Stimulus price tag: $2.8 trillion - Dec. 20, 2010:
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Since the recession began three years ago, Congress has poured a total of $2.8 trillion into the economy in an effort to spur hiring, get people spending again and prop up industries struggling to stay afloat.
While the $858 billion package of tax cuts passed last week was the biggest slice of stimulus yet, it accounts for less than a third of all the money spent since the start of 2008, according to multiple cost estimates prepared by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office over the last three years."
...
"Public works projects like road and school repair or efforts to develop clean energy and high speed rail, along with help for state and local governments, was a relatively small part of the total stimulus -- just over $250 billion, or about 9% of the spending, most of it found in the stimulus act passed at the start of the Obama administration."
All right, this year is just about over. Lets face facts, this nearly 3 trillion dollars was wasted. The economy still isn't "fixed", jobs are still not being created, small businesses are still crashing and burning. Bankers and automakers are snickering all the way to the proverbial bank, everyone else (and their children) are and will be paying for this debacle for decades to come.
Come January a new Congress will have to figure out a way, not just to fix the economy, but also to undo the ravages of "bailouts" that have made things worse. Lets wish them luck, common sense, and basic math skills. And remind them of the next Congressional elections in 2012, aka the Mayan calendar's final year.
If only we had all the gold those Mayans had back then!
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Structural unemployment? What nonsense.
Why structural unemployment isn't the job market's problem - Oct. 11, 2010:
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- An increasingly fierce debate is raging over the reason why unemployment is still so stubbornly high.
While most people think businesses simply aren't hiring enough to absorb the millions of unemployed workers, a rising tide of prominent economists dispute that. They claim that there are jobs out there, just not the right candidates to fill them."
I guess its a slow news day for this Columbus Day holiday, but for any media outlet to publish such a nonsense story is atrocious. Of course there are "jobs" out there, but would you really expect an engineer, say, to flip burgers at the local fast-food joint ... or would he/she look for a job as, say, an engineer perhaps?
"With more than 3 million job openings reported by the Labor Department, the unemployment rate should be close to 6.5%, said Kocherlatokta, not the 9.6% where it stands now.
He said that one of the reasons for the worsening imbalance is that so many underwater homeowners who can't sell their houses are unable to move in search of job opportunities."
Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Perhaps his Presidentshipness would like to fill one of the job openings in his own agency, say, as a janitor? And this clown is in charge of a Federal Reserve Bank, no wonder we are wallowing in the fiscal doldrums.
Its quite simple. Employers employ employees. Duh. Less employers, less openings for employees, ergo higher unemployment. The current tax and regulatory environment coupled with the lack of any available funding from banks is killing our small businesses, whose owners are packing it up and looking for jobs themselves. Bailing out banks, car makers and health insurance companies is NOT creating jobs - because it is NOT helping small businesses to survive, forget about growth. Small businesses form the bulk of "employers", not mega-corporations, who are gleefully slicing and dicing at their employee salaries and benefits while the current Congress is blindly stumbling around throwing wads of taxpayer money into every trough they can find.
The trillions that have been wasted on these foolish bailouts should have been routed to small business as tax credits. It would not cost as much, since no taxpayer money would be paid out up front. As businesses prosper, they will increase tax revenues in the long run by increasing hiring and thus consumer spending from the happily employed, who will no doubt run out and buy High Definition 3D televisions with every paycheck. And if any business fails, it didn't cost the government a dime - since the failed business is not going to be taking that tax credit. I'm no economist, but this is straightforward common sense. In the immortal words of Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet), "Common sense is not so common". Especially in Congress.
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- An increasingly fierce debate is raging over the reason why unemployment is still so stubbornly high.
While most people think businesses simply aren't hiring enough to absorb the millions of unemployed workers, a rising tide of prominent economists dispute that. They claim that there are jobs out there, just not the right candidates to fill them."
I guess its a slow news day for this Columbus Day holiday, but for any media outlet to publish such a nonsense story is atrocious. Of course there are "jobs" out there, but would you really expect an engineer, say, to flip burgers at the local fast-food joint ... or would he/she look for a job as, say, an engineer perhaps?
"With more than 3 million job openings reported by the Labor Department, the unemployment rate should be close to 6.5%, said Kocherlatokta, not the 9.6% where it stands now.
He said that one of the reasons for the worsening imbalance is that so many underwater homeowners who can't sell their houses are unable to move in search of job opportunities."
Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Perhaps his Presidentshipness would like to fill one of the job openings in his own agency, say, as a janitor? And this clown is in charge of a Federal Reserve Bank, no wonder we are wallowing in the fiscal doldrums.
