That may be. But the Times story shows just how hard that job search is for the recently obsolete, even those who get training for new lines of work. It also reveals the growing anger of the unemployed. Here’s Cynthia Norton, a 52-year-old Florida women whose administrative assistant skills are no longer in demand.
“If you’re not a minority, or not handicapped, or not a young parent, or not a veteran, or not in some other certain category, your hope of finding help and any hope of finding work out there is basically nil,” Ms. Norton says. “I know. I’ve looked.”
I’m sure she’s having a hard time. But her belief that others are having a much easier time of it only underscores a point we’ve made before. The business press needs to do a better job of showing the very uneven ways in which unemployment hits people depending on all sorts of factors, from income level and education to age, race and gender.
The unemployment story is a big one. But it’s an important one, and, unfortunately, there’s no shortage of ways to tell it.

I think you're missing one explanation: In 1983 we had a conservative Republican president loathed by the liberal media. In 2010 we have a liberal Democratic president who the media did its best to elect. What was all Reagan's fault back then has now become just an inevitable structural shift in the workforce. Very convenient.
#1 Posted by SamTyler, CJR on Fri 14 May 2010 at 10:50 AM