TPC-Journal-V4-Issue4

The Professional Counselor \Volume 4, Issue 4 287 the likelihood of future employment (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, 2009, 2013). Members of such populations who go on to higher education in pursuit of their career goals face further difficulties and barriers (e.g., sexism, racism, financial constraints, conflicts between their own cultures and the dominant culture; Fouad et al., 2008; Guiffrida & Douthit, 2010; Juntunen et al., 2001). During the job search, marginalized populations experience discrimination in terms of equal opportunity for employment (Stuart, 2006; Yakushko, Watson, & Thompson, 2008); and once employed, they face ongoing discrimination and barriers to success in the workplace (Badgett et al., 2007; Coombs & King, 2005; Werth, Borges, McNally, Maguire, & Britton, 2008). Such career-related difficulties have been explained through social cognitive career theory (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994), which posits that contextual affordances (e.g., social networks and income) and personal inputs (e.g., gender and race/ ethnicity) have a significant impact on individuals’ career development and choice process (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000). For example, being female (personal input) may affect one’s ability to be considered qualified for traditionally masculine careers; and having a lower socioeconomic status (contextual affordance) may result in one lacking a professional network that provides adequate career networking options. While these examples and theoretical postulations do not capture the entirety of the career development marginalization that traditionally marginalized populations experience, they do illustrate the realities that such populations face in American society. These oppressive circumstances also are apparent within and exacerbated by the current economic crisis. Traditionally Marginalized Populations and the Current Economic Climate In December 2007, the United States experienced a significant economic contraction. Due to risky subprime mortgage loan practices, many banks had to be saved from bankruptcy; they utilized public and private funds, including a federal bailout under the Bush administration. Between 2007 and 2009, the gross domestic product fell over 5% and millions of individuals lost their homes and jobs. The United States economy continues to languish as a result of this economic crash (Rothstein, 2012). Among the many systemic implications of these events, the unemployment rate increased nationally from 4.4% to 10% between 2007 and 2009. While there is a gap in the literature regarding the ways that this crisis has affected traditionally marginalized populations’ career- and work-related experiences, national unemployment statistics (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, 2009, 2013) provide partial illustration of such inequalities. For each ensuing population category, the unemployment rates will be depicted parenthetically as follows: (2006 annual rate, 2009 annual rate, March 2013 rate), in order to show the rates before the crisis began, the rates after the crisis began and the current rates in a compatible fashion. The overall unemployment rate (4.6%, 9.3%, 7.6%) masks stark contrasts in the rates for those who identified as White (4.0%, 8.5%, 6.7%), African American (8.9%, 14.8%, 13.3%) and Hispanic/Latino (5.2%, 12.1%, 9.2%), and those who reported having a disability (no data for 2006, 14.5%, 7.4%). The rates also are quite different among those who did not complete high school (6.8%, 14.6%, 11.1%), those with a high school diploma (4.3%, 9.7%, 7.6%), those who completed some college (3.6%, 8.0%, 6.4%) and those who completed a bachelor’s degree (2.0%, 4.6%, 3.8%). Finally, single mothers’ unemployment rate (7.1%, 11.5%, 10.7%) is much higher than that of women who report cohabiting with a spouse (3.1%, 6.3%, 4.7%). While one may assume that similar differentials might exist for LGBTQ individuals, immigrants and those of lower socioeconomic status, the United States Department of Labor does not report data in a manner that would allow such comparisons. Further, research has suggested that, in combination, such factors of identity and context as those listed above create further disparities in the unemployment rate (Ewing, Levernier, & Malik, 2005). These patterns highlight significant concerns. There seems to be consistent disparity in unemployment rates across marginalized groups throughout the economic crisis, as evidenced by the statistics reported by the Department of Labor. Given that unemployment has a negative psychological impact on individuals (Blustein, Medvide, & Wan, 2011; Paul & Moser, 2009), this disparity in unemployment suggests the possibility that marginalized groups experience higher rates of mental health consequences. For example, Paul and Moser