Its quite simple. Employers employ employees. Duh. Less employers, less openings for employees, ergo higher unemployment. The current tax and regulatory environment coupled with the lack of any available funding from banks is killing our small businesses, whose owners are packing it up and looking for jobs themselves. Bailing out banks, car makers and health insurance companies is NOT creating jobs - because it is NOT helping small businesses to survive, forget about growth. Small businesses form the bulk of "employers", not mega-corporations, who are gleefully slicing and dicing at their employee salaries and benefits while the current Congress is blindly stumbling around throwing wads of taxpayer money into every trough they can find.
The trillions that have been wasted on these foolish bailouts should have been routed to small business as tax credits. It would not cost as much, since no taxpayer money would be paid out up front. As businesses prosper, they will increase tax revenues in the long run by increasing hiring and thus consumer spending from the happily employed, who will no doubt run out and buy High Definition 3D televisions with every paycheck. And if any business fails, it didn't cost the government a dime - since the failed business is not going to be taking that tax credit. I'm no economist, but this is straightforward common sense. In the immortal words of Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet), "Common sense is not so common". Especially in Congress.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Economy loses 95K jobs due to government layoffs
The Associated Press: Economy loses 95K jobs due to government layoffs:
"Economy loses 95K jobs due to government layoffs
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER (AP) – 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON — A wave of government layoffs in September outpaced weak hiring in the private sector, pushing down the nation's payrolls by a net total of 95,000 jobs.
The unemployment rate held at 9.6 percent last month, the Labor Department said Friday. The jobless rate has now topped 9.5 percent for 14 straight months, the longest stretch since the 1930s."
Oh yes, thats just what we need now. Uncle Sam to start laying off workers, as if the private sector wasn't 'trimming' things enough by themselves.
"Since the recession ended in June 2009, the economy has grown 3 percent, according to economists at Deutsche Bank. That's less than half the average 6.5 percent pace in postwar recoveries."
Pssst. Dear Economists, perhaps this data is a clue. The 'recession' has NOT ENDED. Things are still bleak, and with Uncle Sam booting out its workers too, the situation is only going to get bleaker. These talking-head experts should be the ones facing a pink slip, not hard working 'real work' performing employees.
"The department said the economy shed 15,000 more jobs in July and August than previously estimated.
The government also issued a preliminary estimate of its annual revision to the jobs data. The revision is made after examining unemployment insurance tax records. The department said the revision is likely to show the economy lost 366,000 more jobs that it previously thought in the 12 months ending in March 2010."
Oops, did we do a boo-boo with the government issued calculator? Thats a big number to fudge with, or were we perhaps, perchance, possibly just 'softening the blow' during the past year? I hope the mathematical genius that porked these numbers was one of the "Government layoffs", wouldn't that be ironic!
"Economy loses 95K jobs due to government layoffs
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER (AP) – 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON — A wave of government layoffs in September outpaced weak hiring in the private sector, pushing down the nation's payrolls by a net total of 95,000 jobs.
The unemployment rate held at 9.6 percent last month, the Labor Department said Friday. The jobless rate has now topped 9.5 percent for 14 straight months, the longest stretch since the 1930s."
Oh yes, thats just what we need now. Uncle Sam to start laying off workers, as if the private sector wasn't 'trimming' things enough by themselves.
"Since the recession ended in June 2009, the economy has grown 3 percent, according to economists at Deutsche Bank. That's less than half the average 6.5 percent pace in postwar recoveries."
Pssst. Dear Economists, perhaps this data is a clue. The 'recession' has NOT ENDED. Things are still bleak, and with Uncle Sam booting out its workers too, the situation is only going to get bleaker. These talking-head experts should be the ones facing a pink slip, not hard working 'real work' performing employees.
"The department said the economy shed 15,000 more jobs in July and August than previously estimated.
The government also issued a preliminary estimate of its annual revision to the jobs data. The revision is made after examining unemployment insurance tax records. The department said the revision is likely to show the economy lost 366,000 more jobs that it previously thought in the 12 months ending in March 2010."
Oops, did we do a boo-boo with the government issued calculator? Thats a big number to fudge with, or were we perhaps, perchance, possibly just 'softening the blow' during the past year? I hope the mathematical genius that porked these numbers was one of the "Government layoffs", wouldn't that be ironic!
Friday, September 3, 2010
Why the new healthcare law will cost us jobs
CNN.com - September 3rd, 2010
Obama calls for improving small business climate
"President Obama cited small businesses as 'the primary drivers of job creation' and called on Congress, especially the GOP, to tackle a bill aimed at improving the climate for such enterprises.
...
There are signs the economy is improving, though. He said August saw 67,000 new private sector jobs created, while official July numbers indicated 107,000 jobs were created. In contrast, the latest unemployment numbers show joblessness rose from 9.5 percent to 9.6 percent last month."
Oh please, what utter twaddle. Things are NOT improving, a drop of 40,000 new jobs in a month is the opposite of improvement. And a 9.5 or 9.6 percent unemployment rate is definitely not a sign of improvement.
