Student describes the COVID-19 Pandemic and policy responses to it

The New Corona Virus (SARS-CoV-2) causes the pandemic disease COVID-19, described by President Trump as the Chinese disease. It is a new virus, closely related to  In December the virus was transporting from person to person in China, and many cases were linked to a seafood market in Wuhan, China. On January 6, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned Americans to take precautions if traveling to China. According to nbcnews.com/politics “The World Health Organization issues a statement about the first COVID-19 case outside of China, saying, “There is no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission.” On January 20, 2020 the first case was confirmed in the United States. The patient was seen at an urgent care clinic near Seattle Washington for a 4-day cold with fever. (NEJM Group) Radiography text were performed and showed no abnormalities and Influenzas test A and B was negative as well. Due to the patient's recent travel to China local and state health departments were immediately notified and had the patient tested for COVID. The patient’s specimens were collected from serum, nasopharyngeal, and oropharyngeal swab specimens. (NEJM Group) Patient) The patient’s nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs tested positive and on January 20, 2020 was the beginning of the COVID 19 outbreak in the United States. 

The Covid-19 outbreak led to many policies being created in the United States. One of Trump's executive orders banned anyone who had been in China 14 days prior with exceptions, including US citizens, lawful permanent residents, and their close family members.  On March 13, 2020, Governor J.B. Pritzker ordered all Illinois schools to be closed. Suddenly parents were without childcare and looking for alternative arrangements. This was one of the biggest orders announced to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Not too much later, President Trump issued orders to control the spread of the coronavirus at a press briefing. During the briefing, Trump recommended that all Americans, including the young and healthy, do schooling from home. He also wanted Americans to avoid gatherings in groups of more than ten people. I recall waiting to see if my daughters would perform in the St. Patrick's Day parade. At that time, most parents had no clue what the novel coronavirus was and didn’t know about the guidelines that should be followed. The city rescheduled the parade giving students a false hope that the show would go on, just not as scheduled. Parents were told the the St. Patrick's Day parade will be rescheduled and that they would receive information on the new dates.

However, downtowners were not caring about the coronavirus and packed the bars as ever, and enjoyed their usual good old time. Governor J.B. Pritzker along with other governors were upset that no one was taking social distancing seriously. The next policy that the governor dropped changed the economy. Governor J.B. Pritzker implemented a safety lockdown. This policy ordered all bars and restaurants in the state to close. Dining, malls, retail stores, and other small business were closed due to the stay-at-home order. The O'Hare International Airport was closed. This order was only to be to March 29, 2020. Unfortunately for the economy, the executive order went past that date and extended to the end of April.

The coronavirus not only affected the lives of Illinoisans, but it also affected life in America and across the globe. Life, as everyone had known it, came to a near halt in a matter of days. The unprecedented shutdown of activity in America caused some Americans to panic. Americans lined up in shopping centers and began to buy all the toilet paper, hand sanitizers, paper towels, feminine wipes, baby wipes, and groceries off the shelves. Americans were spending their savings on hoarding groceries and toilet paper. People were without work and a means to support themselves. The economy and stock market seemed to be doomed. Congress had to act and act fast to provide some type of relief to Americans. Measures were needed to support small business and people no longer working. This led to President Trump declaring the virus a national emergency and working with Congress on a relief package. The shutdown of America came with a price an $ 484 billion spending package to combat the coronavirus.

The policy included an enhanced unemployment package along with stimulus checks. The unemployment policy was signed into law on March 27, 2020. It provided enhanced unemployment insurance for workers, parents, and others impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, who typically would not qualify unemployment benefits.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law on March 27. It expands states' ability to provide unemployment insurance for many workers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, including for workers who are not ordinarily eligible for unemployment benefits. There is no waiting period to receive unemployment other than the hundreds of people who filed ahead of you in line. In addition to regular unemployment benefits, individuals who receive unemployment receive $600 hundred a week from state unemployment insurance programs. Unemployment status would not affect the stimulus checks that were also approved by Congress. Most taxpayers and social security recipients were to receive  $1,200 per person in stimulus checks. The stimulus also included $500 dollars for each child. There is no confirmed news if the second round of stimulus checks will be issued. Illinoisans can only hope things get back to the way it was before the coronavirus.

