those funds rest easier to know it's finally done.

Moving jobs abroad is political issue It is?

Apparently more people need to read my blog as I highlight jobs issues as discussed, or as we know, not discussed, in presidential debates. See this past Tuesday's entry and the one on Nov. 6 in the Not Working for a Living archives for examples of how jobs are not a political issue.

After the jobs left You might find a story similar to your own in this article on how layoffs in the South Sound of Washington have impacted people's lives. It's always good to read about how your experiences are typical of other unemployed people in the country.

The Unemployment Myth Interesting editorial written for the New York Times showing how the administration has been "cooking the books" when it comes to unemployment figures. The author says unemployment is higher than stated by the Labor Department.

You mean to tell me this administration would knowingly pass along bogus information to the public? Color me surprised.

New jobs pay a lot less than jobs we lost New realities for the new economy for the newly employed. As I've pointed out before, salaries are lower today for jobs that used to pay significantly more. The job market is now a seller's market and companies are more than willing to take advantage of it. However, I've documented for you before, job seekers are actually asking for less for jobs that pay more.

Talk about the expression, "be careful what you wish for." Ask for less and you shall receive.

I wish all who visit this here blog of ours a joyous Thanksgiving Day weekend.

It's tough to find many things to be thankful for if you're unemployed, underemployed or facing an impending layoff. However, my hope is you have your health, your family and above all else, hope for the future.

Today's news continues on about the rocketing economy of the last quarter and the uptick in consumer confidence. A recent press release from our friends at dice.com, who have survived a bankruptcy filing, offers hope to the struggling tech sector.

"Dice Inc., the leading online job board for technology professionals, today announced the results of its customer survey indicating that technology oriented companies are hiring significantly more this year than last year, with the majority planning to increase hiring over the next six months.

Key findings of the survey of approximately 300 corporations, recruiters and staffing firms include:

72 percent plan to increase their hiring efforts over the next six months

49 percent are hiring more than they were a year ago

5 percent are not hiring, compared with 11 percent last year

88 percent are looking to hire experienced, hands-on technology professionals

14 percent are looking for executive management

"While the past two years have been very difficult for technology workers, the survey results point toward a turnaround in the new year," said Scot Melland, president and CEO of Dice Inc. "With a majority of our customers planning to increase their recruiting over the next six months, and with job postings on Dice.com increasing by more than 40 percent since the beginning of the year, we believe technology hiring has turned a corner."

Thank you to Susan Simcox at Dice.com for sending that press release to me upon my request.

It's a difficult time of the year for the unemployed when so much of our popular culture is focusing on the consumer side of the holidays. But do your best to keep your head up and keep chasing that elusive job. It is also important to remember that there are still millions of people unemployed and thousands of people still losing their jobs each month.

Always remember, you are not alone in your struggles, not even on the holidays.

It doesn't always pay to be right, as is the case with my predictions (see yesterday's entry) for last night's Democratic Presidential Debate in Iowa. Once again, the Democrats collectively avoided the single biggest topic of vulnerability for President Bush: unemployment.

The biggest topics were again, Iraq, Dean and Medicare. Dick Gephardt's presence didn't even influence anyone to bring up the topic of unemployment. It was the moderator, Tom Brokaw, who asked a question on NAFTA and free trade that opened the door to discussing job losses and job creation for the next four years.

After that, the topic doesn't come up again, not even in passing.

Based on the results of two debates having little focus on the topic of unemployment, you have to wonder who has your interests at heart when it comes to helping create an environment in the U.S. that creates jobs again? The better question is why aren't the Democrats making it a point to bring this topic up?

No one would point to the unemployment figures and say this is a Bush strength. Do the Democrats know something their to scared to let out? Is Bush on the right track towards fixing the unemployment crisis? Doubtful. But, it may lead one to believe that the Democrats haven't got better alternatives to offer.

As I did last time, here's a scorecard on how often the word "unemployment" was spoken by any of the eight participating candidates: ZERO! Unemployed? ZERO!

To be fair, the topic was discussed. Below are the replies to the following question from Tom Brokaw. Actually, it is a statement, and it's on trade which is usually an open door to discuss unemployment and jobs.

"Congressman Gephardt, I don't know whether you had a chance to read the Des Moines Register today. The editorial, the bottom of the page, that says that NAFTA still is a good deal.

The decline in the United States manufacturing, which lost a lot of jobs, were the result of automation and trade with China much more than it was a result of NAFTA. And that, in fact -- that trade agreement, which was, after all, promoted and passed during a Clinton- Gore administration, has really helped the country of Mexico, which is just south of us."

Gephardt: "Tom, this issue brings me to something that you asked General (Wesley) Clark, and that is how are we going to reconnect with a wide variety of Americans on values grounds, because that's really what we're talking about when we talk about religion.

And let me talk about health care and trade, because I think you can take it on your values.

What I'm trying to do is to say to the American people, all the American people -- whether they're in business or labor, whether they're wealthy or poor middle class -- that health care for everybody is a moral issue.

It is immoral, in my view, and I think in most Democrats' view and probably even a lot of Republicans' views, to have people out there without health insurance. We have got to solve this problem.

It's also immoral to have a race to the bottom, to have companies go to Mexico or China to get the cheapest possible labor they can get. It's exploitation of human beings.

I've been in these villages. I've seen the people. They live in worse conditions than most farm animals in Iowa. It's wrong and we've got to change it.

I will be a president who will unite people in this country around moral values to change things for the better."

No sign of a jobs plan in that answer, and that comes from Mr. Labor - Gephardt.

Howard Dean: "Many people supported NAFTA early on. I did. Tom Harkin did. We thought that it was going to bring more jobs to this country.

It turned out that wasn't the case. It turned out that what we've done in our rush to globalization, which we're not going to undo, is globalize the rights of multinational corporations, but we haven't globalized the worker protections that were put in place by the trade union movement in this country over 100 years ago.

The solution to global trade I don't believe is to get rid of the WTO and NAFTA. I think the solution to global trade is to demand as a condition of free trade that we have workers' rights, labor rights, human rights and environmental standards in every single trade agreement that we have. That way we will bring that proper balance, which we discovered in America over 100 years ago, between labor, investment and capital investment.

We have to have treaties that include human rights and environmental rights and labor rights, and then we really will have fair trade, which we do not now have."

Well, Dean does answer the trade question, but never strays off to address unemployment.

