"So if unemployment is at an all-time low, why is it STILL so hard to find a decent job that isn't minimum wage, and the job market is still in the shitter?"

Glad you asked, Timmy...

See, a lot of high-paying jobs are currently being out-sourced; this is being done because it's much cheaper to pay someone overseas half the rate to do the kind of job you or I would expect decent pay for. And it IS true that new jobs are being created to replace those jobs, and people ARE, in fact, moving into said jobs.

Here's the problem: the jobs that are being created BARELY cut it in terms of pay to live on. That's right; high-paying jobs that are leaving our country are being replaced with mid-to-low-paying jobs. Because of this, there are actually fewer "good" opportunities out there.

Our current administration leaves all those details out, however, and paint a pretty picture for the American public, showing graphs and citing surveys that show how many new jobs are in effect and how low unemployment is.

"Okay, okay. So if the jobs are so low-paying and crappy, what's going on? How come people are taking them?"

Because they have no other choice. Due to the decline in medical coverage and social security benefits, people are working longer; therefore, there are less spots available for new, upcoming workers. Since those still-existent "good" paying jobs are being kept filled this way, the resulting void is filled with Option "B" - "B" for burger joint. It's work as a burger-flipper for a living and barely make ends meet, or sleep in a dumpster or road-side ditch with no money. When given the choice of maggot-covered steak or nothing at all, people are going to eat, no matter how sub-standard it may be.

"So, Mr. Smart-Guy Quill - how do YOU propose we stop that?"

Well, more jobs need to be kept in our country. This would mean taking a step toward regulating "big business"; and "big business" is something the current administration favors over the average citizen, unfortunately. Things like workers' unions help as well; your typical "big business" outfit doesn't dig unions, because unions keep them from shafting the workers on pay and benefits, which of course costs them money to provide. Keep in mind, what the unions ask for in terms and conditions would NEVER come anywhere close to making a substantial dent in a financial way to these companies, but "big business" fights the unions anyway.

"Why?"

Because it's all about the money to them. If they can clear an extra hundred grand by cutting medical benefits and freezing wage-rates on their workers - which is the equivalent of mere pennies to you or I - they will.

Making companies provide better health coverage would be tough given the fact that our country's health care system is a business itself, which refuses to import cheaper medicines and cures to avoid getting less money. The way to pacify the fat business cats to do that would be to allow medicines to be imported; but again, this would effect the bottom line of the medical coverage business.

Fixing Social Security is another issue that'd help. People would be able to retire sooner, which would open up the bigger jobs to new workers. Clinton had a very large surplus set aside for fixing Social Security...which Bush promptly squandered away so quickly, it was as if it was never there to begin with. Crap-loads of money to do this could again be stockpiled by increasing taxes on the richest people in the country, just like Clinton did; however, Bush and his cronies are pro-rich, pro-money, pro-business, remember? He scratches the backs of all his well-off buddies and fellow "elite" rich by cutting THEIR taxes, and putting the tax burden right back onto the middle and lower classes. If you were to raise taxes on the lower and middle classes - which Bush DID do that - the people in the middle class would have to strain to make ends meet, and lord help the lower class guys. The lower class guy would probably have to go on welfare - which has limited funds, because of limited tax money. (Are we starting to connect the dots, here? Hm?)

If you raised taxes on Mr. Joe Rich-Fucker, he would have to budget his massive income much like a middle-class person, only with a "minor" difference...instead of just blowing a thousand or million on a whim, he'd have to consider if he could afford that. Think having to own only one boat instead of five boats, shit like that. (And really, who the fuck needs five boats?)

I'm not saying it's a crime to be rich; far from it. If you're rich and you've made it, by hard work or inheritance, boo-yah, more power to you. However, does it make sense that the financial burdens be pushed on the poor? If you take a 15% tax on a guy that makes $28,000 a year, that comes out to $4,200 in taxes; and that's a lot if you've only got 28 grand to play with and have to live and pay for a car, house, etc. By the same percentage, if you take that corporate C.E.O. that earns around $600,000 a year, that's $90,000 in taxes; leaving this guy with easily over 500 grand left all to himself.

Not only that, but that $90,000 counts for nearly 22 "regular" people, and gives more money to the people of the country in the long run. But rich people just don't want to give up the ability to instantaneously gratify themselves and live the highest of lives - and they all helped Bush get in office, so he scratches them right back and tosses it all on our shoulders.

This is the way things are working. It all connects. It's not just a matter of doing one thing, creating more jobs. It's all got to change to make it work and keep it going. I know several people will not read all this. To those that did, thank you for your time, and I do hope you learned something from it.

(It's a wonder that half our country actually buys into the bullshit they spin. Who needs to clone sheep when we have a country full of them?)