References 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/timeline-trump-administration-s-response-coronavirus-n1162206 March 17, 2020,

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 25, 2020 / Notices

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/15/835011346/a-timeline-of-coronavirus-comments-from-president-trump-and-who

https://khn.org/morning-breakout/senate-overwhelmingly-passes-houses-coronavirus-bill-immediately-switches-attention-to-phase-3-stimulus-package/

NEJM Group Med 2020; 382:929-936 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001191

Student writes a letter in support of the ELEVATE act to end long-term unemployment

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to you today to inform you about the “Economic Ladders to End Volatility and Advance Training and Employment,” or ELEVATE Act. This is a very crucial act that works to lower the unemployment rate by creating jobs through the help of federal funding which allows for states, “to provide eligible individuals with employment, training, and supportive services” (Hammond). It is also a new title to the Social Security Act for states to fund and implement subsidized employment programs. It was created with built-in guardrails that ensure that states pursue re-employment and retraining programs with a strong evidence base and low overhead, thus significantly lowering the chances of states using the federal money for other purposes. Funding through this act is also conditioned on states’ quarterly unemployment rates to create aggressive and fast-acting “automatic stabilizers”. In addition, it includes a demonstration project to identify “pro-worker employers” to ensure subsidized job placements don’t erode job quality, and a national self-employment benefit for recently unemployed workers to pursue entrepreneurship. Lastly, it consists of a national relocation assistance program to reimburse eligible individuals for the expenses associated with “moving to opportunity.”

This Act was created with a wide range of eligibility so that more citizens have access to the benefits of the program, therefore making it more profitable for business owners involved as well. Those who the program is aimed to help are the long-term unemployed; current and former recipients of public assistance programs like SNAP and TANF; those who are eligible for public assistance but not enrolled; noncustodial parents under a child support order; adults who were in foster care; and the formerly incarcerated. This allows for a wide range of those making up the unemployment rates to have a chance at getting the job training and access they so desperately lack and need. This then results in less people on the streets, more people working to increase production of businesses, and more people with money to invest back in the economy. 

The reason for writing you today is not only to inform you about this very important Act, but to also ask for your support towards this Act. As can be seen from the brief description above, it is a very important act that is needed in our society today in order to improve the lives of our citizens. However, it needs your support as well in order to be implemented and started within our states. I look forward to gaining your support for pushing this Act forward, and I thank you in advance for your support and effort. 

Best regards,

Student's name

References

https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-elevate-act-explained-a-job-guarantee-that-can-work/

This article follows the actual and typical style of most advocacy letters.  In essence, you found a source, paraphrased and quoted from the source, and added a personalized introduction and conclusion to make it appropriate as a letter to someone.

Given that I expected you to put about 10 hours into this assignment, here are things I think you could have done and have not done that would have made it stronger:

1. Look up the actual bill number and write about the specific bill. This is S.1920 Long-Term Unemployment Elimination Act of 2019.
2. Find out where in the process it is and ask for help getting it through.  It was introduced and read twice in the Senate and has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
3. Made some assessment as to whether this policy is bi-partisan or has the potential to be so, or whether it is “Republican” or “Democratic” legislation, in which case, since it is a Senate Bill, it’s odds of passage depend upon it being a Republican Bill without strong opposition from the Democratic Senators or else a Democratic Bill with the real potential of gaining some support from Republicans.  Making that assessment, you should have made your request to someone in the context of what sort of bill this is in terms of partisan politics and ideologies.  In fact, this bill is a Democratic Bill, and the co-sponsors seem to be thinking that this bill is a sort of trial run for similar legislation they might be able to pass if the Democrats take the White House and the Senate next year.  As both your Senators are Democrats, it might be worthwhile seeing whether they might find some Republican colleagues who could support the bill, or even persuade the Republicans to pass this sort of bill into law "for the good of the country" right away.
4. You have addressed your work to “To Whom It May Concern” when this is a Senate Bill.  The correct target for your letter is either of your senators, Duckworth or Durbin.  Alternatively, you could have written a letter to the Chair of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (Republican Lamar Alexander of Tennessee) or the ranking minority member (Democrat Patty Murray of Washington).  Even better, you might have found some Republican Senators on the committee that needs to hear this before it goes to the Senate floor for a vote, and tried to make a case that would be persuasive to a Republican (a conservative) in favor of the bill. 
5. You could have chosen another one or two or three sources to provide you with arguments for why this is a good bill. You have relied entirely on Samuel Hammond’s article in the Niskanen Center (a good source that relies on authentic experts and offers a mix of moderate conservative and liberal ideologies in its biases). That is actually the best source I could find, and even the $2 a Day website links to it. Given the idea that you ought to spend a couple hours at least in researching a paper, you might have also considered these sources I turned up with a Google Search using "long term unemployment" and "senate":
   