Dennis Kucinich: "The fact is, Governor (Dean) -- and you know this full well -- that unless you cancel NAFTA and the WTO, you can never get into that discussion. The only way you can get into the discussion is to cancel NAFTA and the WTO and return to bilateral trade conditioned on workers' rights, human rights and the environment.

Because as long as NAFTA is in place, unless you have the approval of Canada and Mexico, you can't modify it. And you know that.

So I think that it's important to tell the people of this state and this country where you stand on these trade issues.

And, Tom, frankly, unless we cancel NAFTA and the WTO, you'll never be able to address the underlying loss of manufacturing jobs, the 3 million jobs that have been lost since July of 2000. We will never be able to address the nearly $500 billion trade deficit we're looking at.
We've got to regain control of our own destiny, and that's what canceling NAFTA and the WTO would do. And that's what I intend to do as my first act in office."

Dennis at least draws the parallels, but once again fails to hit a home run on unemployment.

Brokaw tries again to steer the debate back onto jobs through trade.

Brokaw: "If you canceled NAFTA and WTO, I don't think it'll address a concern that Andy Grove, who is one of the founding geniuses that Silicon Valley, has, which is that he says by the year 2010, General Clark, in India, they'll have more people working in software and software services than we will have in this country. And he sees no evidence in either party of a public policy to address that critical component of our economic future."

Clark: "Well, I'm very concerned about exactly what Andy Grove has said, and canceling NAFTA and WTO will not solve the problem.

We have to have the right policies to create jobs in America, and to have companies that are hiring in this country stay in this country and not outsource.

So here is what I'll do: When I am president, the first thing I will have is $100 billion job creation program. Then we'll go and look at the tax code. We'll take away any incentives for companies that want to outsource or leave the country. And we'll have incentives for companies to create jobs in here.

But we need to go beyond all of that. We really need a national goals program. Software was great, the technology and the information revolution was great, but there are a lot of technologies out there. We've got great scientists in this country. We need to set some national goals. We have the mechanisms to do it, put the research money in to basic and applied research and let those inventions and discoveries come out in intellectual property that we can use in this country to create employment.

Energy and environmental engineering are two very fertile areas for the growth of American jobs.

We want to be ahead of the software revolution. Let them do the software in India; we'll do other things in this country.

We can do that. All it takes is leadership."

Talk about stepping up! I didn't know the General had it in him. Based solely on the topic of unemployment, Clark addresses it and wins this debate concerning that topic.

But, we move on.

I would post Carole Mosley Braun's response, but it's not worth the space. The highlight though is; "I'm not prepared to have the software go to India or anything else. I want to put productive capacity back here in the United States. I want to make certain that we get the jump on other parts of the world, in terms of producing a product that the rest of the world wants to buy."

You can't argue with that.

Following Braun, Senator John Edwards addresses the issue of unemployment.

"I want to talk about, in a bigger context, the discussion of the last 15 minutes, because the outsourcing of jobs, the loss of manufacturing jobs from trade agreements, what we see happening to family farmers here in America is all part of a bigger picture, which is the extraordinary sea change we've had in middle- class America in the last 20 years.

Twenty years ago, middle-class families were saving 10 to 15 percent of their income, they had some financial security, they had a nest egg. Today, we have negative savings: They're in debt, their credit cards are maxed out. They're one financial disaster, one emergency -- one medical emergency from going under.

If you're a child in a middle-class family this decade, it is more likely your parents will go into bankruptcy than that your parents will divorce.

We have got to strengthen and lift up these middle-class families. I have a plan to do that, to help them buy a home, to help them be able to invest, to help them to be able to save.
What we need to do is to create wealth in this country. But unlike George Bush, who only wants to create wealth for this who already have it, we need to create wealth for that vast majority of middle-class Americans who are struggling, having a hard time getting by and who, in fact, are the very engine of this economy; always have been, always will be."

OK, we have two winners in this debate on the issue of unemployment, Clark and Edwards who also gets bonus points for being the only candidate to address unemployment in the last debate.

The finale to this supposed trade/unemployment/jobs talk is Senator John Kerry who follows up with talk on subsidies, ethanol and finally jobs.

"And Andy Grove is wrong. We do have a plan for science, for investment in education, for the ability to be able to grow our economy and create the jobs in the future. And that's exactly what we need to do, rather than going back to the protectionist days of the 1970s Democratic Party."

And the plan is what Senator? That's just it, what's the plan and who is going to be the candidate to deliver it. Knock Bush if you want, but at least he is out front with a plan.

Based on yesterday's debate, only Clark and Edwards are willing to acknowledge there is an unemployment problem. If you're a Democrat, are you willing to accept that from your personal choice for president?

News Flash: Will the Democrats Miss Another Opportunity?

Back on Nov. 6, I ripped the current group on Democrats running for president for their collective lack of attention to the issue of unemployment. In summary, only one candidate (John Edwards) even cared to fully address the issue, and the actual word "unemployment" was only mentioned once during the entire 90-minute CNN Rock the Vote forum/debate.

Today brings another opportunity for the Democrats to address the issues of unemployment and job creation in the U.S. during MSNBC's Democratic debate in Iowa.

As an added bonus, the candidates are given an extra 30 minutes this time to either address the issue of unemployment or let it pass as many of the unemployed may do at the polls if Democrats continue to ignore the millions of lost jobs in the U.S.

Prediction: They'll address the issues this time since Dick Gephardt will be in attendance, but the big issues will be Iraq, Dean and Medicare.

If you're interested, and available which would be sad since you would rather be at work, the debate starts at 4 p.m. Eastern Time.

Hot headlines from the Weekend:

Dell to bring some jobs back home The company that was among the first to begin outsourcing for call center support is bringing a number of those jobs home. Reason, Dell customers can't understand Indian accents and the Indian workers are too often reading off scripts. Let's hope Dell starts another new trend and the other tech companies follow.

Mexico torn over loss of sales, jobs to China China is now outproducing Mexico when it comes to items such as Mexican saint figurines. Keep in mind the U.S. loses more jobs overall to Mexico than it does any other country. But as I pointed out earlier this week, China and India will soon surpass Mexico for that honor. So if Mexico has fewer jobs, you don't suppose that will have any impact on the U.S. labor market, do you?

Automaker demands drive out jobs More and more suppliers are being forced to move their jobs overseas. It's not because they really want to, it's because the big giants they supply parts for demand constantly cheaper prices. This story is a must read because it's not just only the auto industry doing this. If you work for a supplier, never assume you're job is safe.

