Causing more trouble...

Since I am already in trouble and angered a few people, I will expand upon my view in an effort to clear the air. Feel free to post your views/comments below and tell me how stupid and wrong I am. I don't mind, but I do hope that if you disagree, tell me how I am wrong, not just that I am stupid.

I don't believe my stance on this to be overly cynical, rather I see myself as realistic and my stance as what is preventing the economy from regaining traction. I don't claim to have answers because I trust there are people smarter than me, much smarter than me, trying to solve these issues. I just think I get it, whatever 'it' is.

Let's use Janesville, Wisconsin (near where I grew up) as an example. Janesville used to have a GM plant that employed the vast majority of the cities residents. That plant is now empty and all of the people at GM lost their jobs. The city now has a lot of unemployed people, lets say 10,000. Those 10,000 now have no or little income, which means that the other stores around the area become impacted because there isn't as much money flowing through the city. Meanwhile, the former GM workers were used to a lifestyle that they are not going to find anymore. Those GM jobs are accustomed to a lifestyle that doesn't match the value of their skills in our economy. You cannot make $70,000 in manufacturing anymore because GM isn't going to pay you $70,000 if they can pay someone else $40,000. That math doesn't take an economist to figure out.

Ok, so now Janesville's resident are cutting their budget because of the tough economy and every store is hurting in town, except one. There is one store that has weathered this recession, and that is the ever-popular Wal-Mart. Instead of going to Target (a little classier and therefore pricier of a store) many former GMers find themselves going to Wal-Mart because they have to stretch their unemployment check. Wal-Mart's sales grow, so guess what, THEY NEED TO HIRE MORE PEOPLE. They post openings for associates at their store. You get paid $12 an hour and might have to work weekends and some holidays.

This is the dilemma facing many of our unemployed and laid-off workers, right? Do I take this much less desirable job, for much less money? I (the hypothetical me) used to make ~$70,000 at GM, never worked a weekend, and never worked a holiday. Why should I have to do that now? Well you have to do that now because the economy has shifted, and likely isn't shifting back.

The second type of person I see is the person that wants to do 'JOB A,' despite that job being completely either unreachable or inconceivable (think, 'I want to be a CSI agent). I believe that people should always pursue their dreams. My wife and I are pursuing ours, there is no reason you shouldn't pursue yours; however, you need to research your dreams to make sure they are reachable and what it takes to get there. I am not a dream crusher, but if you are 30 and have kids, you might not be able to become whatever you want. For example, I want to be a writer for a living, but that isn't going to happen. I didn't choose the right path or make the right choices to get there. My options are continue down the path I am on now (which I like) or quit work, go back to journalism school, and become a journalist (which has about as much job security now as working for GM). My mortgage prevents me from being unemployed, so I work where I work, progress my current career, and have plans to someday write for a journal in higher education (obviously down the road since I am not even close to experienced enough yet) or teach at a local community college. Oh, and I fulfill my itch to write to writing this BLOG that gets 5 readers a month (I actually have no idea how many people read this and assume twitter has brought in a few more eyes, but not many). Part of me also wants to direct a non-profit company, so I am taking the steps to volunteer through Big Brothers/Big Sisters in Milwaukee. Instead of waiting for my dreams to find me I am doing what I can NOW to get where I want to be in the future. Think about Katie's life right now. She wants to be a pediatrician, but I bet she doesn't want to work 80 hours a week, or have only 4 days off a month, but those are the steps she must take to get there. If you want to reach your dreams, take the steps required to get there because there probably aren't any short-cuts.

Lets more forward 3 years. Both the GM workers and the 'I want my dream job' unemployed have settled for lesser jobs working customer service and retail. These jobs pay less, but they pay more than being unemployed. So there is more money circulating through Janesville, which allows stores (like Home Depot and Starbucks) to survive, restaurants don't close, and the general economy of the small city doesn't collapse. I believe it would actually grow because as the economy moves up, more businesses (assuming Jim Doyle stops raising taxes) would come in and create more jobs. This drives up the amount places are paying because they want to hire the best employees, not just the leftovers.

If people don't take jobs, those stores close. Wal-Mart closes. Home Depot closes, and eventually the city turns into a ghost town.

Maybe I am cynical, but I think I get this situation. If my employer told me today (since I work today) that my services are no longer needed, I promise I would find a job. Not because I am spoiled or privileged (although I am very blessed), but because I would evaluate my worth in the job market (not what I feel I am worth) and then find a position that matches those evaluations. I wouldn't hold out for a job in journalism or as a consultant because I am not experienced or trained to do those.

