CHICAGO - Long-term joblessness is the worst it's been in this country for more than 20 years.
According to a new study by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank, 22.1 percent of all unemployed workers were out of work for six months or more in 2003 - the worst annual rate since 1983.
And a growing number of those long-term job seekers were people with lots of experience and plenty of education, raising more questions about the loss of highly paid work during the nation's persistent "jobless recovery."
"What this shows," said EPI economist Sylvia Allegretto, "is not that young, uneducated people are doing better. It's that older, better educated people are joining them" among the long-term unemployed.
Chronic joblessness has been particularly painful since December, when Congress allowed the federal extension of state unemployment benefits to expire.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington, D.C., estimates that 760,000 have lost their benefits nationally since the federal program ended.
A lack of education remains the quickest way to join the ranks of the unemployed. People with a high school degree or less make up almost two-thirds of the nation's jobless and more than half of the long-term unemployed.
But since the economy began to sour in 2000, the number of older, college-educated people among the long-term unemployed has exploded. The EPI study shows that the number of college graduates who have been out of work for at least six months grew 299 percent to 369,115 people by the end of 2003. The number of people 45 and older in the same situation grew 217 percent to 685,387 people.
And while college grads comprised 15.3 percent of the total unemployed, they represented 19.1 percent of the long-term unemployed.
Why this is happening remains a question. Outsourcing of white-collar jobs to places like India is probably one explanation. More important is that companies are using new technology to boost productivity, eliminating white-collar work in greater numbers, Allegretto said.
It's also true that the jobs being created in today's economy aren't as desirable as in the past. Temporary agencies, for instance, have done a lot of the hiring over the past year. But those jobs aren't necessarily a good fit for someone used to a good salary and benefits.
Another EPI study of job quality shows that in 48 of 50 states, jobs in higher-paying industries are shrinking while jobs in lower-paying industries are growing. From the end of 2001 to the end of 2003, the industries losing jobs paid wages of $16.92 on average, while the industries gaining jobs paid an average wage of $14.65.
In February, the Pew Hispanic Center released another surprising finding. According to the Labor Department's Current Population Survey, Hispanics grabbed 64 percent of the new jobs created during 2003. One reason is that they didn't pay as well.
The Pew report showed that Hispanics - many of them new immigrants - flocked to construction sites as low interest rates pumped up home building. That helped lower the unemployment rate among Hispanics, but also put downward pressure on their wages.
It's also unclear how much help to expect from the economy.
Like most economists, Mark Zandi, chief economist of Economy.com is hopeful that increased production and robust corporate earnings will soon lead to meaningful hiring. On Friday, though, the government reported that employers added just 21,000 jobs last month, far lower than the 125,000 that economists had been expecting.
And as merger activity picks up around the country, Zandi now has a fresh worry.
"One question I have," Zandi said, "is what businesses are going to do with all the cash they have" from increased earnings. Could it be the case that they will use it to acquire and merge?" Mergers, after all, often result in losses of redundant jobs.
Email This Page!