Court won't halt phone number switching Speaking of unsafe jobs, the new rules for phone number portability is fixing to make the already highly competitive phone industry even more volatile. The good news for consumers is not necessarily good news for workers of the Verizons and Cingulars of the world. Cheaper calling plans and increased customer benefits will leave millions of people switching for carrier to carrier with hundreds of people losing their jobs with each substantial switch.

White House wins congressional fight over overtime rules Let's say you finally get that elusive job after months of unemployment. You'll be so thrilled and relieved that you may forget to ask about overtime. Don't worry, your new employer won't be worrying about it either because in many cases it no longer exists.

Notice this took place late Friday evening. You see, whenever the White House or Congress does something it knows will be highly controversial, it usually waits until after midnight or, better yet, just after the national news shows have aired late Friday evening. This way fewer people can catch the news that overtime pay for up to 8 million people has just gone away.

The end of the calendar year often brings a number of corny lists such as Top Ten News Stories on the Year, Top Five Surprises and 101 Most Shocking Moments in the Courtroom in 2003. Often times these lists later appear on VH1 with b-list celebrities doing their best to come up with witty one-liners that only really show off why they're b-list celebrities.

I thought I would bust out my own end of the year list related to our blog’s topic of unemployment and job searching one month early since that's the usual amount of time I post something on this blog related to the topic of unemployment before it eventually finds its way into the mass media.

Top Five States for Job Growth Percentage in 2003 (Who says I never lead off with good news?)

1. Nevada (3.3 percent growth in numbers of jobs)
2t. Georgia (1.8 percent)
2t. Idaho (1.8 percent)
4. Hawaii (1.7 percent)
5. New Mexico (1.6 percent)

It should be noted that Alaska, Arizona and Florida all came in together at 1.3 percent each.

Top Five States for Job Decrease Percentages in 2003

1. South Carolina (-2.1 percent)
2t. Massachusetts (-1.5 percent)
2t. Michigan (-1.5 percent)
4t. Connecticut (-1.2 percent)
4t. Ohio (-1.2 percent)

Indiana, Illinois and Oregon all recorded job loss percentages of 1 percent or more thus far in 2003.

Top Five States for Job Increases in 2003 (Pure numbers)

1. Florida (94,100 new jobs)
2. Georgia (72,100)
3. Nevada (35,100)
4. Texas (32,600)
5. Arizona (28,700)

Top Five States for Job Decreases in 2003 (Pure numbers)

1. Michigan (69,300 jobs lost)
2. Ohio (-65,800)
3. Illinois (-58,300)
4. Massachusetts (-47,800)
5. South Carolina (-37,500)

Since I believe like many that all things are political, let's add up the electoral votes of the combined states for increased jobs and job losses and see where that leaves President Bush for Election Night.

Job Gainers
Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Texas, Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico and Hawaii = 95 electoral votes

Job Losers
Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon = 108 electoral votes

Honestly, these totals don't mean that much when you consider among the job losers, South Carolina, 8 electoral votes, Indiana, 12, and Ohio 21 all went for Bush in 2000. Job gainers New Mexico, 5, and Hawaii, 4, went for Gore, although New Mexico did so narrowly.

For those of you who blame Bush for the sour economy and the millions of unemployed, the Democratic candidate has to target Ohio and even Indiana. Ohio is a matter of the Democrats making their case to the struggling state. In Indiana, the job is much tougher. However, the Democrats could pull this state into their column with one smooth move.

Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana for vice president.

I realize it's a long shot to carry Indiana that hasn't voted for a Democratic candidate for President since 1964, but the state has struggled and Bayh is a popular senator (80-plus percent approval rating) and could be worth the 350,000 votes needed to carry the state. Bayh was re-elected to his second term as senator by a margin of more than 600,000 votes.

Provided the Democratic candidate takes my advice, and provided it's not Howard Dean, I could foresee a 281 to 256 victory for a Democratic candidate not named Dean. And that's without carrying the Hoosier State as Bayh's influence in help in neighboring Ohio.

Before any Democratic-lifer sends me a wet kiss email of thanks for the support, I can also see a Bush landslide if the economy can continue to pick up and unemployment lowers to a level of 5.5 to 5.7 nationwide.

After all, there must be some reason the Democrats are avoiding the issue of unemployment. (See my blog entry for Nov. 6.)

This just in from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

"In the third quarter of 2003, 1,375 mass layoff actions were taken by employers that resulted in the separation of 268,020 workers from their jobs for at least 31 days, according to preliminary figures released by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Both the total number of layoff events and the number of separations were lower than in July-September 2002 and were the lowest for a third quarter since 2000. The decline from third quarter 2002 was most notable in computer and electronic product manufacturing, truck transportation, and general merchandise stores.

The completion of seasonal work accounted for 22 percent of all events and 74,805 separations during the period--the lowest level for a third quarter since 1998. Layoffs due to internal company restructuring represented 22 percent of events and resulted in 57,727 separations, both lower than a year earlier. Permanent closure of worksites occurred in 14 percent of all events and affected 46,646 workers. A year earlier, such closures occurred in 21 percent of all events and affected 80,152 workers. Forty percent of the employers anticipating a recall expected to extend the offer to all laid-off workers, the highest proportion for a third quarter since 2000.

Industry Distribution of Extended Layoffs

Extended mass layoff separations occurred in 441 of the 1,197 detailed industries for which data are available. Manufacturing industries accounted for 35 percent of private-sector layoff events and 34 percent of separations during July-September 2003. The 82,030 worker separations in manufacturing were lower than in the third quarter of 2002. Layoff activity in this sector was concentrated in food manufacturing (18,422, largely in the highly seasonal fruit and vegetable canning industry), followed by transportation equipment (9,955), computer and electronic product manufacturing (7,175), and textile mills (7,005).

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting accounted for 10 percent of private-sector layoff events and 14 percent of separations, with nearly all layoff activity concentrated in agriculture and forestry support activities.

Layoffs in administrative and waste services comprised 10 percent of events and 13 percent of separations, almost entirely in temporary help services. Cutbacks in retail trade accounted for 5 percent of events and 7 percent of separations, mainly in supermarkets and other grocery stores. The transportation and warehousing sector accounted for an additional 6 percent of events and separations during the quarter, primarily from school and employee bus transportation."