However, let us give credit to President Obama for recognizing that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Recognizing the obvious, that is indeed high praise for a politician. Solving the problem however, appears to be beyond the capabilities of the current leadership in Washington.
First, this Congress gave us the bank bailout. Billions and billions of tax dollars were doled out to the banks. Objective: spread the money as loans and funding to encourage small business growth and thus improve the economy and create jobs.
Implementation: zero checks and balances.
Result: top bank executives give themselves obscenely large bonuses, small businesses got absolutely nothing.
Congress claims victory and goes on to throw even more money at car manufacturers, who so far, have not quite been able to produce a car that they can sell in a country that has more cars per household than most other nations on this planet. Outstanding performance from Washington thus far.
And now we have a new healthcare bill. Yet another misguided legislative blunder. With a pricetag of nearly one TRILLION dollars. We don't do things on a small scale, why stop at wasting a Billion dollars when we can just as easy throw away a Trillion dollars.
Based on a noble sentiment, this law is absolutely misguided and lacks commonsense. Yes, this country has far too many medically uninsured individuals and families. However the quality of healthcare in the US is among the best in the world. What is the problem then? In a nutshell, we have the best medical care that money can buy, that unfortunately costs too much. The concept of health insurance is two-fold; first, the financial risk is spread out across a group, and second, the insurance company is able to negotiate volume discounts for their members. Without legislative control over what the health insurance companies can do, what we have ended up with is this; doctors receive a mere pittance for preventive and routine medical care for the insured patients, which forces them to charge cash customers up to ten times the fee just to break even. Doctors are essentially running a business, between salaries to nurses/assistants/office staff, rents, supplies, and most of all malpractice insurance - what a typical General Practitioner earns each year is laughable given the amount of time and education they have to invest into their work.
Now we have this new healthcare bill, a law that forces all employers with 50 or more employees to offer health insurance to their workers, or pay a $2,000 a year fine per employee. Yet it puts no restrictions on the health insurance companies whatsoever. I happen to be in one of the first lucky (not!) small businesses that are now discovering the true nature of this absurd law. My company's health insurance policy renews each year and we just received the new rates. Our health insurance premium has a 79% increase, yes, it has almost DOUBLED in just this first year of the new healthcare law!
What are employers to do if their insurance premiums are going to shoot up each year, without any limits?
And this is WHY this new healthcare law will affect YOUR job.
First option for the small business, layoff staff to get below the 50 employee cap. Lost jobs, lost taxes, increased public assistance, no medical insurance for any workers.
Second option, refuse to buy health insurance and pay the tax of $2,000 a year per employee. This will of course reduce the company revenue, thus preventing any additional hiring or growth. And it does not provide health insurance for anyone.
The third option is most likely what most small businesses will end up doing - shut down, go out of business. Lost jobs, lost taxes, no health insurance.
Given the current limitless increases that health insurance providers are levying, it is almost inconceivable that ANY small business will be able to obey this law and remain solvent. It is just not possible.
We are effectively shutting down or downsizing small businesses. Instead of increasing hiring, we are encouraging layoffs. Instead of increasing tax revenue through increased payrolls, we are not only losing taxes but also increasing unemployment and its associated costs. Instead of providing hard working Americans with health insurance, we are laying them off and driving them into social medical programs that encourage dependence on public assistance.
So in closing, if you currently have medical insurance, be very afraid for you may not be able to afford it for long. If you do NOT have medical insurance, don't expect to get it any time soon. If you have a job, you may not have one tomorrow. If you are looking for a job, it does not bode well for you. The only jobs left will be at large corporations, not even government jobs will be safe once the tax revenue dries up due to reduced payrolls. Large corporations, of course, prefer to "outsource" work to cheaper continents. Perhaps now is a good time to learn some new languages, the day is fast appearing when one will have to leave the US in order to find a job. Or afford to see a doctor.
Obama calls for improving small business climate
"President Obama cited small businesses as 'the primary drivers of job creation' and called on Congress, especially the GOP, to tackle a bill aimed at improving the climate for such enterprises.
...
There are signs the economy is improving, though. He said August saw 67,000 new private sector jobs created, while official July numbers indicated 107,000 jobs were created. In contrast, the latest unemployment numbers show joblessness rose from 9.5 percent to 9.6 percent last month."
Oh please, what utter twaddle. Things are NOT improving, a drop of 40,000 new jobs in a month is the opposite of improvement. And a 9.5 or 9.6 percent unemployment rate is definitely not a sign of improvement.
However, let us give credit to President Obama for recognizing that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Recognizing the obvious, that is indeed high praise for a politician. Solving the problem however, appears to be beyond the capabilities of the current leadership in Washington.