   The summary of the bill made by one of the sponsors of it: https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Van_Hollen_Long_Term_Unemployment_Pen_and_Pad.pdf
   
   The article praising the bill (authors are Mark Paul and Dean Baker, and Dean Baker is one of the best economists I know of): https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/01/how-to-put-an-end-to-long-term-unemployment/
   
   Or this article and the sources to which it links: https://nationalinitiatives.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/the-long-term-unemployment-elimination-act-creating-access-to-employment-equity-opportunity/ 
6. You could have done a bit more writing in your own voice instead of the high level of paraphrasing and quoting you used.  In an actual letter, I think the staff person (or the actual senator) who reads your letter can tell the difference between the “voice” of a constituent and the “voice” of a lobbyist who tells constituents what to say.  You will be more persuasive if you study what the proponents or opponents of a bill have to say, and then write your own argument using your own understanding.  The second best strategy is to offer a series of direct quotations or a longer block quotation and then offer your own paragraph summarizing and interpreting the implications of what you have just quoted.
7. You might have thought of reasons people would oppose the bill, given a fair representation of arguments against it, and then explained why those anticipated arguments were not strong enough to overwhelm your case.

Student reacts to decline in unemployment among persons with disabilities

Recently, I listened to “Disability in Decline” by NPR’s The Indicator. This podcast talked about how there a rise in the number of people who have left the work force because of a disability. In 1994, the number of 25-54 year olds unemployed because of disability was less than 5 million. In 2014, that number was 7.3 million. Since then, that number went down by 600,000 people. That is nearly a 7 percent decline in those unemployed because of disability. Economists are saying half of that 7 percent is due to people changing the reason they are unemployed, now saying they are home taking care of their families. The other half is due to job finding.

This has led to questions because the number of unemployed has normally grown, not only during recessions, but also in times of recovery. We are in recovery now, so why are there so many less disabled people unemployed? One of the reasons may be our stronger labor market, and employers are more willing to hire disabled workers. Businesses may likely be more comfortable hiring disabled workers because they do not have to raise wages. This is both good and bad. It’s good because people who are disabled or formerly disabled can get jobs more easily than they used to. It’s bad because they are likely not being payed as much as other employees. In the end, it is always good seeing the number of unemployed go down. It means there are more opportunities in our economy, which is how we grow and prosper.

On a side note, my cousin who is highly disabled—she is 25 and acts like a 7-year-old—has two jobs. She bags at a local grocery store, and she works at this new bakery called “No Label at the Table”. The owner created it with her autistic son in mind, and only hires young adults with disabilities to help bake and run her bakery. Isn’t it great that we are becoming a place where people like my cousin are more accepted and given opportunities that they never had in the past? 

That is great news.  A gain of 300,000 positions (or opportunities to fill existing positions) for persons who were at least to some degree disabled shows that the economy is performing reasonably well. Everyone really does want to see the unemployment numbers go down, and the current 4.1% official rate (in the spring of 2018) is a reasonable level, although 3% would be better.  As social workers we are especially interested in rising wages for low-income workers and opportunities for meaningful employment roles that persons with disabilities can enter. In times of low unemployment it is usual to see declines in poverty and increases in wages, along with gains made by persons against whom many employers are more likely to discriminate in times of high unemployment.  The employment indicator is one of the most important indicators we can examine, and I am glad you found this good podcast episode to bring our attention to this good news.

Student wants Social Security to refer denied disability applicants to job services

The Honorable U.S. Representative Rodney Davis

Springfield District Office

2833 S Grand Ave. East 

Springfield, IL 62703

Dear Mr. Davis, 

I am writing to you to advocate for the bill Promoting Opportunity for Disability Benefit Applicants Act (H.R. 3310).  It amends titles II of OASDI and XVI of SSI of the Social Security Act to allow the Social Security Administration to provide information on appropriate public or private places that provide employment services, vocational rehabilitation services, or other support services to individuals who are denied OASDI or SSI benefits based on an adverse determination of disability. 

This bill needs to be passed to help those who are living in (or at risk of falling into) poverty after they suffer an injury or illness that causes disability. Perhaps their disability is not so severe that they qualify for disability benefits, or perhaps there are technical reasons why they do not qualify for SSI or Disability Insurance (perhaps they have too many assets to qualify for SSI).  If people who are denied disability benefits can find a job suitable for their abilities, they will be able to support themselves. But, if they are denied Disability Insurance or SSI and they cannot find a job that will match their abilities, what can they do? 