At the end of the rope and desperate for a breakthrough, more and more people are going against their very nature and accepting change when it comes to finding a job. The challenge I've often made with this blog is for the unemployed to be open to opportunities outside of their chosen professions.

Today, Time Magazine online examines the new job frontier that finds many people taking dramatic chances and making dramatic changes in their lives in order to find gainful employment.

"Technology-industry analyst Forrester Research forecasts that 3.3 million U.S. service-industry jobs, many in information technology, will move offshore in the next 15 years, taking $136 billion in wages and slowing down wage growth. Better technology and more efficient management have eliminated white-collar jobs too. What that means, then, is that legions of unemployed workers will have to switch industries entirely to find employment, says Erica Groshen, an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who co-authored a paper on the subject. "

On the topic of switching professions, the hottest industry in the U.S. is health care where there always seems to be a job for every skill imaginable. As the U.S. population continues to grow older, but healthier than past generations, there seems no end to the possibilities and future growth for this industry.

The other new trends in employment couldn't be further apart from each other: self-employment and temporary work. This could just be a study in type A and type B personalities. Are you one to take chances or one who is willing to blend into the new world of employment as just another cog in the wheel.

The risks in starting out on one's own often depend upon the financial ability to not only start a business, but also sustain a lifestyle apart from a dependable check. In today's economy, it's in everyone's best interest to have that side job or hobby that one can turn into a suitable career if necessary. For me it's writing as evidenced by the prolific entries submitted to this blog. For you, it can be any number of skills or talents that one could translate into a career or a second income.

Admittedly, I did not start this blog to make a dime nor expect it to happen, but the practice of writing, the experience of maintaining this blog, and its focus on issues facing the unemployed could always create opportunities I couldn't currently anticipate.

Temp work, for the lack of a more appealing term, has not ever appealed to me. I can't help but think of temp work as speed dating, it's all well and good until the other party just grows tired of you, then you're left empty-handed and lumped back from where you started, in this case, unemployed. But, there are those who are finding either success or at least happiness just filling in for companies unwilling to make a commitment.

Say, I think I just had a Sex in the City moment there! Sorry.

"The temporary-help sector has added 150,000 jobs since April, and while 1.4 million people hold part-time jobs only because they were unable to find full-time work—up 27 percent from a year ago—the growth of temp jobs isn't altogether a bad thing. "It seems to have some predictive power for permanent employment growth," says Groshen. "Companies seem to experiment with the job itself or with the particular employee. Do we really need this job? Can this person really do it?" If the answer is yes, it can lead to a permanent hire."

Again, another example of why I'm not a big fan of temp work, it seems to me as if you're willing to trade a job interview for a tryout. I'd rather take the job as a full-fledged employee of the company and take my chances in the 90-day probationary period. At least then I can feel as if I'm part of the team, not just a spectator.

The point to all this is people must adjust their notions of what it means to work in the U.S. While it has been increasingly unlikely that you would move on to work in the same industry as family members before you, in my case boilermakers and railroad workers, today it is becoming equally unlikely that you will be able to carve out a career for yourself in the industry of your choice.

Looking for sources of unemployment torment overseas, the U.S. attempt to show China a thing or two about fair trade may again end up costing Americans jobs. The U.S. is slapping down quotas on Chinese textiles in order to make U.S. companies more competitive. However, the same strategy that ultimately proved costly in the steel trade fight, which the U.S. lost, may have the same negative impact on American jobs.

"A trade dispute with China, or a revaluation of the Chinese yuan would make China-made goods more costly for companies like Home Depot and Wal-Mart and would likely pressure profit margins. When margins get pressured, companies cut costs -- and the number one way to cut costs is to cut workers. Wal-Mart is the largest private employer in the United States, so this matters."

Let's say this for China, the communist machine learned from the failures of Russia and has shifted its focus away from building weapons to building good old American business models. The population numbers of China and India alone mixed in with their improved education and industrialization is simply proving too costly to many American jobs. If the world population really does stand at 5 billion people, then those two countries alone make up 40 percent of that figure.

Forget about the hundreds of other people like you competing for jobs here in the U.S., many people now are losing out to the millions of people overseas willing to do the same work overseas for dramatically less money.

This is why the service sector of the U.S. labor force continues to swell. It's why until we start shipping the elderly to Asia on ocean liners, health care will continue to offer the most stable future for employment in the U.S. For now, manufacturing and technology jobs are in constant jeopardy to simple math, economics, and supply and demand.

If you're not open to making a change in your career, don't worry; changes may soon be coming to you.

Call it a cheap shot if you want, but if you have the skills, the world is in need of a new King of Pop.

In Jonathan Alter's most recent column, he asks the question, "Is Labor Dying, Or Being Born?" In short, Alter examines how the shrinking labor unions may still make a comeback that could prove problematic to President Bush's reelection hopes.

Having grown up the son and grandson of union members, I somehow never acquired the fondness for unions that drove many in my family to forgo paychecks for strikes. My personal philosophy has been that I never want to be considered by my employer on an equal level with the weakest link in the chain. Flawed thinking or not, it's my belief and years of working hard in my industry have for the most part proven my theory correct. It should also be noted that my stints in unemployment had nothing to do with issues that would have protected me if I had been the member of a union.

The question I have about unions is does the modern American worker, and unemployed job seeker, have enough fire in the belly to stand by his "brother and sisters" to fight for their rights at the bargaining table and on the streets? As I've tried to point out in this blog countless times, the American psyche is so fickle that a new union-labor movement is bound for failure based on the inability of people to not just rally support, but hold together through assorted failures and tough times.

The Wesley Clark presidential campaign is a wonderful, though not perfect, example of how quickly people can jump aboard the bandwagon and just as quickly jump off when their Utopian ideals reveal some flaws. From the moment Clark officially announced he was running for president, the country responded with a resounding yawn. The throng of Internet supporters who pushed for his candidacy was quickly disillusioned when Clark wisely chose political veterans to run his campaign instead of plucking inexperienced unknowns from the online masses that pleaded with him to run for the presidency.

When turning our attention to the supposed union movement of today, are the upstart unions really willing to hitch their future to that of the Howard Dean campaign? If so, unions currently surviving on life-support are about to have their plugs pulled.

The best shot unions have of building power and growing is to do its legwork online. It's obvious the Internet is a powerful tool in mobilizing people and pushing ideas to the forefront, however, it is the ability to hold those same people together through adversity where it all seems to fall apart. We don't seem to have the passion, the fight or the willingness to sacrifice in order to create change.

