If I may add to your observations a bit, Thought, there are two very serious problems hidden within the 5.5% unemployment statistic. First, unemployment is distributed extremely unequally among the State economies; Texas is at around 3.9%, whereas Michigan is at around 6.9%. Thus, the people of Texas and the people of Michigan will give two very different stories about the "US economy." The people of Detroit, in which the unemployment rate is currently 7.7%, will provide even more dismal analysis.
Ooo, very good point. It is easy to forget when looking at national numbers that results by area will vary. Something else to note is that housing market isn't uniformly in a slump either. Texas hasn't been too affected so far; the market has slowed down some, but it is still growing rather ridiculously.
As a quick counter point, however; my statements were directly in comparison to Europe (and specific nations in the EU). The entire point was to show that Europe, which is sometimes perceived as having a particularly good economy (or at least significantly stronger than the current American economy), is in many ways on par with various indicators of the United States’ economy. While you are quite right -- there are very serious problems with calculating the unemployment rate -- those problems also apply to the EU (though perhaps they have better underemployment rates; haven’t found information on that yet). 5.5% on the American side isn’t accurate for every specific local, but neither is the 7% for Europe. 7.7% in Detroit? 11.1% in Slovakia. 6.9% in Michigan? 9.6% in Poland. 3.9% in Texas? 3.2 in the Netherlands.
However, the flip side of underemployment is over-education. It used to be a High School diploma would qualify you for a viable career; now, not so much. To an extent those jobs are gone, but even when those jobs are still here they are hiring college graduates (and even Master's or Ph.D.'s when they can get them). More education is always a good thing for the individual but the current over-education problem isn't increasing the general intelligence or knowledge base of the work force significantly; rather, it is increasing consumer debt without providing a benefit. Few college graduates get jobs in which they actually utilize what they've spent several thousand dollars learning (varies by subject, of course; computer science has a higher rate than philosophy, for example), but they are required to have that piece of paper saying that they spent the money to even be considered for most jobs (even outside their field). The emphasis isn't on what they know or how good they are; rather, the emphasis is on if they've jumped through the proper hoops.
Now in a world where a college Bachelor degree (in English, why not) is required to be a garbage man, people need a Master's degree in order to stand out from the crowd. Give it about 10, 20 years and people will start to need a Master's Degree (in Women's Studies, why not) just to be considered for a simple administrative position at a minor firm. Just because the degree is required for the position doesn't mean the position actually needs it. Thus, if we might speak hypothetically for a moment, imagine a person who will become a receptionist. In 1950, they would have been properly qualified for the job. In 2008 they would be over qualified (and thus underemployed) because now they had to have a bachelor degree (in chemistry) just for their application to be considered.
I am actually a fairly good example of over-education causing underemployment; there are currently two jobs that I am not over qualified for: Junior College Professor and University Assistant Professor (well, and any job in a totally unrelated field). I do hope to work in one of those positions someday, but apparently today is not that day; the job market for those positions is terribly competitive and, admittedly, my CV isn't impressive enough to get me noticed. One of the best things I can do to improve my marketability is... to get a Ph.D. Except once I have a Ph.D. I will be overqualified for those positions (but then to get a tenure tracked college Associate Professorship requires more than just a Ph.D.). Too many people have MAs and PhDs in my field and I am just not shiny enough to catch anyone’s attention.
As such, that means that right now I am underemployed. Ironically, I actually make more money now that I would if I were not underemployed (a situation I am fairly sure most underemployed individuals do not enjoy).
If people want a higher education, that is good and commendable. But the workplace is requiring that those who don't want a higher education still obtain one. It isn't good for business, it isn't good for the individual, and it isn't good for society.
One could also blame me for not moving to Texas...
No one who is a non-native of Texas but lives in Texas could blame anyone else for not moving to Texas. If you can stay away, I highly recommend doing so.
But to get back to my original point: it isn't that I am trying to claim that the economy of the United States is good; rather I am trying to state that it isn't as bad as some people perceive it to be and that by focusing on how bad it is only makes it worse.
I have found a saving grace, though: Actually buying tuition myself.
There are a few tricks you can do to help reduce the overall costs of the college experience. If you are from out of state, a lot of state colleges will waive the out of state tuition fee if you can get a job on campus (still have to pay in state tuition though). Also, if you can, being an RA (resident assistant) in the dorms will save you a LOT of money (not related to tuition, admittedly, but still nice).
And you could always become a stripper. Sure, you might be underemployed, but in the right environment (like a college town) Strippers can make really good money; much better than most other jobs available to college students. Though, my information is a bit outdated and came from women, so your millage may vary.
Commuting to college saves a ton of money, but then again, with these gas prices...I wonder if degrees earned online are just as good as degrees earned in formal classes?
Depends on the degree, the online source, what formal college it is being compared to, and the job.
For example; if you were already a high school economics teacher with a bachelors, you could take online accredited college courses to earn your masters and the school would accept it at face value (which means a raise that wont cover the costs of the degree for several years). But if you were applying for that position, rather than having already been hired, they wouldn't take the degree at face value (though it would still hold more weight than if you didn't have it).
Similarly, an online degree from the University of North Dakota is just as good as a formal-class degree from the University of Nevada if you are getting a job in Florida (but not if you are getting a job in Nevada).
Generally, as long as the online degree is coming from a college that also offers formal class degrees, it is almost as good as (technically, it should be as good, but people are sometimes biased against them).