Those who are denied Disability Insurance benefits or SSI will either need help finding a job or else they will need other forms of benefits to prevent their becoming homeless or malnourished. Surely it will be better to help such persons find work, if work can be found. If the Promoting Opportunity for Disability Benefit Applicants Act is passed, the Social Security Administration would direct the many (over 60% of persons who apply for disability benefits) who are are denied  the benefits they seek to services that could help them find appropriate jobs matching their situations. These referrals should lead to many persons finding appropriate employment. For these successful job seekers, they will not need to utilize the as many welfare programs because they will have full time work. They will be able to get insurance through their work instead of being on Medicaid. They will be able to have an income, so they will not need to rely on SNAP for all of their food. By passing this bill, the country will be saving money on welfare programs. There will not be as many homeless people on the streets or in shelters. People will be able to take care of themselves by having resources gained through jobs that they are able to do. They will be able to become more self-sufficient and independent. 

This bill will help people pay taxes because more people will get jobs and that happening will increase the taxes that come out of their checks, which makes the United States have more money. Our country needs money and this will lead to more people in the workforce.  Certainly, most people prefer to be self-reliant and employed if they can be. I hope you agree, and will support bills like H.R. 3310, and generally advocate for more services that help persons with disabilities find employment or opportunities, especially when they have sought services through Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income and had their claims denied. 

Between 2001 through 2010 the Americans seeking disability benefits and actually getting them from Social Security were only about 45 percent of people who applied. People that were denied disability benefits were 53 percent.  But, since that time, the rate of denials has increased, and fewer people who apply for benefits because of disabilities are getting anything.

If you look at this chart from the Annual Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, 2016, you will see that more and more applications for Social Security Disability Insurance are being denied.

Let me quote from page 149 of the 2016 report on Disability Insurance:

Final outcome of disabled-worker applications, 2006–2015The final award rate for disabled-worker applicants has varied over time, averaging 34 percent for claims filed from 2006 through 2015. The percentage of applicants awarded benefits at the initial claims level averaged 23 percent over the same period and ranged from a high of 25 percent to a low of 20 percent. The percentage of applicants awarded at the reconsideration and hearing levels are averaging 2 percent and 9 percent, respectively. Denied disability claims have averaged 62 percent.

Please note that.  The Social Security Administration is denying 62 percent of claims for Disability Insurance. Does it seem to you plausible that 62% of those who apply for DI are actually not worthy of such benefits?  Surely Americans tend to be a hard-working and industrious people, and we have good work ethics, and I cannot believe that 62% of those who reach the desperation of applying for Disability Insurance do not deserve such benefits. Nevertheless, whether they deserve or do not deserve disability benefits, they clearly need help finding work, and H.R. 3310 would do just that.

According to the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, people that are denied disability are likely to become homeless. This is because after denial, they cannot find work, and if the Social Security Administration would help these people find work, vocational rehabilitation services, and support services, many people would not be homeless. Social Security denies so many people for disability because they think there are certain jobs that they can still do, but the person whose application has been denied may think there are no jobs they are capable of doing. Therefore, it is very helpful to give them resources to help them find those jobs that they will be able to do. For example, a person that got denied may be able to do a job that is not as high functioning as what they have tried in the past, and they can get help with this from the Social Security Administration. If you will support H.R. 3310 and help it get a hearing in committee and then eventually get to the House floor, I hope I can proudly tell my friends and neighbors about your support of this excellent legislation and your demonstrated commitment to helping people become self-sufficient.

  Your Obedient Servant and Constituent,

     [ Student in SWK-355 Policy and Services course ]

Student offers introduction to unemployment insurance

Unemployment Insurance, an Introduction

Let me introduce the policy called Unemployment Insurance or UI. This policy deals with insurance for people who have a lack of work or who have lost their job and need that extra help when it comes to emergencies. These can include fire, health, and other accidents. This policy is set for a time of 26 months so a person can get try and get back onto their feet and find another job. A person cannot apply for this program if they quit work or let go from the job for misconduct. There are also rules that deal with the poor.  For the poor, if someone hasn’t been trying to work or hasn’t worked for some time, those people cannot apply for the UI. There are other people that cannot get this insurance that aren’t poor. Those people are farmers, and people that are self employed. 