If I'm wrong, prove it, because I have yet to see anything suggesting the momentum is turning in the favor of the working, and non-working, men and women in the U.S. When an opportunity for change is faced with adversity, too many of us get knocked out from a shot to our glass jaws.

The downsizing of America continues on as Toys R Us, the number two toy retailer in the U.S., is closing 182 stores across the country costing 3,800 people their jobs.

"Company spokeswoman Susan McLaughlin said layoffs of the 3,800 workers will be timed with the store closings."

"The company's making every effort to find new roles for those associates," she said.

My money says the company doesn't plan on doing much of anything other than offering ex-employees coupons to make purchases of toys for the little ones at home. After all, nothing fills an empty tummy quite like the hug of a six-foot Geoffrey giraffe, right?

As I've stated before, the larger the company, the greater the pressure to keep growing and squeeze out the competition. Of course, this always results in squeezing out thousands of people from their jobs, but as long as it all still means lower prices and zero percent financing, who would ever be crazy enough to complain?!? (See the above commentary.)

The big investment trend of the 90s' is proving to be so-o-o-o last century as fewer American workers are taking advantage of their employer’s 401k plans and are either opting out or never chipping in.

"More U.S. workers are jeopardizing their retirement futures by abandoning 401(k) plans and raiding retirement savings when they switch jobs.

The average participation rate in 401(k) plans dropped 3.6 percentage points this year, to 72.6 percent, says a new survey of more than 3,200 plans by Plansponsor.com. It is the second year participation fell."

Last year, after nearly 20 years of increases, average participation fell 2.5 percentage points."

I must take exception to the first line of the story. Who on earth thinks retirement is an actual guaranteed option in their lives? I'm among the guilty parties who have emptied a 401k plan in order to buy a house. Simply put, after nine months of unemployment, I didn't have any other option. And, isn't it all those same pointy-headed financial analysts scaring your about your 401k who say the best investment one can make is in buying a home? I say screw you, you 401k freaks, and peddle your paranoia onto some other blog because this one isn’t buying.

This just in, long-term unemployment also has a funny way of making 401k plans nothing more than found money on a rainy day. Let’s not also forget that there are employers who require workers to cash out when leaving the job either voluntarily, or as if more often the case, involuntarily. There are people who have no other relief from their debt then to cash out. Still there are others who need every penny they can scratch out from their paychecks to cover the rising health insurance and child care costs.

We all understand the idea behind the 401k plans, but just like the best laid plans I examined at the start of today's entry, not everything goes as one expects. Shame on those people who find it necessary to try and make those needing to raid their 401k plans feel guilty for doing so.

The focus of the 401k raids shouldn't be at the rate that they are happening, it should be on the reasons it is happening. Better yet, as long as we're throwing out statistics, I'd like to know how many of those people emptying their 401ks are doing so because of unemployment? Whenever someone wants to start counting those people let me know, because I'll be case number one.

On a personal note, I want to thank the many of you who visit this blog whether it is regularly or by chance. I'd like to think this blog has struck a chord with the many people who have had their lives changed by long-term unemployment. I started this blog because I never found anything similar to this during my own nine-month bout with unemployment.

Again, I don't make any money from this (although I'm always open to the idea) and do it for those who are seeking either more information on unemployment and job hunting or just want some place to go to find someone willing to vent on their behalf.

Thank you to the many of you who have sent me emails about your own tales or forwarded headlines I missed. This blog recorded its highest amount of traffic last week and I just wanted to share my appreciation to all of you who have found my work to be both informative and entertaining.

I'm always open to suggestions of how to improve this blog so please feel free to share your thoughts with me and I'll be happy to respond.

OK, enough sappy stuff, see below for the latest hot headlines from the weekend.

Hot headlines from the weekend:

State's job gain the biggest in two years It's just too little, too late for Gov. Gray Davis. However, if news such as this is can propel some positive changes and momentum for the Ah-nuld, so be it.

Consolidation by Kaz to add 300-400 jobs About the only industry that anyone can count on to continue to grow and grow is the home health care industry. I'm not trying to run anyone's life, but if you're looking for a change of career free from outsourcing, this is it.

Bells Yet to Jingle for Holiday Jobs Bad news for anyone counting on picking up a temporary retail job for the holidays, the numbers one and two temp agencies say there is an overall lack of interest in finding people to hawk Hillshire Farm meats at the malls.

AT&T Wireless to Slash 1,900 Jobs Jobs in this industry have become as disposable as the product it produces. Hey, no one ever said the world of wireless communications was going to become the home health care field, did they?

Forest Service Outraged by Loss of Jobs Oh baby, this one's a doozy!

The Bush team spends $24 million on a study that concludes the federal government would save more money by letting private industry manage certain duties for the U.S. Forest Service as opposed to government workers.

As it turns out, the U.S. Department of Agriculture later discovers it will actually cost the government almost half a million dollars MORE a year to switch to a private industry. Final result, the 41 Forest Service workers still lost their jobs last Friday.

I want to apologize to those of you who found the most recent poll on this blog to be something completely out of the norm for our purposes. I didn't post that here and I'm unsure how it ended up on this blog. My response will probably be to quit using that blog poll service. Again, I don't know how it happened, but I'm sorry.

Is it fair to talk about a jobs recovery when large segments of our society are still finding themselves on the sidelines when it comes to finding jobs?

Consider some of the statistics people continue to not speak about when considering whether or not the U.S. is experiencing the beginning stages of a jobs recovery. According to the most recent "Employment Situation" news release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, minorities are not among the thousands of people currently finding jobs during the last few months.

"The unemployment rate, 6.0 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, 8.8 million, were essentially unchanged in October. Unemployment rates for the major worker groups--adult men (5.6 percent), adult women (5.2 percent), teenagers (17.1 percent), whites (5.1 percent), blacks (11.5 percent), and Hispanics or Latinos (7.2 percent)--also were little changed."

This just in, it's still great to be white in America!

In truth, black unemployment has historically been always almost double that of whites. But while Bush is taking the credit for the recent slight downturn in the unemployment figures, he may be guilty to avoiding the issue of rising unemployment among minorities.

"In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Bush observed. "Manufacturers reported that orders and shipments are both rising," Bush said. "America's economy is getting stronger every day."

While America's economy may be showing some signs of growth, Bush did not refer to another part of the report that showed the Black unemployment rate rose by three tenths, from 11.2 percent to 11.5 percent over that same period.

