Article Image

It's all good at the top: survey shows near 100% employment $100k and up, 70% for wage earners.

Written by Subject: Employment & Jobs
The Center for Labor Market Studies of Northeastern University in Boston has released a study breaking unemployment statistics across the income spectrum. The result? Those at the top are pretty much fully employed. But the further down you go, the higher the concentration of unemployment.
The chart below summarizes their findings:
Income range% Unemployed
$12,499 or less20.6
$12,500 to 20,00017.2
$20,000 to 29,99912.7
$30,000 to 39,9998.3
$40,000 to 49,9996.1
$50,000 to 59,9995.4
$60,000 to 75,0004.4
$75,000 to $99,9993.6
$100,000 to 149,9992.5
$150,000 or more1.6
Can you believe what you are seeing? So there is 37.8% unemployment for persons below $20k? THIRTY SEVEN POINT EIGHT PERCENT?
Crank that up to the next level, those under $30k and you get 50.5%! FIFTY POINT FIVE PERCENT UNEMPLOYMENT.
And the scope of the study, with data ending 4Q 2009, shows this trend as accelerating. Rapidly. This is bad kittens, this is very very bad. Maybe not for you, but it's bad.
Given as the USA has about 304 million in population, the chart below gives us some idea of how many of us we're talking about from top to bottom.
Gee, and the Wiki article tell us there's only about 4.5 million people (1.5% of population) making over $250k? Hmmmmmmm. That's about the income level it takes to buy a nice farm to retreat from the fall of society to.  You know, all those Goldman Sachs executives buying guns because they are afraid the people they robbed are going to rob them back.
So for every person in that bracket, there's only about 67 million of the rest of us to defend themselves from.
So how safe are we feeling at the Goldman Acres Dairy Farm?

5 Comments in Response to

Comment by Keith Hamburger (26681)
Entered on:

 Sorry but those numbers don't just add up.  You can't take the percentage at each level, add them together, and get the percentage below a certain point.  It would be closer to an average of the three numbers but even that doesn't quite work.  You have to know the total numbers at each level to be able to figure out the actual unemployment rate.

But, interesting article nonetheless.  When I last worked for most of a year, in 2009, I was towards the top of that scale so that makes my current unemployed status feel that much worse.  Most of my cohort have jobs, apparently, but I don't.

Keith Hamburger

Comment by Nick Bravo (21000)
Entered on:

maybe its time for graduate school.

Comment by Found Zero (11589)
Entered on:

Unfortunately Ross, deflation is having the same effect on the worker pool as small business can't access credit and sales are down nearly across the board in the service sector.

Ultimately, given the Fed's course, there's no way out but inflation or default. Rational economics doesn't seem to be an alternative. The plan is the rich stay rich and the rest of us get tossed on the curb.

And of course, the little charts here don't tell that aspect. 1.5% make over $250k but that's PEANUTS compared to what the fat-cat policy makers make and everybody knows it.

Comment by Scott Heitmann (28361)
Entered on:

Comment by Ross Wolf (28231)
Entered on:

Federal officials allege the national economy is stabilizing, even growing. But would it be more accurate to state the Economy has stabilized after contracting and the New U.S. Contracted Economy will need millions less workers for years. Some businesses believe government unemployment numbers will increasingly not reflect unemployment when determining if the U.S. or region of the country is in a recession. Unemployment can only get worse if Obama intentionally inflates the dollar to pay its debts; that will reduce Citizens’ buying power, causing more unemployment.