The money that is put into the UI comes from employers, who pay payroll taxes, which may be hidden from their employees.  While employees see their portion of payroll taxes that go to Social Security and Medicaid, employees make no contributions to Unemployment Insurance, so they may not realize that their employer (In Illinois) pays between 0.55% and 7.75% on the first $12,960 paid to the employees into the state’s Unemployment Insurance funds. The actual percentage is determined by a complicated formula that changes according to how much money Illinois recently had in the funds to pay benefits and the number of layoffs in particular industries, so that companies that seem at higher risk for laying off workers pay more than companies that seem unlikely to lay off any workers. The Federal Government charges employers 6% on the first $7,000 paid to employees for the Federal Unemployment Insurance tax, but the Federal Government gives employers credit for paying the state unemployment taxes, so in actual practice, in almost all the states employers pay just 0.6% on the first $7,000 paid to each employee, or $42 per employee. 

   So this money that is going out as unemployment insurance to support the recently laid-off is not from the general pool of taxpayers. Rather, this money comes from the payroll taxes paid by employers, and is essentially covered by money paid by the employers in the previous jobs the now-unemployed person had held.  In order for that employer to pay money into the unemployment insurance fund, they must have workers that are in occupations covered by unemployment insurance.  For example, if you incorporate your farm and have that farm pay you for your work as a farmer, you are not covered by unemployment insurance, so your farm does not need to pay your unemployment insurance to the state or the federal government, but you will not be insured by unemployment insurance, and if your farm ceases to employ you (if your farm goes bankrupt or you sell out to some other farm and cease to work on what was your farm), you will not be eligible to collect unemployment insurance. In Illinois if someone is looking to get into this program they would just go to the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES), or to the IDES website. When a person gets the money the state calls this unemployment insurance “benefits”. These benefits are distributed biweekly. The amount is based on the need of the person that is reserving it, and need is determined by their former income. When someone is on the plan they may lose the benefits if they do not follow rules or what the IDES calls the instructions in the book. 

If someone loses their benefits, they do have the right to have representation to help when trying to get it back or fighting to understand why it was taken away in the first place, but their representation must be authorized first. When a person does need to file for the benefits they must do so the first week after they lost their job, or as fast as they can. If they wait or just don’t do it, then when they do try they will not get their benefits or else they may miss out on most of what they could have received. On the IDES website they show who can get the insurance, and if someone doesn’t fit into those groups, that doesn’t mean they can’t; it just means they don’t show it. On the other hand, there are some who cannot get it no matter what. The farmers cannot because they are self employed. The IDES website also explains how someone maybe eligible for unemployment benefits. Some examples would be: you were registered to seek work with IDES, and you aren’t working through no fault of your own. The IDES website also gives a lot of examples why someone may not get unemployment benefits. A couple reasons for denial benefits are: you are not working because you quit for no good reason, or you were fired. Someone may also not get unemployment benefits if they don’t apply to get it early enough, or their health, safety and morals are at risk. There are many other things the website gives like how to apply what you can get when you apply and what you need in order to apply. 

Reference 

Unemployment Insurance Benefits Handbook, Illinois department of Employment of Security. 

Unemployment and Poverty

[Student reaction paper on race and unemployment, with my comments in red]

            Throughout the world we live in, there are people suffering everywhere in various ways. Much of this suffering results from problems of economics and finances. The issues of unemployment and poverty are widespread and devastating. Unemployment may lead to poverty and the two can lead to suffering in many ways such as hunger, lack of shelter, lack of medical care, and other forms of devastation. In discussing these issues in class, I was somewhat surprised by some of the statistics we explored.

            First of all, it is interesting to notice the differences in the recorded unemployment rate and the actual unemployment rate. I am glad to be able to know the difference when hearing information about unemployment. It is important to know this difference in order to accurately assess our economic state and understand political discussion. I was slightly shocked by the fact that the reported unemployment rate was 8.3 percent and the actual was 15.1 percent. I wasn’t aware that the actual unemployment rate did not include the underemployed and discouraged individuals. On a more positive note, it was promising to notice that the actual unemployment rate had not gone up from 2011 to 2012. 

            Important to my professional future is the unemployment rate for college graduates. In the past couple of years, I have heard several people say, “why even go to college when there is a good chance you won’t even get a job when you graduate?” After hearing about the unemployment rates for those without a college degree as compared to those with a college degree, I am happy that I have continued with my college education. The unemployment rate for college graduates is 4.2 percent as compared to 8.4 percent for those with no college education. That is twice the unemployment without a college education! That doesn’t mean that my worries are completely gone. I am concerned that many college graduates who are employed may be employed in positions they are not happy with, that they did not go to college for, or that is are not as high paying as they had hoped. Fortunately for me and my classmates, the outlook for social workers is fairly promising, at least in the long-term.