Officially, 8.8 million people are out of work in the U. S., including 1.9 million African-Americans."

For all the fuss about the positive numbers of last week, lost in that is the fact that black unemployment went up. Is it any wonder why Bush didn't mention that in his weekly address? However, where is everyone else (Hello, Democrats) when it comes to the fact that the black population not only has double-digit unemployment, but it keeps going up?

One shouldn't just lay this at the feet of the current president when his predecessor stood by while black unemployment also stood high and the prison population of blacks continued to soar.

The only point in this is to highlight a disparity between the common perceptions supplied to us through Bush and the media of the current unemployment picture in the U.S., and the stark reality for minorities searching for a break like the millions of other unemployed Americans.

To this day, I'm still paying off my college student loan. Having come from a family where I was only the second in either family history to not only go to college, but graduate, I've never complained about the amount of debt it created to earn a bachelor's degree.

When reading an editorial in the Tennessean about how unemployment is causing more and more students to drop out of college, I realize just how lucky I had it just to get through.

''I sit on the Board of Regents of Morgan State University in Baltimore,'' said U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., ''and we just had to let go about 1,000 students out of 13,000, not because they weren't qualified but because they did not have the money to go to school.

''We interviewed them before they left, and many of them said at one time they had a part-time job or even a full-time job, but those jobs have gone away. They want to participate and get a good education, but the job situation we're in means we're leaving a lot of them out.''

This doesn't take into account the number of students who will have the ability to follow through on their education only to find job prospects either non-existent or similar to the opportunities available to those who never spent a day doodling through a Humanities lecture.

Discouraging news such as this for college students hasn't done much to hurt the lifestyles of the rich and famous ... otherwise known as America's college presidents.

"A survey of college presidential salaries revealed that the compensation packages given the leaders of four private universities in the 2002 fiscal year topped $800,000. The Chronicle of Higher Education's annual salary report also said that the top officials at 12 public schools are scheduled to earn more than $500,000 in 2003-04."

David Harpool, the president of Argosy University in Chicago, criticized college boards that approve exorbitant salaries for their presidents while saddling students with tuition increases topping 10 percent.

"We don't apply any common sense business principles to these decisions," said Harpool.

Actually, David, the college presidents are using the common sense of today's business executives who routinely give themselves million dollar salaries along with bonuses larger than a majority of a company's workforce. You could equate the double-digit increases in tuition rates to the private sector's practice of passing increased benefit costs to its employees and higher prices to its consumers.

We'll leave out the part about those CEOs who rake in millions while costing their employees their salaries and life savings. I'm sure Kenneth Lay had a rough day on the tennis court while trying to avoid the judicial courts.

Imagine the plight of the graduating class of 2003, saddled with higher student loan debts than the graduating classes before them and entering a workforce with three million fewer jobs than when they entered college. For the fortunate ones who do find a job, wages will come below previously budgeted levels with annual raises amounting to less than the U.S. cost of living increases.

And these kids thought their first beer bong was tough, wait until they start reaching out to others to start feeling sorry for them.

As the rest of us know, the employment picture isn't much prettier from our vantage point either. Despite assurances from the Bush administration that happy days will soon be here again, those who actually make the decision to open up the employment floodgates are still busy sticking their thumbs in the spigot and holding off on hiring.

"In its regular survey last month of chief executives at large companies, the Business Roundtable found that 71 percent of the executives expect their sales to increase in 2004 but only 12 percent expect to expand their work forces."

"In themselves, the new job numbers are not that impressive. By comparison with the rebound in jobs after other recessions, including the so-called jobless recovery of 1991, the pace of job creation now remains anemic."

If only 12 percent of businesses accurately reflect the future for 2004, one shouldn't expect a meaningful dent in the current unemployment figure of 6 percent. When we talk about an expansion of work forces, how large of an expansion are we really expecting?

"The Union Pacific Corporation, the big freight rail company, is preparing for a year of strong growth. But although the company is hiring, it expects productivity gains to allow it to keep its overall work force around its current size of 46,300 people or somewhat fewer."

If a giant fossil such as UP is content with its numbers and still planning on growth, what are prospects like for your industry? How likely is it the leaders in your profession can continue to move forward without adding on extra weight?

And to think, my generation always relied on the ability to go back to school and use a career mulligan if things didn't quite work out. However, as we've learned today, the economy is making that increasingly implausible and impossible.

Hot headlines from the weekend:

Bush claims tax cuts primed economy for growth and jobs I've been hard on the guy for some time now so I thought I'd throw the president a bone on the blog for the weekend. The reverse is true though that if he's responsible for last week's numbers, he should also hold himself responsible for the last two and a half years.

Record number of students seek training for skilled jobs Let's hear it for junior colleges and the training trade schools offer to those who found a four-year degree was just not for them. Believe it or not, there are plenty of well-paid technical positions, usually equipment repair, that are left open for months on end.

Hard data on lost tech jobs no easy task This is another salvo in the ongoing debate on whether outsourcing overseas is costing American tech jobs. I find those who say it is not are usually employed and haven't had to go through a bout with long-term unemployment. I guess when you can manipulate your job to have some of your responsibilities picked up by unknowing wonks in India or Singapore, you tend to be a bit defensive about the topic.

Dictionary definition of 'McJob' is slap in face, says angry burger boss HA! The CEO of McDonald's is McPissed because the fast food giant's practice of paying minimum wages and developing no skills among its workforce has come back to bite his company in its McAss. Did you know that McDonald's receives McMillions in federal subsidies for training minority and unskilled workers for jobs that actually require no training? It's a push-button operation that somehow turns the taste of a product such as Chicken McNuggets into some other taste not indigenous to this planet. If you don't believe me, read about it yourself.

From Tony Soprano to Ronald McDonald: Sometimes you just have to play the sad clown.

The Worst Jobs in Science I don't know if this stuff is legit or not. It's here for a laugh to ease the pain of starting over again this week in the pursuit of an opportunity away from the world of unemployment.

The following report was delivered this morning by Kathleen P. Utgoff, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics before the Joint Economic Committee of the Unitied States Congress:

"Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 126,000 in October, following increases in August and September that totaled 160,000, after revision. I would note that the payroll survey estimates for the prior 2 months are always subject to revision as we receive reports from additional survey respondents. The increase in payroll employment over the last 3 months contrasts with declines in the February-July period that averaged 85,000 per month. Several service industries added jobs in October. Manufacturing employment continued to decline, although at slower pace than earlier in the year. The unemployment rate, at 6.0 percent, was essentially unchanged over the month.

