“
Phoebe Connelly, a Yahoo News editor who worked with Roth on the project, and intern Galen Bernard helped sift through the entries and planned out the Tumblr, Connelly told me. She said Tumblr made the most sense for the project because it offered the ideal layout for individual stories as well as an additional means of discovery for readers. On July 14, Roth’s piece was published, featuring around 20 people who submitted their stories to The Lookout. The same day the Tumblr was launched with 58 stories. “The appeal was doing it quickly and not with a ton of manpower or tech power, and just using the editors we had to get it up,” Connelly said.
The other benefit may also have been a more immersive experience, as the posts on Tumblr aren’t encumbered with ads, buttons or a lot of links, which makes for a quieter reading experience. (Of course, the lack of ads has a monetary downside, too.) And it appears to have clicked with readers: On the day they launched Down But Not Out, the average time-on-site was around 8 minutes, Connelly said.
”Really nice bit on Nieman Lab about Yahoo’s excellent Tumblr of stories about unemployment in the United States.
—(Yahoo News examines joblessness in Down But Not Out Tumblr » Nieman Journalism Lab)
“
I remain hopeful that those who want to cripple this consumer bureau will think again and remember that the financial crisis — and the recession and job losses that it sparked — began one lousy mortgage at a time. I also hope that when those Senators next go home, they ask their constituents how they feel about fine print, about signing contracts with terms that are incomprehensible, and about learning the true costs of a financial transaction only later when fees are piled on or interest rates are reset. I hope they will ask the people in their districts if they are opposed to an agency that is working to make prices clear or if they think budgets should be cut for an agency that is trying to make sure that trillion-dollar banks follow the law. I hope they will ask their constituents if they are opposed to the confirmation of someone who saved $2 billion for retirees, investors, and business owners as Ohio Attorney General and who has worked hard on the front lines fighting against fraudulent foreclosures and abusive lending practices.
This week is the culmination of two years of hard battles. The President put the consumer agency in his first outline of financial regulatory reform, and he never wavered in his support for it. The agency was declared dead several times, and weak versions and lousy bargains were offered again and again, but he stood fast. When he signed Dodd-Frank into law, creating the new agency, he offered me the chance to stand it up — something for which I will always be grateful. The fights continued, and again, the President never wavered in his support. In fact, just last week he issued a veto threat if the Republicans try to move the agency’s funding to the political process, and I know that in the future he won’t allow opponents of reform to succeed in weakening the CFPB.
The agency has stepped out in the right direction. The work is good. But this agency needs to have its full powers right now, and that means we need Rich in place as Director. Today, I’m celebrating — but I’m not taking my eye off those who want to cripple this agency. We got this agency by fighting, we stood it up by fighting, and, if takes more fighting to keep it strong and independent, then we can do it.
”“We’re very concerned that this is essentially an entity funded around Congress and yet it has the ability to bully banks.”
House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa, a California Republican, explaining why he’s got a big problem with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (via officialssay)
Yeah! Because banks really don’t respond well to bullying….
Notes from a Collapse
Yahoo’s new Tumblr of stories from the long-term unemployed will break your heart, and not in a good way:
I live in southern California, and worked in the electrical distribution industry for over 25 years. I lost my job in August of 2008 when the housing bubble and 2nd great depression was hitting hard. The branch I worked in closed since the industry relies heavily on new construction. All of the distributors cut salaries and laid off workers, and still operate with fewer, lower paid people.
I am 58 years old, and lowered my expectations for pay from $20+ per hour to $15 to $12 and now to minimum wage. I have applied for positions at Walmart, Target, Costco, Lowes. etc. I have yet to get one interview. My unemployment benefits are about to expire. My wife works part time, and we have three children, one who is severely autistic. I have plenty of references, however, it appears my age, the length of unemployment and no credit makes me unemployable.
What do I do from here? I wish I knew. Things have been difficult, but are about to get much worse.
I can’t give up looking for work, but it does feel rather pointless. We will have to rely on whatever government programs are available; food stamps, etc. These are very scary times, and I don’t place the blame on any President or political party, although I don’t have confidence in any politician. It all started with banks providing home loans to people who couldn’t afford them, and spiraled from there. Sometimes I wish I would have bought a house as well, since the government seems to care about these “homeowners” more than those of us making do with what we could afford.
Jerry, via comments
Today in scary economic charts from The Atlantic: Just 58.2% of American Adults Are Employed
(h/t @katierogers)
“Is this holding us back at this point?”
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, asking whether overzealous regulation enacted in the wake of the financial crisis is slowing down U.S. growth. (via officialssay)
I question whether this is really “overzealous regulation.” The fact that banks are now required to have more cash on hand to pay off their bad bets, rather than ask for taxpayer funding, doesn’t seem like a bad idea.
