Today, college graduation lacks some of the promise it normally holds but some grads are taking the initiative and making it work. Photo: inorman88 (flickr)

You've probably heard something along the lines of "get an education and you'll make more money," at least once in your life.

And for the most part, it's true. Higher education and university degrees are linked to higher salaries, greater lifetime earnings, and lower unemployment rates. This correlation is corroborated by data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows that individuals who possess a doctoral degree faced an unemployment rate of a mere 2.5 percent in 2009, compared with an unemployment rate of 14.6 percent for those who did not finish high school.

Yet, the current job market is still tough for college graduates, and as a recent USA Today article reports, "the jobless rate for Americans with at least a bachelor's degree rose to 5.1 percent, the highest since 1970 when records were first kept." (This number has since declined. As of January 2011, the unemployment rate for those with a bachelor's degree or more is down to 4.2 percent according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics).

Still, employment prospects for many new college graduates are bleak. A press release from the National Association of Colleges and Employers describes the job situation for the class of 2010.

...[only] one-quarter (24.4 percent) of 2010 graduates who applied for a job actually have one waiting for them after graduation. In comparison, just 19.7 percent of 2009 graduates who applied for a job had one at this time last year.

This may be a consequence of older workers holding onto their jobs a little longer, postponing retirement in order to ensure they will have enough to live on after they leave the labor force, a recent The New York Times article asserts.

So what are young workers to do, when there just aren’t jobs opening up for them and the national unemployment rate hovers between 9 and 10 percent?

According to a different The New York Times article, some recent grads are making their own jobs, building businesses from scratch and employing themselves.

These young college graduates are trying something new, making up for their lack of experience with pluck and drive. The New York Times article mentions Scott Gerber, a young entrepreneur who opted to start his own company to "...encourage young people to start their own companies — instead of trying to land a job." His nonprofit is called the Young Entrepreneur Council (YEC), and provides funding and mentorship to young entrepeneurs.

These desperate times call for creative measures. And who knows, maybe this new generation of entrepreneurs is just what we need to give our economy a push in the right direction.

Find more graphs and charts depicting the consequences of the "Great Recession" on the United States' economy by clicking on the following link. Photo: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Data recently released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics bears discouraging news for the unemployed. In short, the Bureau's findings reveal that the longer an individual remains unemployed, the less employable they become.

The New York Times explains how the likelihood of landing a job diminishes after a lengthy period of unemployment:

… [P]eople out of work fewer than five weeks are more than three times as likely to find a job in the coming month than people who have been out of work for over a year, with a re-employment rate of 30.7 percent versus 8.7 percent, respectively.

Neal Conan from National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation," expands on the issue, reporting that high rates of long-term unemployment are a product of the high level of overall unemployment, which gives employers the luxury of being selective in their hiring process.

For every job open in America, there are five unemployed workers anxious to apply. That means employers can afford to be picky. Some would-be bosses don't want to hire people who have been out of the workplace for too long, perhaps because their skills have gotten rusty or maybe because they assume someone out of work that long is flat-out unemployable.

Historically, the percentage of long-term unemployed (defined as unemployed for 27 weeks or longer) fluctuates, but has remained well under 25 percent of the total unemployed population. By today's estimates, the long-term unemployed make up about 44 percent of unemployed workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' December 2010 Employment Situation Summary.

So what's the consequence of these record levels of long-term employment? The United States' government is rethinking how long someone can be considered unemployed and changing the parameters that define long-term unemployment, claims an article in USA Today. The article reports that the new policy has been introduced to address the rising numbers of long-term unemployed but does not revise or extend unemployment pensions to these individuals.

Citing what it calls "an unprecedented rise" in long-term unemployment, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday [January 1, 2011], will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been jobless... The change will not affect how the unemployed are counted or the unemployment rate is computed nor how long those eligible for unemployment benefits receive them. Analysts call the move a sign of the times."

A sign of the times indeed. These days long-term unemployment presents new challenges and added pressures on our government and welfare system. However, this policy change does not mean we are addressing the needs of the long-term unemployed, rather we are simply taking an interest in observing the phenomenon.

Eventually the job market will recover. Unemployment is often one of the last symptoms to recover following any recession. But thankfully, slow recovery is not no recovery.

Pakistan, known for its textiles, would like the freedom to sell these wares in foreign countries, not just in local shops. Photo: Benny Lin (flickr)

After environmental disasters, nations often rush to pledge relief aid. But how well-meaning are these donations? If countries were truly acting altruistically, they might also consider amending their trade policies, as Pakistani textile manufacturers argue in the Wall Street Journal.

In Pakistan, textiles are a major part of the economy. “The country's textile sector directly employs 3.5 million people, accounting for 40 percent of urban factory jobs,” writes the Journal. Overall, textile-product exports account for over half of Pakistan's total exports, so any restrictions placed on the sector have a significant impact on the entire economy.

As a result, the cost to Pakistani textile producers from U.S. barriers to trade is considerable, reports the Journal.

Abolishing American tariffs, which currently stand at an average 17 percent on cotton pants and shirts from Pakistan, would boost the nation's textile exports by $5 billion annually, government officials and factory owners estimate.

This sizable loss in income and the effect it has on the economy is integral to reforming Pakistan's economy. Neither the aid that Pakistan receives, in general, nor pledged aid in response to recent flooding, will be enough to lift Pakistan out of poverty, advocates say.

The recent flooding has profoundly impacted Pakistan and made this an opportune time to highlight grievances over the use of aid versus trade. Advocates for lowering trade tariffs are using the inflows of aid and heightened focus on rebuilding Pakistan’s soggy economy to show that most countries’ donations are inadequate.

The crux of their complaints is that the U.S and other donor nations could do far more to help countries such as Pakistan recover if they would stop restricting trade, allowing manufacturers and merchants to prosper and help the economy recover.

When put into perspective, using aid donations to signal support for development does ring a bit hollow, as these numbers cited by Global Issues demonstrate.

The total cost to developing countries of restrictions on textile imports into the developed world has been estimated to be some $50 billion a year. This is more or less equivalent to the total amount of annual development assistance provided by Northern governments to the Third World.

So, as the article continues on to say, “we take back with our left hand every cent we give with our right," a practice that has been understandably met with criticism in the developing world.

Surely the aid given to help ensure there is adequate food, water, and sanitation for flood victims doesn't go unappreciated. However, looking to the future — a necessary response to any disaster — some Pakistanis are calling on donor countries to reevaluate policy, not just pull out their pocketbooks.