First, this Congress gave us the bank bailout. Billions and billions of tax dollars were doled out to the banks. Objective: spread the money as loans and funding to encourage small business growth and thus improve the economy and create jobs.
Implementation: zero checks and balances.
Result: top bank executives give themselves obscenely large bonuses, small businesses got absolutely nothing.
Congress claims victory and goes on to throw even more money at car manufacturers, who so far, have not quite been able to produce a car that they can sell in a country that has more cars per household than most other nations on this planet. Outstanding performance from Washington thus far.
And now we have a new healthcare bill. Yet another misguided legislative blunder. With a pricetag of nearly one TRILLION dollars. We don't do things on a small scale, why stop at wasting a Billion dollars when we can just as easy throw away a Trillion dollars.
Based on a noble sentiment, this law is absolutely misguided and lacks commonsense. Yes, this country has far too many medically uninsured individuals and families. However the quality of healthcare in the US is among the best in the world. What is the problem then? In a nutshell, we have the best medical care that money can buy, that unfortunately costs too much. The concept of health insurance is two-fold; first, the financial risk is spread out across a group, and second, the insurance company is able to negotiate volume discounts for their members. Without legislative control over what the health insurance companies can do, what we have ended up with is this; doctors receive a mere pittance for preventive and routine medical care for the insured patients, which forces them to charge cash customers up to ten times the fee just to break even. Doctors are essentially running a business, between salaries to nurses/assistants/office staff, rents, supplies, and most of all malpractice insurance - what a typical General Practitioner earns each year is laughable given the amount of time and education they have to invest into their work.
Now we have this new healthcare bill, a law that forces all employers with 50 or more employees to offer health insurance to their workers, or pay a $2,000 a year fine per employee. Yet it puts no restrictions on the health insurance companies whatsoever. I happen to be in one of the first lucky (not!) small businesses that are now discovering the true nature of this absurd law. My company's health insurance policy renews each year and we just received the new rates. Our health insurance premium has a 79% increase, yes, it has almost DOUBLED in just this first year of the new healthcare law!
What are employers to do if their insurance premiums are going to shoot up each year, without any limits?
And this is WHY this new healthcare law will affect YOUR job.
First option for the small business, layoff staff to get below the 50 employee cap. Lost jobs, lost taxes, increased public assistance, no medical insurance for any workers.
Second option, refuse to buy health insurance and pay the tax of $2,000 a year per employee. This will of course reduce the company revenue, thus preventing any additional hiring or growth. And it does not provide health insurance for anyone.
The third option is most likely what most small businesses will end up doing - shut down, go out of business. Lost jobs, lost taxes, no health insurance.
Given the current limitless increases that health insurance providers are levying, it is almost inconceivable that ANY small business will be able to obey this law and remain solvent. It is just not possible.
We are effectively shutting down or downsizing small businesses. Instead of increasing hiring, we are encouraging layoffs. Instead of increasing tax revenue through increased payrolls, we are not only losing taxes but also increasing unemployment and its associated costs. Instead of providing hard working Americans with health insurance, we are laying them off and driving them into social medical programs that encourage dependence on public assistance.
So in closing, if you currently have medical insurance, be very afraid for you may not be able to afford it for long. If you do NOT have medical insurance, don't expect to get it any time soon. If you have a job, you may not have one tomorrow. If you are looking for a job, it does not bode well for you. The only jobs left will be at large corporations, not even government jobs will be safe once the tax revenue dries up due to reduced payrolls. Large corporations, of course, prefer to "outsource" work to cheaper continents. Perhaps now is a good time to learn some new languages, the day is fast appearing when one will have to leave the US in order to find a job. Or afford to see a doctor.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Companies hire at slow pace for 3rd straight month
"The Associated Press: Companies hire at slow pace for 3rd straight month:
Companies showed a lack of confidence about hiring for a third straight month in July, making it likely the economy will grow more slowly the rest of the year. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.5 percent.
Private employers added a net total of only 71,000 jobs in July, far below the 200,000 or more jobs needed each month to reduce the unemployment rate.
The modest gains were even weaker when considering a loss of government jobs at the local, state and federal levels in July that weren't temporary census positions. Factoring those in, the net gains were only 12,000 jobs, according to the Labor Department's July report Friday."
Month after month, the Labor Dept. takes us on this rollercoaster of 'jobs' 'no jobs'. The good news, the unemployment rate did not go up. The bad news, the unemployment rate did not go down. Now even the Government seems to be getting in on the action of "losing jobs", granted that most States are nearly bankrupt, but its still an atrocious bit of news. What kind of an example is Uncle Sam setting by laying off its own employees? Jobs = taxes; NO jobs = NO taxes; a simple enough formula that no one in DC seems to have a grasp on.
Companies showed a lack of confidence about hiring for a third straight month in July, making it likely the economy will grow more slowly the rest of the year. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.5 percent.
