Occupy Wall Street is picking up steam with now being its 24th day in the lime light. So what't the relationship if any to jobs and employment? Oh make no mistake about it there is a relationship between jobs and Occupy Wall Street. In fact, that seems to be the basis of the movement and protests. Why are so many people out of work, standing in free soup lines and begging for bread while Wall Street not only got bailed out of mess created by Wall Street but not a single person to day has been indicted for anything. Nothing, nada, zilch!

Government funding unpopular programs for the elite is nothing new. On the other hand, financing a Wall Street bailout, on taxpayers dollars, while the unemployment rate stays above 9%, millions continue to be out of work and no one goes to jail is well - bad politics. At least, bring someone in on charges. Make the public feel good - something, but to not even arrest any of the cronies that made this economic situation a reality is not cool. American's are tough and ok with weathering a storms that is felt across the board but when 99% of the worker bees are doing without while 1% are "living la vida loca," that just isn't going to fly. If you don't believe that look around you and ask why Occupy Wall Street is spreading like a wildfire. Then you'll see the missing link --- jobs.

Sure it's a touchy feely kind of topic, but the whispering suggests that at least some think Obama may be neglecting the Black Job Crisis. Is this simply the stuff that gets people riled up or is there some merit to such a suggestion? Well, for one thing I would say Obama is having a difficult time with job creation Black, White or otherwise. Let's face it, the private sector hasn't been so willing to work with this Administration. Maybe that's because big corps have $2 Trillion on the sidelines and they would like to keep it that way? Anyway, be that as it may that leaves public sector jobs which a good percentage of Blacks do occupy. That's true, at least for now, until the House cuts more public sector funding (or simply refuses to keep portions of the government running).

So what are Obama's options in terms of helping with the Black Job Crisis? Well for one, he could acknowledge the situation take a hard line against it and cause some massive wave of jobs to somehow surface. What happens next? Well, hillbilly Jim Bob and his pals gets real upset and uses that as validation that Obama was out to turn poverty onto Whites as some form of retribution for slavery. Would that help with a re-election bid? No. Is politics involved? Yes. Now the other option is a little more sensible, which is he could address the American Job Crisis as a whole is such a way that would help not only Blacks but Whites, Hispanics, Latino, and others. Why? You know why - if you help one and don't help the other then the others cry foul play. Sure, it's no secret that Blacks are affected most by this economic situation but helping only what some consider to be a small segment of the population and leaving others to fend for themselves opens up a can of worms that I'm sure Obama does not want on his plate.

In reality, given the politics around jobs, deficit reduction and spending, getting a plan to work for anyone is a difficult task. So, it's somewhat of a reach to say Obama is neglecting the Black Job Crisis. If anything, what Obama is neglecting to do is get the private sector into the game. Granted that isn't an easy task when big corps have more cash flow than the federal government, but that's where the real problem exists. How do you get the private sector into the game? So even if you still aren't convinced that's the problem - do tell me; do you really think Perry or Romney will do more for Blacks? Get real. Expect nothing from Romney, and as for Perry, well he might call up a few of his pals in Texas and help a few Blacks out with those low wage jobs. Suit yourself, Obama or Perry/Romney.

We have been hearing for a while now about the job crisis in the USA. Now we're hearing more and more about the relationship of jobs and education or more specifically the lack of jobs in relation to education levels. Is there a relationship or just politics as usual? Incidentally just the other day a University of Phoenix rep stated "right now there are 3.3 million unfilled job openings across the US." The pitch was made as part of the current push from the White House to fund education and schools. The specifics of the 3 million plus jobs was not stated, so there isn't a way to "fact check" the statement - not directly anyway.

So what type of jobs are we talking about and what type of education is required? Who knows? So what should we do? Go on a massive spending binge to upgrade the public school system, coast to coast and offer student loans to everyone? If that is the suggestion, it's probably why some Tea Party zealots want to abolish the Department of Education. While being #14 worldwide, in terms of education, is nothing for the USA to brag about, going on a trillion dollar education spending spree isn't the right idea either. Sure some spending is necessary on education, but that should be done for people who want to learn and have the capacity to do so. Let's face it, some people are just born losers and more spending isn't going to fix that. On the other hand, for those that have potential and can't reach that potential due to the inability to go to college or poor public school conditions than maybe coming up with a "measure and allocate" plan is the way to go. The bottom line is that, if the lack of jobs is following depressed education levels than let's reinvest in sensible ways but spending a bunch of money on those who don't want to succeed is akin to buying snake oil. Zero value.

Jobs are hard to come by these days; everyone knows this, especially the unemployed. So what is so bad, on the job, to make one even consider leaving? In a word - growth. If you are not going to grow on your current job, it may be time to go. That is at least what some people are thinking these days. Sounds like an arrogant position considering so many people wish they had a job. Here's the logic, should you settle for a paycheck now that will in the longer run prevent you from having a paycheck later via loss marketability of your skills since you aren't growing in your current position? Like most situations such as this, the only real answer is that - it depends. It depends on your situation.

For those who are close to retirement grow or go is a none issue for others it is real. At the end of the day if you're pretty close to retirement does it really matter if you growing your skills? Probably not. It is probably more important to simply collect a steady paycheck. Of course there are always the under achievers who have serious skill deficiencies that they do want to fix and simply want to milk the cow for all it is worth. Sounds like a HR hiring policy issue - you think? Why would you want to bring on under achievers except for the low wage benefits...susssh, don't tell Perry I said that. Somehow, Perrry thinks low wage jobs are the answer. As for the over/achievers, "riding the pine" and no playing time on the court is simply unacceptable. Can you blame them? After all most employees don't just want to earn a paycheck but they want to contribute in the process. What a terrible thing huh, you give them a paycheck and they are still complaining. Pull out the whipping post and show them a lesson or two. Bottom line is that yes, it's a tough career decision to say "grow" or "go" but it's one that has to be made or acknowledged as a none issue. That of course is an individual situation that must decided on a case-by-case basis.