I keep the old title of this article because it is interesting.
We all agree that unemployment rate is currently high. But the article showed an insight view that we are at "full employment" somehow because unemployment for the top income people are only 3%. The article comments that the rich are not really in unemployment stituation or recession.
The high inequality is expanding, it happens not only in income distribution but also in unemployment situation.
This article is pretty interesting. But it make sense how the rich aren't affected by the unemployment rate. I can see those with more income will not be in such a rush to find jobs, which in turn would increase frictional unemployment.
ReplyDeleteTo me, this article makes sense. The rich are making a lot of money for a reason such as smart investment; they are a good leader, or a creative business idea. I completely understand why unskilled workers are unemployed while the CEO's are unemployed. Remember, even if a company collapses and the executives lose their job, this is a small percent.
ReplyDeleteThe top-income workers are usually highly-skilled and hold important positions in their companies, so it is rare for their bosses to lay them off, even during the recession. Moreover, with their skills, experience and prestigious qualifications, workers at the high end of the income distribution could find another job relatively easily if they were to be laid off. Therefore, I think it totally makes sense that the unemployment rate among the affluent is only 3 percent.
ReplyDeleteWhile the unemployment still hovers close to 10%, the unemployment among the affluent is only 3%. It’s even more surprising that the unemployment for the bottom 10% is over 20%. This is alerting us that we should pay more attention to low income people. Government should create opportunities for those people to be retrained so that they can find jobs matching their skills as soon as possible. This can reduce frictional unemployment rate.
ReplyDeleteThis article arouses an interesting perspective on the issue of unemployment. It inspires me to view the problem of unemployment in a new way. I mean, I did not realize that, during the recession, the problem of unemployment is much more severely to low classes. In a word, I think economics teaches me how to think in a different perspective.
ReplyDeleteThis makes perfect sense. The unemployment rate will be very low for the affluent because they have already secured high paying jobs and have the education and experience to remain at the top. This article reminds me of our conversation in class about skilled and unskilled labor. It is much easier for skilled labor to attain jobs and to keep them.
ReplyDeleteThis article is interesting. Before reading this article, I never really looked at unemployment as segmented, but as a rate as a whole. It makes sense though, that the company executives and high paid employees are highly skilled, educated, and generally hard-working members of the labor force. However, by no means does a job mean it is secure if it is high-paying. Take this recession for example, many CEOs and executives lost jobs - no matter how high-paying and secure the job seemed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone about how this is a very interesting article. It is easier for skilled labor to find jobs and retain them than unskilled labor to. I thought it was interesting how this article broke down the percentages to the income earned. I had never thought about unemployment in this way.
ReplyDelete