Private employers added a net total of only 71,000 jobs in July, far below the 200,000 or more jobs needed each month to reduce the unemployment rate.
The modest gains were even weaker when considering a loss of government jobs at the local, state and federal levels in July that weren't temporary census positions. Factoring those in, the net gains were only 12,000 jobs, according to the Labor Department's July report Friday."
Month after month, the Labor Dept. takes us on this rollercoaster of 'jobs' 'no jobs'. The good news, the unemployment rate did not go up. The bad news, the unemployment rate did not go down. Now even the Government seems to be getting in on the action of "losing jobs", granted that most States are nearly bankrupt, but its still an atrocious bit of news. What kind of an example is Uncle Sam setting by laying off its own employees? Jobs = taxes; NO jobs = NO taxes; a simple enough formula that no one in DC seems to have a grasp on.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Job losses return for first time in 2010 (the first time???)
Job losses return for first time in 2010 - Jul. 2, 2010:
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. economy lost jobs in June, for the first time this year, as modest hiring by businesses only partly offset the end of census jobs.
The Labor Department on Friday reported a net loss of 125,000 jobs in the month. That was due primarily to the loss of 225,000 census jobs that had swelled payrolls by 433,000 net jobs in May. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a loss of 100,000 jobs in June."
And there goes the "census jobs bubble", a clever hyperbole to skew the true (and sad) state of the economy and the job market. We didn't lose jobs for "the first time" this year, the bogus census jobs don't count, we've been steadily losing jobs for a while now.
If only the Feds put in as much effort in helping small businesses to CREATE jobs, rather than waste time juggling numbers to protect their OWN jobs.
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. economy lost jobs in June, for the first time this year, as modest hiring by businesses only partly offset the end of census jobs.
The Labor Department on Friday reported a net loss of 125,000 jobs in the month. That was due primarily to the loss of 225,000 census jobs that had swelled payrolls by 433,000 net jobs in May. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a loss of 100,000 jobs in June."
And there goes the "census jobs bubble", a clever hyperbole to skew the true (and sad) state of the economy and the job market. We didn't lose jobs for "the first time" this year, the bogus census jobs don't count, we've been steadily losing jobs for a while now.
If only the Feds put in as much effort in helping small businesses to CREATE jobs, rather than waste time juggling numbers to protect their OWN jobs.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Unemployment claims (supposedly) fall in latest week
Unemployment claims fall in latest week - Jun. 24, 2010: "NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The number of first-time filers for unemployment insurance fell last week, according to a government report released Thursday.
There were 457,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended June 19, down 19,000 from a revised 476,000 in the previous week, the Labor Department said."
And yet more dismal news, but presented as always with a positive spin, "claims fall". When one actually reads the article, it says "initial jobless claims" - these are 457 THOUSAND newly unemployed that are filing their INITIAL benefits claims. 19,000 less out of 476,000 the previous period is barely, what, a 3% drop? Hardly a "fall", a drop in the bucket, more likely.
And the article further clarifies the scope of the economic disaster we are wallowing in:
"Continuing claims: The government said 4,548,000 people filed continuing claims in the week ended June 12, the most recent data available. That's down 45,000 from the previous week.
...
The figures do not include those who have moved to state or federal extensions, or people who have exhausted their benefits."
So there we have it, over 4.5 MILLION workers are still out of work filing "continuing claims", not including those who have gone onto extensions, or run out of benefits altogether, and are therefore not considered "unemployed"? The Labor Dept. dare not mention the "real" unemployment numbers, lest the populace grasp the scope of the fiscal hole they have dropped us into and demand that, heaven forbid, the Labor Dept. fulfill its mandate and Congress actually does something about the jobs situation.
There were 457,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended June 19, down 19,000 from a revised 476,000 in the previous week, the Labor Department said."
And yet more dismal news, but presented as always with a positive spin, "claims fall". When one actually reads the article, it says "initial jobless claims" - these are 457 THOUSAND newly unemployed that are filing their INITIAL benefits claims. 19,000 less out of 476,000 the previous period is barely, what, a 3% drop? Hardly a "fall", a drop in the bucket, more likely.
And the article further clarifies the scope of the economic disaster we are wallowing in:
"Continuing claims: The government said 4,548,000 people filed continuing claims in the week ended June 12, the most recent data available. That's down 45,000 from the previous week.
...
The figures do not include those who have moved to state or federal extensions, or people who have exhausted their benefits."
So there we have it, over 4.5 MILLION workers are still out of work filing "continuing claims", not including those who have gone onto extensions, or run out of benefits altogether, and are therefore not considered "unemployed"? The Labor Dept. dare not mention the "real" unemployment numbers, lest the populace grasp the scope of the fiscal hole they have dropped us into and demand that, heaven forbid, the Labor Dept. fulfill its mandate and Congress actually does something about the jobs situation.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Job openings rise?