            Another issue to be discussed is the issue of race and unemployment. It is amazing that the unemployment rate for black Americans is 13.6 percent compared to white Americans with an unemployment rate of 7.4 percent. That is almost half the unemployment rate simply because of a different skin color. It really makes me ponder the issue of why the unemployment rate is so different. Is racism so prevalent still in our country that those with a darker skin color don’t have the same access to employment? This is one important question that we as future social workers should be asking regarding employment and unemployment.

            Also interesting to me was the median wage in Sangamon County. I was fascinated that the median wage is between 22.50 and 23.50 an hour. Minimum wage is only 8.25 an hour. That is a huge difference in the amount of money made by the median worker and the minimum wage worker. Those making only eight dollars and twenty-five cents an hour must have a much lower standard of living than those making the median wage.

            In general, it is important to explore and understand the concepts of unemployment and poverty. These concepts can be very devastating and require attention by those in the helping fields. These and others issues will be problems faced on a daily basis in our social work practices. Not only in social work, but in daily life these issues cause devastating effects on individuals and families.

           

In your first paragraph you set up some basic principles or fundamental observations.  Yet, I think if you consider what all those taken together mean, you might make an observation that is a little more profound than what you wrote.  I think you are saying that a significant quantity of human suffering could be removed if we had full-employment (unemployment rates of about 2-3% due only to residual friction unemployment, the bit of unemployment we get in normal economic churning as firms close or open, and workers move from one job to another). Whenever a government allows unemployment to exceed this natural floor, it’s not so much a problem that “the unemployment rate is too high” (which is, after all, a rather abstract and unemotional observation). Rather, the problem is that the government is allowing significant suffering and misery, the sort of suffering and misery that is preventable. That's what high unemployment is.

 Disease, accidents, human psychological weaknesses, relationship problems, and bad luck already give us enough emotional trauma, and of course our very short life spans are another source of grief. Certainly this is enough pain, and for governments to allow more suffering simply in order to obey some pseudo-religious devotion to ideals (some might call them "false gods") of an even greater abstractions such as “growth” and “efficiency” and “free markets” and “lower taxes” is a clear choice that elected leaders are making, a choice that increases suffering. 

You raise a good question about the differences in unemployment rates by ethnic background.  Explanations for the higher unemployment rates for African-Americans include:

1)    Employers still do intentionally discriminate against African-American job applicants, at least at some firms.  And, in addition to the intentional discrimination, there is significant subtle discrimination.

2)    Probably more important is the fact that African-Americans, in general, taken as a whole, tend to be poorer to begin with, which is a problem easily traced back to the enslavement of their ancestors and the very blatant and often legislative discrimination they faced for five or six generations after emancipation.  Poorer people get education of poorer quality, and are less able to get hired in jobs when employers prefer to hire better-educated workers.

3)   Forced segregation in society kept African-Americans geographically isolated, and excluded them from some areas.  Segregation has persisted after desegregation and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, and is very slow to diminish.  Investments made in infrastructure and job-creation have been concentrated in areas inhabited by less marginalized groups (like middle-class European Americans in the suburbs).  Areas historically populated by marginalized groups such as Americans with African heritage received far less public and private investment, and have had fewer jobs created.  Thus, African-Americans tend to live further away from jobs.

4)    African-Americans may suffer in the job market not so much by racism motivated by negative feelings toward them, but by prejudices against persons from high-crime neighborhoods or persons from areas of concentrated poverty. That is, even a well-educated African-American job applicant seeking a job from someone who is genuinely free of racial prejudices might be at a disadvantage because of a geographic or class background.  The geographic or class background might influence the African-American’s personal presentation or self, speech patterns, or social networks in such a way that puts them at a disadvantage versus an European-American with a background associated with privilege. 
    For example, let’s imagine someone in a human resources department in Springfield has a pile of several equivalent job applications and resumes.  Some come from people who graduated from a high school known for many behavioral problems, a school with a high drop-out rate, a school in a high-crime neighborhood.  Perhaps the firm doing the hiring has had some employees who graduated from that high school or lived in the neighborhoods around that school, and those employees were seen as lazy and dishonest.  Other applicants attended the school in town with a reputation for having the smartest students, and the most well-behaved students. Students who attend this better school tend to live in middle-class or wealthier areas of the city.  The boss of the firm attended that high school, and the human resources person making a hiring decision knows many people whose children now attend that high school.  Even without knowing the race of the job candidates, a human resources person may slightly prefer candidates from the better background and the better high school. Let’s say the better high school has a student body that is 25% African-American while the school with the worse reputation is 60% African-American.  Simply by looking at neighborhoods and schools attended (holding grades and the personal behavior of the applicants constant) a human resources person might already have a non-racial bias that will lead to preferences with racial implications.