Professional and business services added 43,000 jobs in October, with gains in many of its component industries. Employment in temporary help services continued to rise and is up by 150,000 since April.

Employment in private educational services grew by 23,000 in October. Job gains over the last 3 months have more than offset declines that occurred in June and July. Over the year, employment in private education expanded by 56,000. Health care and social assistance added 34,000 jobs, with noteworthy gains in doctors' offices and in child day care services.

In the leisure and hospitality sector, employment in food services and drinking places rose by 23,000. Job growth in food services has picked up in recent months; since July, employment has increased by 57,000. Within retail trade, food stores added 13,000 jobs in October. Employment in food stores was boosted by the hiring of additional workers in anticipation of strikes.

Employment in construction was little changed over the month, but the industry has added 147,000 jobs since its most recent trough in February. In October, employment in credit intermediation decreased by 10,000, reflecting the decline in mortgage refinancing activity.

Manufacturing job losses continued in October (-24,000). Declines in the sector have moderated in recent months, particularly in durable goods manufacturing. In October, both the factory workweek and overtime were unchanged.

After posting a small increase in September, employment in air transportation fell in October. Since reaching its most recent peak in March 2001, the industry has lost more than 20 percent of its jobs.

Average hourly earnings for production or nonsupervisory workers, at $15.46, were essentially unchanged in October. Over the year, average hourly earnings rose by 2.4 percent.

Looking at some of the measures from our survey of households, the October unemployment rate of 6.0 percent was about the same as in September. The jobless rates for all the major worker groups showed little change over the month. About 8.8 million persons were unemployed, of whom 2.0 million had been without a job for 27 weeks or longer. Employment as measured by our household survey rose over the month.

In summary, nonfarm payroll employment rose by 126,000 in October. Since July, employment is up by 286,000. The unemployment rate, at 6.0 percent in October, was about unchanged."

So any number of you may suspect the Democratic Party has the best interests of the unemployed at heart. With nine candidates running for president against an incumbent that has watched the highest number of jobs disappear since the Herbert Hoover days, the Democrats should have a field day everyday touting their plans to create jobs.

Based on CNN's Rock the Vote debate on Tuesday, you would be sorely mistaken.

During the 90-minute forum, the word unemployment was only spoken one time. Once! Millions of people out of work and between the nine candidates for president, only one says the dreaded "U" word one time. More than that, the word "job(s)" was said only 25 times. Almost half of those uses of the word job were used in variations similar to the following phrases:

"... let him finish that job?"

"... the ability of the United Nations to do its job around the world."

"... can they really handle the job?"

"... they agree with the job George Bush is doing."

"... and they do a very good job"

"We need to do a lot better job ..."

"And I want to thank the crowd. You did a great job."

End of show! Goodnight!

Mind you, the audience got to ask the questions and their minds were on matters having little to do with making sure their investment in an education will actually pay off someday.

However, one person who came with a clue did ask a jobs question, and since everyone else apparently needed to be cattle-prodded into speaking about the unemployment problem in the U.S., I thought I would run the responses in whole.

"My question is for Senator (John) Edwards. You mentioned that job creation is one of the things you would do to help out our generation. Can you give some more specifics about that, how you'd go about that process?"

"First of all, the unemployment rate among those in the 18-to-24 age group is almost the highest it's been over the last decade.

And you all are facing that, every single day, when you get out of college, looking for a job. Here are the things that I would do to create jobs in this country.

First, I would identify those places in America where we need to bring jobs, particularly to urban areas, poor, rural areas. And in those communities, I would say if you've got a new business and you're willing to start there and create not just jobs, but good jobs with decent benefits, the kind of living conditions, the kind of wages that people can actually live on, we'll help you. We'll have a national venture capital fund that will help give you the seed money to do that.

The second thing we'll do is say if you have an existing business or industry, and you're willing to locate in one of these areas where we desperately need jobs, we will help you do that.

Third, we're going to change the tax system in America so that what George Bush is doing now, which is putting the burden on the middle class and on working families, the engine of this economy, that instead of putting a burden on those folks, we're actually going to help them, help them buy a house, help them invest, help them to save, create wealth for the people who need wealth."

The last comment is an economy shot but it is at least in spirit with the rest of the answer on Edward's job creation plan.

Then Dennis Kucinich, you know, the guy no one is voting for, weighs in on this truly Democratic issue.

"Imagine what it's like for young people who are working very hard to complete a college education and then find out -- you get the diploma, there's no jobs. Under my administration, I intend to take the following steps to get this American economy moving.

Number one, cancel the Bush tax cuts that went to the people in the top brackets. (Not job related!)

Number two, get the United States out of Iraq. We have to stop these misadventures around the world. We have to work with the world community. And that will save us hundreds of billions of dollars. (Hello! The topic is job creation!)

Number three, cut the Pentagon budget by 15 percent and put that money into universal pre-kindergarten. (You're getting warmer, but that's still not job creation!)

Number four, take the money from the Bush tax cuts that went to the top bracket and put it into a fund to create universal college education, tuition free, for all those young people who go to public colleges and universities all across this country. We can afford it. What's our priority? (Still waiting!)

Number five, get the National Aeronautics and Space Administration involved in developing new energy technologies, new environmental technologies. Create a whole new America, a new economy and jobs for all, a full employment economy."

Wow! A space-aged jobs plan in one sentence. Amazing!

The only other two candidates to bring up jobs in the Rock the Vote were Al Sharpton and Joe Lieberman.

SHARPTON: I think that when we stand up as real Democrats and show young people that we have to have a job-creating president, that we have to have a president that wants to build alliances with the rest of the world, it is in their interest, they could not side with Bush. They would side with their future.

Later in the debate, a question (more a statement) from Anderson Cooper:

"Reverend Sharpton, there are those who say jobs are just a lagging economic indicator, that they're going to come around."

SHARPTON: "It's like somebody that is in a hospital. And surgeons compare notes on how great they were and how effective they were. But the patient died.

You can't talk about recovery without talking to those who needed to be recovered.

The people that are unemployed, the people that have an insecure place in the economy, have not recovered at all.

And I think that we must create jobs. I've called for a five-year, $50 billion a year infrastructure redevelopment plan, public works to create jobs so that we can put America back to work.