Searching for a job is a very painful and humbling experience, I believe that is why many job searchers are so jaded. It becomes easy to assume that there is something working against you (looks, race, job market, etc.), but in the end, if a company believes you can add value to their company, and that your value will outweigh your costs, they will hire you. For example, if my employer felt that they are paying me more than I am worth, they would let me go. If Wal-Mart thought I would bring in more money than they would have to pay me (total cost, not just salary), they would hire me. Makes sense.

My advice to job searches, really anyone who might be looking for a job ever, is to set a foundation NOW for a good job search. Maybe you need to start planning weddings for free to start a successful wedding planning business. Maybe you need to volunteer your time doing something to gain some experience. Maybe you need to take that entry-level job and work your way up through a company. You might have to change your lifestyle for awhile, but in the end you have established (hopefully) the career that you were hoping for, right?

Terrible Job Economy?

Given the nature of my job I speak with many people that are looking for work.

I want to say that I am sick and tired of people using the 'bad economy' as their crutch for why they cannot find a job. I promise that if you are employable, you will be able to find work. Plain and simple.

If I am a business owner I would add people to my staff if I felt their value outweighed their cost, and that were the problem comes in. People overvalue themselves.

People want to make more money than they are worth. Sure, that is impacted by the market. I think the amount that executives, directors, and sometimes even middle management is completely ridiculous in some (most) cases; however, that is the current economic client, so cope. An entry-level employee (which is where you typically need to enter a company) isn't going to pay you more than $30,000-$40,000, and if they are the schedule or work is going to be terrible. You cannot find your dream job right away. COPE.

I dearly hope the economy gets better, but I hope that our current economy leads to effective change in a few areas, and one of them is employee compensation. I hope people start to earn their money, and that people up and down the corporate ladder make what they are worth and what they deserve. I hope that employees have a reality check about what skills and characteristics they bring are really worth because I personally think I bring intangibles that most don't. I hope the days of showing up late, leaving early, taking 2 hours worth of smoke breaks, ETC. are gone because that will benefit someone like me who takes their profession very seriously.

One last note, people need to learn that job searching is like dating, you need to be DATABLE. You cannot show up and look unprofessional. Well, you can, just don't complain when you are unemployed.

And can we, as a country, stop supporting people that choose to be unemployable? If you choose to drop out of school, or not go to college, or swear during interviews, or misspell words on your resume, or wear a baseball hat to an interview YOU DON'T DESERVE ANY FINANCIAL SUPPORT. You are choosing to be unemployed because you are unemployable. People need to get their act together.

End of story.

Who is to blame?

Is there anyone that can agree that the economy has totally tanked? I remember last fall that some people, even myself, said that the poor economy was widely fabricated. Part of me still gets really upset that a lot of people are refusing to change their way of life. I read and hear that the economy is bad, yet so many people refuse to change their spending habits. What is a savings account?

So with this in mind, I was watching 60 Minutes tonight while folding laundry. My life is super exciting, I know. So there was this lovely story on the housing crisis called World of Trouble. Now I know, this is the liberal media because it wasn't Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, and it lived up to their billing because they presented the issue only as the banks fault. That it was the banks that forced bad loans onto people. There was one woman's story told where the bank used her income (of like $1,500) and since that did not qualify her for the loan, they used her husbands income. This seems normal until you consider that her husband was dead.

Now this is bad. I agree. Everyone at the bank that was involved with that loan should have been fired immediately, but part of me wonders why this is all the banks fault. 60 Minutes did not seem to think that the woman who took the loan should share the blame, at least this wasn't presented. When Katie and I were buying a house over the summer we were approved for much more than we could afford, but we had the brains not to take out the highest amount we could.

The skinny is that both sides are to blame. Banks did some terrible things. They got greedy and were pushing people into loans that they could not afford simply to get a commission. I hope that no one denies that, but the people seem to be getting off scott-free on this deal. You still signed the loan document. Even if the greedy, persuasive salesman (salesperson) told you this was a good loan there has to be a part of your brain that starts beeping when your mortgage payment is higher than your monthly income. Right? That part of your brain needs to work, otherwise you end up in these situations, and the salesperson who lives off of their 100% commission job isn't going to tell you NOT to take out the loan.

Sadly we have to fix the mess we got ourselves into. I will be the first to admit I have no easy answers. Part of me says screw the people that took out these loans because they should know better. But then I see stories like this about some of the incredibly terrible practices banks were using to get people to take these loans.

So my question is how do we use both sides and come together with a solution? We can't simply bail out people who took out loans they couldn't afford, but we can't just burn the banks either...