Fox News Channel has started an early edition of Fox & Friends, which means that your Editor can check out the Fox News babes’ awesome legs before he leaves for work in the morning. And one story they had on this morning led me to this:
10 Worst Jobs in USA
(Newser) – Hunting for a job? It may prove wise to avoid this list of toilsome occupations. Accounting for physical toughness, pay, stress, work environment, and hiring outlook, these are the 10 worst jobs in America, as deemed by career advice website CareerCast, and rounded up by the Huffington Post. Here’s a sampling:
- Butcher (9): $29,156
- Waiter/waitress (6): $18,088
- Oil rig worker (4): $32,132
- Dairy farmer (2): $33,119
- Lumberjack (1): $32,114
Click here to see the whole list.
It was a bit difficult to consider “Broadcaster,” average salary $27,324.00, as the tenth worst job in America, especially when, while I know that the vast majority of broadcasters aren’t making the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the Fox News babes are getting paid, I know that they are (normally) working in nice conditions. It’s difficult for your Editor to see that as a somehow worse job than the guy who drives the truck which goes around to construction sites to empty the portable toilets or the men who clean out septic tanks. It’s hard for your Editor to see the newspaper reporter (5th Worst Job, with an average salary of $35,275.00) as having it worse than the guys who pick up your garbage, or roofers, or police officers.
But the real worst job in America? The real worst job isn’t on that list, but I can tell you what it is. The real worst job in America is . . .
unemployment, is no job at all. And when President Obama, in his re-election campaign, tells you that he’s created millions of new jobs — which is a lie — the one “job” he has helped to create more of is unemployment.
By ANDREW ACKERMAN And Eric Morath
New applications for jobless benefits rose sharply last week, another sign the labor market has appeared to lose momentum.
Jobless claims were revised higher again in today’s report, the 57th time in 58 weeks. Separately, the U.S. trade deficit registered its biggest contraction in nearly three years in February, assisted by record exports and a slump in imports of oil and Chinese goods. Meanwhile, U.S. wholesale prices held steady in March, as gasoline costs declined after a sharp increase the prior month.
Initial jobless claims increased by 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 380,000 in the week ended April 7, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the largest weekly rise in claims in nearly one year.
More at the link. The four week moving average of new jobless claims increased by 4,250 to 368,500, which is still near a four-year low. And while the level of claims has been slowly decreasing, which means that companies are laying off fewer workers, job creation was much slower in March than had been projected; in March, as employers added 120,000 non-farm jobs, about half of what was added in February.
Claims for continued unemployment benefits decreased by 98,000 to 3,251,000 in the week ended March 31. Interestingly, the JOURNAL reported that unemployment claims had their greatest decrease in Texas, where the state government is doing its best to get off of the backs of employers.
President Obama and his re-election campaign will try to claim that they created new jobs, but the numbers don’t lie: there are slightly fewer than one million additional jobs today than there were when he took office, and slightly fewer than a million new members of the labor force, while the total non-institutionalized civilian population grew by almost eight million people. Almost 2% less of the population participates in the labor force these days, and just a hair under seven million more people are not in the labor force. Or, put another way, 88.9% of the increase in our population did not enter the labor force.
The official unemployment rate is higher today than it was when President Obama took office (8.2% versus 7.8%), but if the labor force participation rate had remained the same, the current labor force would be 158,663,000 instead of 154,316,000; the labor force is 4,347,000 people lower than it would otherwise have been, had the participation rate remained the same. And the unemployment rate wouldn’t be the still-too-high 8.2% the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported for March, but 10.9%.
While the President doesn’t create jobs, the President’s policies have a psychological effect on people and their perceptions of the economy, and President Obama’s policies have driven 4,347,000 people out of the labor force. When the President tells you that the unemployment rate is down due to his policies and his leadership, he is telling you the exact truth: his policies and leadership have driven labor force participation down, so the official unemployment rate has been slowly coming down, but real unemployment, actual joblessness is significantly higher.
And it’s not like President Obama didn’t ask for the responsibility for the economy. He ran on it, telling us just how much better things would be under his Administration than they were under President Bush, and even after he was elected and inaugurated, he was saying the same thing.
He asked for the responsibility, and specifically told us that it was his job “to get this economy back on its feet.” Yorkshire made a slight editing change to the Democrats’ new logo, which gives us their grade on the economy.
There will, of course, be the loyal Democrats who keep yelling about President Bush, trying to place all of the blame for everything on a man who has been out of office for over three years. But President Obama had huge Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress for his first two years in office, and while the Republicans fought the President tooth-and-nail to prevent Mr Obama’s policies from being enacted into law, the Republicans failed to stop them. The 2009 Stimulus Plan, the one which the President’s economic people told us would hold unemployment down to a maximum of 8% — and that failure to pass it would mean that unemployment would soar to 9% — was passed. It cost over $800 billion (and added more than that to the national debt), and it was “successful” in holding the unemployment rate down to 10%! By the President’s own scorecard, unemployment was worse after the stimulus plan was passed than he told us it would be if we did nothing at all.1