First reaction paper I'm sharing this semester: The Real Unemployment Rate

Here is the first reaction paper I'll post for this semester's examples of student reaction papers.

In class, we have been discussing poverty and the welfare programs that help those in need of financial assistance. Over the past few months, I have found myself more and more interested in politics and current events. So, I started having small political conversations with my roommates; particularly about unemployment and the current economy Yet, I soon realized that the environment that people grew up in greatly affects their views of the world around them. I wish there was a way to show people what it is really like to not be blessed with a stable income. I have always had an interest in how unemployment affects people and their families. My parents both lost their jobs when I was in high school, and even though they are both working now, the effects from their previous unemployment still linger.

            One of my roommates is from a very small town in southern Illinois. One time, we were having a conversation about unemployment, and I was talking about the lack of jobs available to people. She replied saying that people are just lazy. She said that there is plenty of work and she knows many people who just choose not to take those jobs. This angered me because it is [nearly] completely untrue. Yes, there are some jobs available. However, there are not enough jobs to accommodate all of the unemployed Americans. I knew she was just naïve to what is actually going on in the current economy. So, I chose to look up an article about unemployment in America for this reaction essay.

            I stumbled across an article entitled “Unemployment rate drops to 8.3 percent; but economy still struggling.” The article discussed how people were excited about the drop from 8.5 to 8.3 percent unemployment and the 243,000 jobs added in January. Yet, what article shared that politicians are not eager to talk about are the 1.177 million people who gave up their job search last month. Taking the disheartened people into account, the article explained that the unemployment rate is more [accurately described as being] around 9.4 percent. I do not like how people look solely at the unemployment rate and think it is an accurate description of how well the United States is improving. There are other factors to consider other than the calculated unemployment rate.

            Specifically, in addition to those who gave up looking for jobs, I think the article should have also mentioned the millions of people working unstable part-time jobs (often more than one) instead of full-time jobs. Such people, like my father, are not included in the unemployment rate. Still, these people have been greatly affected by the poor economic conditions. Their hours are cut, they cannot pay their bills, and the stress from all of this affects their happiness. What widely used monthly statistic accounts for those hardworking individuals? There isn’t one. Class today was the first time I heard that there was a “real unemployment rate” that is about 15.1 percent currently. This rate takes into account those who only work part-time jobs but want full-time or gave up looking for work. While I am glad this real unemployment rate is calculated, I still think it should be more widely dispersed. The media shows the public that the unemployment rate has gone down to 8.3 percent. However, the real unemployment rate of 15.1 percent is the same as last year and shows that not much has truly changed. This is the rate that government officials should be focusing their time on.

             

REFERENCES

Shott, J.H. (2012). Unemployment rate drops to 8.3 percent; but economy still struggling. Bluefield Daily Telegraph. Retrieved from: http://bdtonline.com/columns/x2053735618/Unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-3-percent-but-economy-still-struggling.

Current unemployment rates in March of 2011 (as reported in April)

8.4	millions of part-time workers who want to work full-time
0.921	millions of persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them, but they wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months
13.5	millions of unemployed persons
153.406	Millions of persons in the official civilian labor force
8.80%	Official Unemployment rate
14.79%	Actual unemployment and underemployment rate
154.327	Millions of persons in the civilian labor force if we include discouraged workers
22.821	Millions of persons who are unemployed, involuntarily part-time employed, or discouraged workers out of the labor-force but desiring a job.

As we get ready for the April unemployed figures, which will be released this Friday, I want to point out that our real unemployment and underemployment rate was at 14.8% in March (official rate was 8.8%).   We had a much better March than economists had expected.  I hope the trend holds for April.

Looking at the employment figures for January

What are the most recent seasonally adjusted number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs?

In January, the number of persons unemployed due to job loss decreased by 378,000 to 9.3 million. Nearly all of this decline occurred among permanent job losers.

Unemployment rate. 9.7% in January.

... in January, ... nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged (-20,000).

In January, the number of unemployed persons decreased to 14.8 million, and the unemployment rate fell by 0.3 percentage point to 9.7 percent.

In January, unemployment rates for most major worker groups-

-adult men (10.0 percent),

teenagers (26.4 percent),

blacks (16.5 percent), and

Hispanics (12.6 percent)-

-showed little change. The jobless rate for adult women fell to 7.9 percent, and the rate for whites declined to 8.7 percent.

