Posts tagged employment


Imagine a study that asked doctors whether they thought a patient who’d been under treatment for a serious illness for four weeks was more or less likely to survive than a patient under treatment for a serious illness for 99 weeks. Of course the doctors would say the patient under treatment for 99 weeks was less likely to survive.
Paul would look at that study and argue for removing the treatment from the patient who’d been sick for 99 weeks. After all, doctors thought it made the patient less likely to survive!
Last month, D.C.’s two new Wal-Marts began accepting applications. More than 23,000 people applied for fewer than 600 jobs. This is the reality of life for the unemployed: They can’t get jobs because there aren’t enough jobs.
Nationally, there are three job seekers for every one open position. But because unemployment is much higher in some cities than in others, the reality is that most people who’ve been unemployed for more than 26 weeks live in areas where there are four, five, six, seven and even eight job seekers for each open job. They’re not being held back by their unemployment checks. They’re being held back by mass unemployment.
The study Paul mentions points toward a real problem: Unemployment is self-perpetuating. Employers discriminate against the long-term unemployed. And so a cycle begins: Someone doesn’t get hired because they’re unemployed. That extends the length of their unemployment. That makes the next potential employer that much less likely to hire them. That further extends the time they’ve been unemployed. And so the cycle continues.



(via Rand Paul has some Festivus grievances with Washington. The unemployed have some with him.)

Imagine a study that asked doctors whether they thought a patient who’d been under treatment for a serious illness for four weeks was more or less likely to survive than a patient under treatment for a serious illness for 99 weeks. Of course the doctors would say the patient under treatment for 99 weeks was less likely to survive.

Paul would look at that study and argue for removing the treatment from the patient who’d been sick for 99 weeks. After all, doctors thought it made the patient less likely to survive!

Last month, D.C.’s two new Wal-Marts began accepting applications. More than 23,000 people applied for fewer than 600 jobs. This is the reality of life for the unemployed: They can’t get jobs because there aren’t enough jobs.

Nationally, there are three job seekers for every one open position. But because unemployment is much higher in some cities than in others, the reality is that most people who’ve been unemployed for more than 26 weeks live in areas where there are four, five, six, seven and even eight job seekers for each open job. They’re not being held back by their unemployment checks. They’re being held back by mass unemployment.

The study Paul mentions points toward a real problem: Unemployment is self-perpetuating. Employers discriminate against the long-term unemployed. And so a cycle begins: Someone doesn’t get hired because they’re unemployed. That extends the length of their unemployment. That makes the next potential employer that much less likely to hire them. That further extends the time they’ve been unemployed. And so the cycle continues.

(via Rand Paul has some Festivus grievances with Washington. The unemployed have some with him.)

It’s (arguably) the  cheapest and most effective  form of economic stimulus. Think about it: people who recently lost their jobs use unemployment funds to pay for their rent and food. They spend the money they get from the government right away. The Congressional Budget Office cited unemployment benefits as one of the most effective policies of the 2009 Recovery Act. Compare that to what happens when, say, there’s an income tax cut. Not everyone spends that tax cut. Some save it, so the money isn’t going out as quickly into the economy.
Speaking of the economy, there lots of uncertainty heading into 2014. The last thing the US economy – and by extension the world economy – needs in January is for over a million people to lose their federal funds overnight. Close to a million more are expected to be laid off in early 2014 and won’t have access to federal aid, either, a further drag on the “green shoots of recovery” economists keep talking about.
This is especially true as the Federal Reserve attempts to figure out how to stop all the aid it’s been pumping into the economy (aka the quantitative easing program). Markets are already jittery about when that is coming and whether it will be in early in the new year. We don’t need to add another shock.
No one wants to keep these programs running forever. Each state offers some funds to the unemployed, but the federal government steps in during and after bad recessions in order to help the long-term unemployed. The question is when should that extra federal money end?
Anyone paying attention to the economic indicators can see that things are still too rocky to withdrawal federal aid completely. The chart below from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities makes the best case for why Congress should pass an extension by Christmas. The graph shows when the federal government halted unemployment insurance during prior recessions. In the downturn after 9/11, the federal government stopped providing extra jobless relief when the long-term unemployment rate was 1.3%. It was similar in the 1990-91 and 1981-82 recessions – the federal government said “that’s enough” aid for the jobless when the long-term unemployment rate was at 1.2 or 1.3%. At the moment, US long-term unemployment is still at 2.6%. That’s a heck of a lot higher than in the past.
While there is a fear that people receiving unemployment insurance will be less motiatived to look for jobs, the reality is the economy is in much worse shape this time around. There aren’t many jobs to be had, especially in January after the big holiday retail boom is over. Extending federal jobless aid for all of 2014 would cost about $25bn. That’s a lot of money to you and me, but it’s a bargin in federal government terms.
As Congress debates a budget deal, extending unemployment insurance is a natural link with that. It will help working families, stimulate the economy and signal that Congress “gets it” and wants 2014 to start as smoothly as possible.