Job openings rise to highest level in 16 months - Yahoo! News: "WASHINGTON – Job openings jumped in April to the highest level in 16 months, a sign that hiring by private employers is healthy despite last week's disappointing jobs report.
The number of jobs advertised at the end of April rose to 3.1 million from 2.8 million in March, the Labor Department said Tuesday. That's the most openings since December 2008.
Private employers accounted for the entire net gain. The government's advertising for jobs decreased, despite the hiring of hundreds of thousands of census workers in May.
Job openings have risen by about 740,000 since bottoming out at 2.3 million in July. But they remain far below pre-recession levels of about 4.5 million openings per month.
...
The report comes after the Labor Department said Friday that the economy generated 431,000 jobs in May. But almost all were census hires. Only 41,000 of the new jobs were in the private sector."
I guess the May jobs report was a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. If the April job situation was good, but the May report was bad - which one are we supposed to believe in?
The number of jobs advertised at the end of April rose to 3.1 million from 2.8 million in March, the Labor Department said Tuesday. That's the most openings since December 2008.
Private employers accounted for the entire net gain. The government's advertising for jobs decreased, despite the hiring of hundreds of thousands of census workers in May.
Job openings have risen by about 740,000 since bottoming out at 2.3 million in July. But they remain far below pre-recession levels of about 4.5 million openings per month.
...
The report comes after the Labor Department said Friday that the economy generated 431,000 jobs in May. But almost all were census hires. Only 41,000 of the new jobs were in the private sector."
I guess the May jobs report was a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. If the April job situation was good, but the May report was bad - which one are we supposed to believe in?
Friday, June 4, 2010
May jobs report: statistical skulldugery
May jobs report: Unemployment lower - Jun. 4, 2010:
"May jobs report: Census boosts payrolls
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A flood of temporary Census workers in May led to the biggest jump in jobs in ten years, the government reported Friday.
Employers added 431,000 jobs in the month, up from 290,000 jobs added in April. It was the biggest gain in jobs since March 2000.
Census hiring was responsible for 411,000 of May's increase in employment, but private sector employers also added 41,000 jobs in the period. Government payrolls other than Census declined by 21,000 jobs in May."
More statistical juggling from Washington. Census "jobs" are NOT jobs. They are extremely temporary situations. Real "jobs" are full-time, long term, paying at least the industry average, and offer benefits.
The last sentence it that article says it all:
"But the problem of long-term unemployment continued to worsen as those out of work more than six months rose to a record 6.8 million, or nearly half of all unemployed workers."
And even those jobs that qualify as "jobs" have problems:
Say goodbye to full-time jobs with benefits
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Jobs may be coming back, but they aren't the same ones workers were used to.
Many of the jobs employers are adding are temporary or contract positions, rather than traditional full-time jobs with benefits. With unemployment remaining near 10%, employers have their pick of workers willing to accept less secure positions.
In 2005, the government estimated that 31% of U.S. workers were already so-called contingent workers. Experts say that number could increase to 40% or more in the next 10 years."
The situation is obviously bad, unfortunately the one Government agency that is supposed to understand the issue, the Dept. of Labor, obviously does not.
"May jobs report: Census boosts payrolls
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A flood of temporary Census workers in May led to the biggest jump in jobs in ten years, the government reported Friday.
Employers added 431,000 jobs in the month, up from 290,000 jobs added in April. It was the biggest gain in jobs since March 2000.
Census hiring was responsible for 411,000 of May's increase in employment, but private sector employers also added 41,000 jobs in the period. Government payrolls other than Census declined by 21,000 jobs in May."
More statistical juggling from Washington. Census "jobs" are NOT jobs. They are extremely temporary situations. Real "jobs" are full-time, long term, paying at least the industry average, and offer benefits.
The last sentence it that article says it all:
"But the problem of long-term unemployment continued to worsen as those out of work more than six months rose to a record 6.8 million, or nearly half of all unemployed workers."
And even those jobs that qualify as "jobs" have problems:
Say goodbye to full-time jobs with benefits
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Jobs may be coming back, but they aren't the same ones workers were used to.
Many of the jobs employers are adding are temporary or contract positions, rather than traditional full-time jobs with benefits. With unemployment remaining near 10%, employers have their pick of workers willing to accept less secure positions.
In 2005, the government estimated that 31% of U.S. workers were already so-called contingent workers. Experts say that number could increase to 40% or more in the next 10 years."
The situation is obviously bad, unfortunately the one Government agency that is supposed to understand the issue, the Dept. of Labor, obviously does not.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
glimmers-of-hope-for-grads: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance
"Glimmers-of-hope-for-grads: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance:
This spring's college graduates face better job prospects than the dismal environment encountered by last year's grads. But that doesn't mean the job market is thriving.