The labor force participation rate of persons with a disability was 21.8 percent, compared with 70.1 percent for those without a disability.

We have 6.3 million long-term unemployed out of 9.3 million officially unemployed. When we’re not in a recession the typical number of long-term unemployed is about 1.3 million. The recession has given us a group of about 5 million Americans who are facing long-term unemployment that we wouldn’t have in normal economic times.

64.7% of working-aged civilians who aren’t in institutions are in the labor force (employed or looking for unemployment).

There are 237 million working-aged civilians who don’t live in institutions.

About 153 million of these persons are working or looking for work.

That’s 64.7% of us of working age who are employed.

about 14.8 million of us are unemployed and looking for work.

Another 6.1 million of us are not in the labor force, but we would be working if we could find a job. (within this 6.1 million, there are 2.1 million who have looked for work in the past 12 months, but they hadn’t looked for work in late December or early January because they couldn’t work just then, but they were ready to work in late January. Within the 6.1 million there are another 1.1 million discouraged workers, who had looked for work in the past 12 months, but just didn’t look for work in late December or early January because they had given up hope of finding a job).

If we add these 3.2 million persons who have left the labor force but say they want a job and have looked for a job in the past 12 months, we get 18 million persons who are officially unemployed or involuntarily out of the labor force (but this also increase the labor force from 153 million to 156.2 million).

Then let’s add underemployment. There are 26.9 million of the 153 persons working are working part-time (that means really only 126.1 million of us are working full-time). Of these 26.9 million part-time workers, 8.3 million say they would rather be working full-time, but their hours have been cut at work or they weren’t able to find a full-time job.

Adding these 8.3 million to the 18 million unemployed gives us 26.3 million who want full-time jobs but don’t have full-time jobs. With a labor force of 156.2 million, that gives us a rate of 16.8% for our real unemployment and underemployment rate.

Unemployment at 8.1%

This morning I heard someone on the news predicting that unemployment in February might have climbed as high as 7.9%, and I thought to myself, it's not going to be that good, we've gone above 8%. And indeed, when the February figures were announced shortly thereafter, the national unemployment rate is 8.1%. You need to back to 1983 to find a report with a higher national unemployment rate, although we approached this level in the 1992 recession (where the worst unemployment rates was 7.7%.

Growing up as a student in high school and college in the 1980s, I grew up learning about unemployment rates of 10% (1982-1983). And even in college in the late 1980s, the unemployment rate seemed "great" when it was got down to 5.5%, and briefly even 5% (in 1989). So, I sort of had the idea that the "normal" range for unemployment was between 5% and 8% or so. Then, I lived through the 1990s. After the 1992 recession the unemployment rates kept dropping, and they slowly dropped all the way to 2000, by which time we had rates of 3.8% & 3.9% for some months. In the George W. Bush administration we had rates go up from 4.2% to 6.3% (in the summer of 2003), but then rates dropped back down to 4.4% (exactly two years ago, in March of 2007).

The thing is, a year ago we were still at 4.8%, and we the economy has been shedding jobs at a horrific rate. In the last six months (September '08 to February '09) the rates went 6.2%, 6.6%, 6.8%, 7.2%, 7.6%, 8.1%. That doesn't look to me like we're seeing any sort of slow-down. Looking back and the historical data for the start of that ugly recession in 1981-1983 I don't even see any 6-month period with a growth in unemployment like this. And in the past recessions the increases in the unemployment rate slow down before they hit the top, and then they sort of hang out at the high unemployment rates for a while and very slowly improve.

Clinton came into office in 1993 after unemployment had peaked (at 7.8% in 1992), and in this first year in office with a Democratic Party-controlled Congress the unemployment rate only went down from 7.3% to 6.6%. By the end of Clinton's second year in office unemployment had only dropped to 5.6%.

I guess what I'm thinking is that employment recoveries from peaks of unemployment take years (two or three, at least). Also, this recession is on track to be as bad as the one Ronald Reagan inflicted on us in the early 1980s. It took about two years for unemployment to drop back down from the high of 10.8% (in the winter of 1982-1983) to a rate around 7.2% (the rate in December of 1980, Carter's last full month in office). It then took a little over two additional years for unemployment to get to 6.3% (finally seen in April of 1987), which was the rate we had in January of 1980, the start of Carter's last year in office.

Well, I'm more optimistic about the president and congress we have now. The people running the nation now are far more likely to find solutions than the people we had running the show in the early 1980s.