(via Congress should stop the Scrooge routine and extend jobless benefits | Heather Long | Comment is free | theguardian.com)
It’s (arguably) the cheapest and most effective form of economic stimulus. Think about it: people who recently lost their jobs use unemployment funds to pay for their rent and food. They spend the money they get from the government right away. The Congressional Budget Office cited unemployment benefits as one of the most effective policies of the 2009 Recovery Act. Compare that to what happens when, say, there’s an income tax cut. Not everyone spends that tax cut. Some save it, so the money isn’t going out as quickly into the economy.

Speaking of the economy, there lots of uncertainty heading into 2014. The last thing the US economy – and by extension the world economy – needs in January is for over a million people to lose their federal funds overnight. Close to a million more are expected to be laid off in early 2014 and won’t have access to federal aid, either, a further drag on the “green shoots of recovery” economists keep talking about.

This is especially true as the Federal Reserve attempts to figure out how to stop all the aid it’s been pumping into the economy (aka the quantitative easing program). Markets are already jittery about when that is coming and whether it will be in early in the new year. We don’t need to add another shock.

No one wants to keep these programs running forever. Each state offers some funds to the unemployed, but the federal government steps in during and after bad recessions in order to help the long-term unemployed. The question is when should that extra federal money end?

Anyone paying attention to the economic indicators can see that things are still too rocky to withdrawal federal aid completely. The chart below from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities makes the best case for why Congress should pass an extension by Christmas. The graph shows when the federal government halted unemployment insurance during prior recessions. In the downturn after 9/11, the federal government stopped providing extra jobless relief when the long-term unemployment rate was 1.3%. It was similar in the 1990-91 and 1981-82 recessions – the federal government said “that’s enough” aid for the jobless when the long-term unemployment rate was at 1.2 or 1.3%. At the moment, US long-term unemployment is still at 2.6%. That’s a heck of a lot higher than in the past.

While there is a fear that people receiving unemployment insurance will be less motiatived to look for jobs, the reality is the economy is in much worse shape this time around. There aren’t many jobs to be had, especially in January after the big holiday retail boom is over. Extending federal jobless aid for all of 2014 would cost about $25bn. That’s a lot of money to you and me, but it’s a bargin in federal government terms.

As Congress debates a budget deal, extending unemployment insurance is a natural link with that. It will help working families, stimulate the economy and signal that Congress “gets it” and wants 2014 to start as smoothly as possible.

(via Congress should stop the Scrooge routine and extend jobless benefits | Heather Long | Comment is free | theguardian.com)

What Employers Look For In Your Online Profiles [INFOGRAPHICS]
They like to get up in your personal life or what ever it is you post on Facebook.

What Employers Look For In Your Online Profiles [INFOGRAPHICS]

They like to get up in your personal life or what ever it is you post on Facebook.

We have existing laws — Title VII, um, Lilly Ledbetter, all those existing protections in place — that, I believe, enforce and provide that people doing equal jobs are, certainly in this country, should receive equal pay. So, uh, that bill, in my view, didn’t add — in fact I think it created a lot of additional burdens that would have been hard, um, to make it more difficult for job creators to create jobs… . The reason that I voted against that specific bill is that, I looked at it, and there were already existing laws that need to be enforced and can be enforced and I didn’t feel like adding that layer was going to help us better get at the equal pay issue.
Dow 14,000 to me is a taunt; it’s a reminder that most Americans are working harder (or more efficiently) for essentially no more money, while the companies they work for prosper wildly (without sharing or hiring) and while investors in those companies watch their wealth balloon.