Average starting salaries are down, and employers plan to make only 5 percent more job offers to new graduates this spring compared to last spring, when job offers were down 20 percent from 2008 levels, according to a study by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, which tracks recruitment data."
It's hard for newcomers into the workforce to compete with the long line of currently unemployed, especially since those out of work will already have years of experience padding their resumes.
This spring's college graduates face better job prospects than the dismal environment encountered by last year's grads. But that doesn't mean the job market is thriving.
Average starting salaries are down, and employers plan to make only 5 percent more job offers to new graduates this spring compared to last spring, when job offers were down 20 percent from 2008 levels, according to a study by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, which tracks recruitment data."
It's hard for newcomers into the workforce to compete with the long line of currently unemployed, especially since those out of work will already have years of experience padding their resumes.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Why a $14/hour employee costs $20
Why a $14/hour employee costs $20 - Mar. 26, 2010:
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- You probably cost your boss a lot more than you think you do.
For Jim Garland, who owns a corporate aircraft cleaning and support services company, a $14 per hour worker has a true cost of $19.63 per hour, or about 40% more than base pay. This so-called 'loaded rate' includes fixed expenses -- federal and state taxes, health insurance, workman's compensation, uniforms, and paid time off -- along with soft costs like the time spent training a new hire.
Washington's lawmakers are throwing a lot of ammo at reducing the jobless rate, including a new tax break for hiring the unemployed. But no matter what incentives the government offers, it's hard to convince business owners to hire until they're absolutely certain they need to. Employees are often the most expensive investment a business makes."
The article only partially exposes the hidden employer costs per employee. Depending on the number of employees and the State, the "overhead" can almost equal the salary amount taken home. Taxes are only part of the cost. Ridiculous unemployment and disability insurance premiums (such as in New York City/State) can often force small employers to NOT hire more workers, since these cost would exceed any increase in revenue due to up-sizing their workforce. And now with the mandatory health insurance requirements, many small firms are probably looking to get below the cap of 50 full-time workers which may further increase unemployment in the US and hamper economic recovery.
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- You probably cost your boss a lot more than you think you do.
For Jim Garland, who owns a corporate aircraft cleaning and support services company, a $14 per hour worker has a true cost of $19.63 per hour, or about 40% more than base pay. This so-called 'loaded rate' includes fixed expenses -- federal and state taxes, health insurance, workman's compensation, uniforms, and paid time off -- along with soft costs like the time spent training a new hire.
Washington's lawmakers are throwing a lot of ammo at reducing the jobless rate, including a new tax break for hiring the unemployed. But no matter what incentives the government offers, it's hard to convince business owners to hire until they're absolutely certain they need to. Employees are often the most expensive investment a business makes."
The article only partially exposes the hidden employer costs per employee. Depending on the number of employees and the State, the "overhead" can almost equal the salary amount taken home. Taxes are only part of the cost. Ridiculous unemployment and disability insurance premiums (such as in New York City/State) can often force small employers to NOT hire more workers, since these cost would exceed any increase in revenue due to up-sizing their workforce. And now with the mandatory health insurance requirements, many small firms are probably looking to get below the cap of 50 full-time workers which may further increase unemployment in the US and hamper economic recovery.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Measure aims to help unemployed families fend off foreclosure | - SILive.com
"Measure aims to help unemployed families fend off foreclosure - SILive.com:
Measure aims to help unemployed families fend off foreclosure
By Judy L. Randall
May 24, 2010, 4:28PM
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- Legislation that would help unemployed families stave off foreclosure is being advanced by New York's two senators.
The Homeowners' Relief and Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2010 would provide $3 billion in loans for up two years for out-of-work homeowners.
The TARP funding, administered through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, would provide low-interest loans for up to 24 months to homeowners who fall at least three months behind on their mortgage payments due to unemployment, under-employment or medical condition."
Alturistic as it sounds, where exactly do they propose to get that 3 BILLION dollars from? The "unemployed" homeowners are, obviously, unemployed and ergo not paying payroll taxes. That leaves only the working homeowners to cough up the money, increasing their tax burden and no doubt ultimately resulting in THEM going into foreclosure. Then who will subsidize the subsidizers?
Measure aims to help unemployed families fend off foreclosure
By Judy L. Randall
May 24, 2010, 4:28PM
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- Legislation that would help unemployed families stave off foreclosure is being advanced by New York's two senators.
The Homeowners' Relief and Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2010 would provide $3 billion in loans for up two years for out-of-work homeowners.
The TARP funding, administered through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, would provide low-interest loans for up to 24 months to homeowners who fall at least three months behind on their mortgage payments due to unemployment, under-employment or medical condition."