I said before, I come out of the King movement, we believed in dreams. Mr. Bush believes in hallucinations.

He thinks that to announce a recovery gives a recovery. We need to go from the hallucination to the reality, and put America back to work and protect workers that are working so that they can organize, have unions and build stable families."

Not to be outdone was Mr. Lieberman:

"The economists may think it looks like the beginning of a recovery, but until middle class Americans and those working hard to get into the middle class get their jobs back, the 3.5 million that they lost under George Bush; until they begin to be able to afford their health insurance or get it back -- 2 million lost their health insurance under George Bush; until they have some sense of ability to send their kids to college and you can go to college without coming out with an enormous burden of debt on your back, then we don't have an economic recovery.

I want to just go back. Two questions come together. One of the most outrageous bait-and-switch flim-flams in American politics is when the Republicans say, 'Don't vote for the Democrats. If they get in, they'll take your guns away.'

But then what happens when the Republicans get in, they take your job away. They take your health care away. They take your student loans away.

So we need a Democrat in the White House who will not only not take away the guns of law-abiding American citizens, but will give them back their jobs, their health care, their retirement security and help their kids go to college."

As Porky the Pig would say, "that's all, folks!"

If it hadn't been for Edwards getting the jobs question, the whole show may have gone on without the topic coming up once. And while I'm at it, where was Mr. Big Union Endorsement on the topic of jobs? Dean's so pro-union, so on-the-cusp of releasing a plan for massive job creation, where were his comments on the national unemployment crisis?

Dodging questions and accusations about his Confederate Flag flap that turned out to be the dominant story coming out of the Rock the Vote debate.

Give Edwards credit for at least coming prepared to answer and speak on the unemployment-job creation issues. But for the rest of the lot, they showed once again how when it comes to Bush's tell-tale issue of unemployment, they really do become the party of the ass.

I always advise regular visitors to this blog to avoid getting caught up in the hype when it comes to unemployment and economic news of the day. Too often it's pumped up to be something that will be the turning point either positive or negative regarding the nation's economy and jobless recovery.

Last week it was the exciting news that the GDP grew by 7.2 percent in the third quarter. Today, its a report by the firm of Challenger, Gray & Christmas showing the number of planned layoffs in October were the highest since last year at this time.

"The number of job cuts announced by U.S. employers surged 125 percent in October, after declining for two months, calling into question the strength of the recovery in the job market."

Again, give me four straight quarters of sustained economic growth and I'll buy into the fact that the economy is recovering. However, unemployment figures won't necessarily change with this outlook for a recovery.

"With factors like technology, outsourcing, and consolidation working against job creation, any job market rebound we see in the near future will be relatively small," said John Challenger, chief executive at Challenger, Gray & Christmas, in a statement."


And this line I keep hearing about how the American worker can't possibly keep up this pace of productivity, puh-lease. People have been known to do amazing things while working under fear. If the alternative to busting your ass everyday on the job is sitting your ass on the sofa on the weekdays making calls to the state unemployment offices, then guess who's volunteering to put in a little overtime?

Does anyone really want to challenge me on the fact that unemployment and job creation isn't the top issue facing American's today? Wisconsin is an example of a state where the electorate concern over unemployment is growing, not decreasing.

I'll grant those who argue that the economy may be on its way to a comeback, I have yet to see the evidence that this recovery would include the creation of thousands of jobs.

Critics can say I'm guilty of making too much of one story myself. Not so, I created this blog on the basis that we are in an unemployment crisis. Here's yet another story today where another economic figurehead is predicting a "long slog in the jobs market."

In summary, the scorecard shows that the economic recovery, if it can last, has only just begun. The jobless recovery has yet to enter the starting gate.

All the media is in a tizzy today as it is yet another Election Day throughout many of the states in the U.S.

While many of the news outlets are using today as a precursor to the results of the 2004 presidential election, the focus on Republican versus Democrat is missing the point. The focus should be on challenger versus incumbent.

The fulcrum by which of all these local and state elections turn is on the economy. As bad as the federal deficit is, state, county and city budgets are also in tatters as the federal government continues to pass along costs to the states and no one ever dares suggest raising taxes to help meet the needs.

As we here all know, unemployment is still a huge lingering problem. While it continues to not be dealt with other than lip service, we'll have to see if the electorate, you and me, has the courage to throw the incumbents out of office in favor of people who will then be tasked with creating jobs and fixing the economy.

And if they fail, we can always throw them out as well. After all, on what basis should a politician keep his/her job if that politician can't provide an environment where businesses can create additional jobs?

Let the tea parties begin!

Hot headlines from the weekend:

Entrepreneurs not giving up their day job I knew of one person who said he would never invest in a start-up unless the owners were making it their full-time jobs. However, today's economy does not allow for the young and fearless when it comes to starting a business. In a related story, Prince Charles says he has a cure for unemployment.

Bush, Democrats Watch a Key Campaign Number: Jobs Well, that actually comes second to their fund-raising number, but we get the point. Question is, can the uptick in the economy actually spur job growth? The GDP jump (see last Thursday's entry) for the third quarter has yet to spark hiring and the results of the 2004 election depends on it.

Votes count as many look for jobs elsewhere Ah, timing is everything as this story relates to this week's NW4AL weekly poll. Would you be willing to move to where the jobs are?

Provided you did move for employment, would you hold it against Bush for having to leave home to find that job? Just remember, holding politicians feet to the fire over jobs means more than just throwing a president out of office ... it means removing other career politicians who simply aren't getting it done.

State jobs don't belong abroad Lou Dobbs going off on a worthy topic. Local governments should not be in the practice of outsourcing. This column brings up another issue: when did we earn the right as Americans to expect everything without having to pay taxes to get it?

My schools must have received bad copies of the U.S. Constitution because I don't recall reading that part. Just remember all you tax cut crazed citizens, you get what you pay for by slashing taxes such as lousy schools, poor community services, crappy roads, higher crime rates ... the list can go on and on.

Pet care jobs represent growing industry Nothing like seeing an industry boom that consists of people working for those who no longer need to work.

It's not as if this is anything new, but has anyone noticed how the personal service industry is becoming more and more specialized? In addition to the traditional cleaning, child care, and let's be honest, sex services, we have shopping services (my favorite), and now a growing service industry of people willing to be the ones to carry the grocery bags to reach down and pick up their employer's dog's dookie.