The Opposite of Schadenfreude
There must be some sort of German word for this, a feeling of embarrassment at the journalistic disasters of others.
Because, my Lord! This week’s Newsweek cover story on what they call BWMs (Beached White Males) is an amazing mismash of sloppy stats, poor reasoning and unconscious (at least I hope it’s unconscious) prejudice, all in the service of shoehorning in that ridiculous acronym.
The problems start from the top. The hed and dek for the story from the NWK cover is:
The Beached White Male
He had a big job, a big office, a big bonus. Now he’s all washed up and doesn’t have a freakin’ prayer.
OK—so we read this and think this is going to be a perhaps insensitive (given the fact that this is still the group with the fewest economic problems of any in America) but focused article on a certain small segment of American society. But! Then we look inside, and we see a much different hed:
Can Manhood Survive the Recession?
And, hmm. First we’re told this is about rich white guys, and now we’re told that this is a story about manhood. So, what, black men, with their 16% unemployment rate, don’t count when we’re talking a bout a “crisis of manhood”? Why, because they’re screwed anyway? Because Tina Brown doesn’t even acknowledge they exist?
Next, this quote, from Calculated Risk, is trotted out early on to make the case:
Once college-educated workers hit 45, notes a post on the professional-finance blog Calculated Risk, “if they lose their job, they are toast.”
Awful. Scary. And, yet, not necessarily just about rich white men! It turns out that women go to college too. And minorities. And sometimes they find jobs, though, yes, they are more likely to lose them than their white male counterparts. Again and again the statistics in this piece conflate all white-collar job loss with losses by white men. For instance, here:
From the financial meltdown in late 2007 that led to the recession up to now, the rolls of all unemployed white professional men have more than doubled, to a million (not including sales jobs, which add another 300,000). Wall Street and the broader world of business culled the most, laying off more than 300,000 from their trading desks and cubicle farms. Firms that draw on computer skills also thinned about 50,000 men from their ranks. Architects and engineers, the hardest hit by the housing crash, saw almost 90,000 casualties. In each category, the unemployment rate doubled—and then some.
Because, wait, were all those 300,000 lost Wall St. jobs filled by men? Professional men? White professional men? Hell no. Plenty of women, minorities lost jobs as well; and I’ll bet the majority weren’t corporate VP gigs; they were secretaries, HR people, back-office workers, etc.
UPDATE: Tony Dokoupil, one of the authors of the piece, emails to correct me. These numbers are indeed the correct numbers: 300,000 net job losses among white professional men on Wall Street from 2006-1st quarter 2011. My apologies for misreading this.
Then there’s the poll. NWK talks to 250 unemployed (or underemployed) men. MOST of them are married, white, middle-class and looking for work. So, OK, how did they select these people? Why weren’t they all BWMs? Is this poll national, or just a bunch of people they talked to in NYC? And why in hell was one of the questions “would you give your (working) wife a backrub or drink if she comes home grumpy”? (66% of respondents said yes) Is that supposed to show how far these former masters of the universe have sunk? The horror!
The thing is, I wouldn’t argue that this is not a legitimate line of inquiry. The rich, as Rush Limbaugh so constantly reminds us, suffer too. Too bad this piece didn’t uncover that story.
“
Take, for example, what comes from an increasingly shrill conservative chorus. After eliminating most of the usual suspects, the source of our fiscal problem becomes pretty simple. Our debts can’t be the cumulative result of multiple tax cuts. The crisis has nothing to do with our ongoing, unnecessary and counterproductive wars. It can’t be the fault of the bankers and brokers who defrauded millions with securitized debt obligations based on bundling large numbers of “liars’ loans.” It probably has nothing to do with our failure to tax most Internet sales, and it certainly can’t be because hedge fund managers are allowed to treat a portion of their income as capital gains.
Instead, the cause identified by most Republican governors, legislators and pundits is simple; government spends too much, and a lot of the blame falls on the public service unions. Indeed, at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., one panel was titled “Bleeding America Dry: The Threat of Public Sector Unions.” That’s right: The firefighters, the police and the teachers are bleeding the country dry.
”An inspiring former teacher of mine takes on anti-union sentiment in Truthdig. (via cmonstah)
Honestly, why isn’t this guy running for Senate somewhere?
(via cmonstah)
“As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to [U.S. embassy economic officers] on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge.”
A recently leaked U.S. diplomatic cable from November 2008. (via officialssay)
In which we learn the GOP has perhaps been taking cues from the Israelis…
Coming soon, to a newsstand near you…
Man, this year already looks like it’s going to be a bummer….