Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: ’ I’ve also been told point-blank to my face, ‘We don’t hire the unemployed.’ [View all]fasttense
(17,301 posts)22. I went back to the BLS and I can't seem to find that number again.
Weird, I was trying to get the number of all unemployed people in the US. I now get 11,272,000 but that's not everyone that's just those they "count" as unemployed. That is not the number I was looking for. I think I must have slipped into an alternate universe for a moment. Or I just read it wrong.
Well, anyway, I was trying to get to that idea of not letting random individual suffer constant unemployment but we share it all among everyone. Yes, reducing work hours would be a way of doing that.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
41 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
’ I’ve also been told point-blank to my face, ‘We don’t hire the unemployed.’ [View all]
kpete
Nov 2013
OP
I have not, but my husband has pretty much seen exactly that. Added to that the fact he is 57.
Mass
Nov 2013
#1
on a positve note, they're mandated to buy health insurance they cant afford to pay for
KG
Nov 2013
#4
Can't have those health insurance CEOs suffer any financial hardship, now can we?
SammyWinstonJack
Nov 2013
#8
The problem with going in blindly and looking up numbers without a background...
TreasonousBastard
Nov 2013
#30