The article stated that they had based it partly on academics looking for work... hardly the most common employment anywhere.

I've worked in the "real world" and "civil service" the past 40 years... not to mention having a husband who worked in manufacturing jobs.

In civil service we are actually prevented from hiring a new person until the person that they replacing is long gone... can't even post the job listing until we get approval from civil service based on what the politicians decide how many people they want on the payroll. And we generally can't hire from just anyone... only those who have taken, passed and scored high enough on the tests to be interviewed. A lot of us "short timers" are doing what we can to pass on our experience to our co-workers to prevent "bureaucratic altzheimers".   

What I see is older workers staying on because they can't depend on their pensions being there in the future and Tea Party millionaires regarding Social Security a parasitic blight on the economy... forgetting that no income no economic growth, you can't spend what you don't have. And for mobile, single income families - they have a better shot if they can relocate... but young families that need two incomes can't just split up to seek new jobs... there is a social need to be addressed here.

I don't live to work (aka "for my job")... I work to have enough income to live the kind of life that I want to live, making compromises along the way.   

What I have also seen is short sighted business practices that do not regard their employees as people with value... merely as pawn to be used and discarded, while the upper management exploits the company for every dime they can...