All the while, the plight of the American worker is treated as little more than a political piñata. The right says the problem is that the left requires companies to pay taxes to do business in the country. If only taxes could go away or be reduced, companies would start hiring madly and peace and prosperity would wash over the land.

The left says the problem is that the right is strangling government spending, restricting rivers of cash that would flow out of Washington, efficiently sweeping up the unemployed and depositing them into productive well-paying jobs.

One guy gets it…and he gets buried far off of the front page of the news or business section.

Making $2.15 an hour certainly does sound worse than today’s minimum wage, which federal law mandates must be at least $7.25 an hour. But what Blackburn didn’t realize is that she accidentally undermined her own argument, since the value of the dollar has changed immensely since her teenage years. Blackburn was born in 1952, so she likely took that retail job at some point between 1968 and 1970. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, the $2.15 an hour Blackburn made then is worth somewhere between $12.72 and $14.18 an hour in today’s dollars, depending on which year she started.
The highest minimum wage in the nation is set to rise again in 2013, as San Francisco’s low-end compensation rate will increase from $10.24 to $10.55 per hour.
In 2003, voters approved a local ordinance tying the minimum wage to the regional rate of inflation in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose. Set at $8.50 per hour when the law took effect, The City’s minimum wage has increased in every year but one since 2004.
City officials and low-wage worker advocate groups have long argued that increasing the minimum wage helps the local economy by giving service industry workers more disposable income to spend.

S.F. employers paying more


 
     Minimum wage has risen almost every year since 2004:
2004: $8.50 per hour
2005: $8.62 per hour
2006: $8.82 per hour
2007: $9.14 per hour
2008: $9.36 per hour
2009: $9.79 per hour
2010: $9.79 per hour
2011: $9.92 per hour
2012: $10.24 per hour
2013: $10.55 per hour

Source: San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement

But a Washington, D.C., economic think tank funded by a restaurant and beverage industry lobbyist is pointing to a more recent University of Kentucky study showing that minimum wage laws like San Francisco’s contribute to a lack of jobs for young workers.

The highest minimum wage in the nation is set to rise again in 2013, as San Francisco’s low-end compensation rate will increase from $10.24 to $10.55 per hour.

In 2003, voters approved a local ordinance tying the minimum wage to the regional rate of inflation in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose. Set at $8.50 per hour when the law took effect, The City’s minimum wage has increased in every year but one since 2004.

City officials and low-wage worker advocate groups have long argued that increasing the minimum wage helps the local economy by giving service industry workers more disposable income to spend.

S.F. employers paying more

But a Washington, D.C., economic think tank funded by a restaurant and beverage industry lobbyist is pointing to a more recent University of Kentucky study showing that minimum wage laws like San Francisco’s contribute to a lack of jobs for young workers.

Costco charges charges low prices, makes a ton of money & still treats its employees well.

Just added emphasis:

For Costco, treating workers well has led to increased motivation, higher quality service, greater productivity and lower turnover. After the first year of employment, turnover was less than 6 percent, one of the lowest rates in the industry. The combination of good wages and the knowledge that there were opportunities for advancement was an important incentive for employees to work hard and build a career with the firm. The high quality of service provided by motivated, engaged employees at Costco, combined with the low prices, meant that customers returned and were willing to pay the membership fees. Costco’s high-quality service also attracted a clientele that shopped not only for basic goods but also luxury items, which were still more profitable, even with the low markup. As a result, Costco had higher annual sales per square foot than its most direct competitor, Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club, ($795 versus $516), and higher annual profits per employee ($13,647 versus $11,039) even though Costco’s average wage was 42 percent higher. Over 16 years, Costco grew from 206 warehouses and $16 billion in sales to 554 warehouses and $69.9 billion in sales.

Is it really fair to compare a Walmart, that doesn’t have a membership to Costco that does? I’ll give you a Sam’s Club vs. Costco, though.

The Economic Impact of a Walmart Store in the Skyway Neighborhood of South Seattle

This study has demonstrated that the impact of Walmart’s decision to develop a grocery store at the Skyway site in South Seattle would be a net loss to the regional economy of $10.01 million in economic output and $13.24 million in labor income. These impacts stem from the low wages Walmart pays to its hourly associates compared to the wages earned by comparable employees of existing retail grocery stores. The difference in wages, which we estimate to be at least $3 per hour, has the capacity to impact not only the workers themselves, but also the people from whom they purchase goods and services.

Go on, do your own study to find out if it is any different in another neighborhood.

truth-has-a-liberal-bias:

Obama’s Private Sector Jobs Record


Thanks for half of the truth. Robert Reich is looking at whole picture:

In their haste to cut the public debt, Europeans have overlooked the denominator of the equation. By reducing public budgets they’ve removed a critical source of demand — at a time when consumers and the private sector are still in the gravitational pull of the Great Recession and can’t make up the difference. The obvious result is a massive slowdown that has worsened the ratio of Europe’s debt to its total GDP, and is plunging the continent into recession.
A large debt with faster growth is preferable to a smaller debt sitting atop no growth at all. And it’s infinitely better than a smaller debt on top of a contracting economy.
The second lesson Merkel and others have overlooked is that the social costs of austerity economics can be huge. It’s one thing to cut a government budget when unemployment is low and wages are rising. But if you cut spending during a time of high unemployment and stagnant or declining wages, you’re not only causing unemployment to rise even further. You’re also removing the public services and safety nets people depend on, especially when times are tough.

Reich’s point there is that the folly of Merkel, Cameron and Sarkozy, et. alia. will be a drag on the U.S. recovery. That could be said of any state government in the USA that is slashing costs, too. It doesn’t matter if it is a neo-fascist like Michigan’s Rick Snyder or another neo-liberal like Kalifornia Über Alles Jerry Brown. Public sector employment creates income as good as or better than the private sector. It’s spending of all kinds that will but the recession away. If the USA wanted to put a dent in the recession, we’d be stealing pages from FDR’s playbook. It’s a given that Obama can’t get that done with right wing reactionaries in congress nor with centrists constantly trying to placate them.
It’s one thing for political campaigns to crank out half-truths like that. Honesty and complex thought have left politics long ago. But it’s different to regurgitate a half-truth from a campaign to be consumed by people with critical thinking capacities; the offense is compounded when said half-truth is presented by someone who has the word “truth” in their URL.

truth-has-a-liberal-bias:

Obama’s Private Sector Jobs Record

Thanks for half of the truth. Robert Reich is looking at whole picture:

In their haste to cut the public debt, Europeans have overlooked the denominator of the equation. By reducing public budgets they’ve removed a critical source of demand — at a time when consumers and the private sector are still in the gravitational pull of the Great Recession and can’t make up the difference. The obvious result is a massive slowdown that has worsened the ratio of Europe’s debt to its total GDP, and is plunging the continent into recession.

A large debt with faster growth is preferable to a smaller debt sitting atop no growth at all. And it’s infinitely better than a smaller debt on top of a contracting economy.

The second lesson Merkel and others have overlooked is that the social costs of austerity economics can be huge. It’s one thing to cut a government budget when unemployment is low and wages are rising. But if you cut spending during a time of high unemployment and stagnant or declining wages, you’re not only causing unemployment to rise even further. You’re also removing the public services and safety nets people depend on, especially when times are tough.

Reich’s point there is that the folly of Merkel, Cameron and Sarkozy, et. alia. will be a drag on the U.S. recovery. That could be said of any state government in the USA that is slashing costs, too. It doesn’t matter if it is a neo-fascist like Michigan’s Rick Snyder or another neo-liberal like Kalifornia Über Alles Jerry Brown. Public sector employment creates income as good as or better than the private sector. It’s spending of all kinds that will but the recession away. If the USA wanted to put a dent in the recession, we’d be stealing pages from FDR’s playbook. It’s a given that Obama can’t get that done with right wing reactionaries in congress nor with centrists constantly trying to placate them.

It’s one thing for political campaigns to crank out half-truths like that. Honesty and complex thought have left politics long ago. But it’s different to regurgitate a half-truth from a campaign to be consumed by people with critical thinking capacities; the offense is compounded when said half-truth is presented by someone who has the word “truth” in their URL.