Alturistic as it sounds, where exactly do they propose to get that 3 BILLION dollars from? The "unemployed" homeowners are, obviously, unemployed and ergo not paying payroll taxes. That leaves only the working homeowners to cough up the money, increasing their tax burden and no doubt ultimately resulting in THEM going into foreclosure. Then who will subsidize the subsidizers?
Financial Times article on unemployment
"American monumental job losses
By Clive Crook
Published: May 24 2010 03:00
Last updated: May 24 2010 03:00
Unemployment in the US is high not just by its own past standards but by international standards, too, which is doubly strange. Figures also show a startling rise in long-term unemployment, to levels previously associated with Europe's broken labour markets.
In April the number of Americans looking for work for more than six months rose to 6.7m, roughly half of all those unemployed. Such a high proportion is unprecedented: the long-term share has previously reached a quarter at most. Terms for the stickiness of high unemployment such as hysteresis and sclerosis have preoccupied students of Europe's economies. They have not come up so much in discussions of US joblessness, but this may change.
Are these just signs that this recession has been exceptionally severe, or is something even worse going on? Can the US expect the rapid recovery in employment it has experienced coming out of previous recessions? On closer examination, US labour-market exceptionalism has not disappeared - but it is not what it used to be."
Comparing ourselves to Europe is hardly a valid yardstick to measure results by. Europeans don't buy overpriced SUVs and truck-like vehicles - US consumers do. The economy in the US is largely driven by the consumer, producing the product keeps the money "in the family". Importing Chinese made junk and Mexican automobiles is contrary to common sense, since you're paying someone else to do it - and they are NOT buying your products.
By Clive Crook
Published: May 24 2010 03:00
Last updated: May 24 2010 03:00
Unemployment in the US is high not just by its own past standards but by international standards, too, which is doubly strange. Figures also show a startling rise in long-term unemployment, to levels previously associated with Europe's broken labour markets.
In April the number of Americans looking for work for more than six months rose to 6.7m, roughly half of all those unemployed. Such a high proportion is unprecedented: the long-term share has previously reached a quarter at most. Terms for the stickiness of high unemployment such as hysteresis and sclerosis have preoccupied students of Europe's economies. They have not come up so much in discussions of US joblessness, but this may change.
Are these just signs that this recession has been exceptionally severe, or is something even worse going on? Can the US expect the rapid recovery in employment it has experienced coming out of previous recessions? On closer examination, US labour-market exceptionalism has not disappeared - but it is not what it used to be."
Comparing ourselves to Europe is hardly a valid yardstick to measure results by. Europeans don't buy overpriced SUVs and truck-like vehicles - US consumers do. The economy in the US is largely driven by the consumer, producing the product keeps the money "in the family". Importing Chinese made junk and Mexican automobiles is contrary to common sense, since you're paying someone else to do it - and they are NOT buying your products.
Another corporation abandons US workers
"Polaris Adds to US Unemployment, Takes Manufacturing Jobs to Mexico
Sunday May 23, 2010
Polaris Industries will be adding to the already out-of-control unemployment rate in the United States by shipping American manufacturing jobs to Mexico. The move will result in the sale or closure of the Osceola, Wisconsin manufacturing facility."
When are these companies going to realize that moving jobs out of the US results in less money in the pockets of their US customer base, and therefore less sales for their own products! I really don't envision Mexico purchasing any volume of snowmobiles, this is just short sighted corporate greed that will inflate stock profits only for the short term. As soon as the directors and top shareholders "cash out" their soon-to-be-inflated stock options, they are likely to abandon the company and employees.
Ironically, their corporate site is advertising 39 open positions at their company
"https://prod.fadvhms.com/polaris/jobboard/ListJobs.aspx?&__VT=ExtCan
To apply for a position, click on a job title below, or to update your resume only, click here.
Showing Records: 1 - 10
Total Records: 39"
Sunday May 23, 2010
Polaris Industries will be adding to the already out-of-control unemployment rate in the United States by shipping American manufacturing jobs to Mexico. The move will result in the sale or closure of the Osceola, Wisconsin manufacturing facility."
When are these companies going to realize that moving jobs out of the US results in less money in the pockets of their US customer base, and therefore less sales for their own products! I really don't envision Mexico purchasing any volume of snowmobiles, this is just short sighted corporate greed that will inflate stock profits only for the short term. As soon as the directors and top shareholders "cash out" their soon-to-be-inflated stock options, they are likely to abandon the company and employees.
Ironically, their corporate site is advertising 39 open positions at their company
"https://prod.fadvhms.com/polaris/jobboard/ListJobs.aspx?&__VT=ExtCan
To apply for a position, click on a job title below, or to update your resume only, click here.
Showing Records: 1 - 10
Total Records: 39"
Friday, May 21, 2010
New York City’s Jobless Rate Drops Below 10% - NYTimes.com
New York City’s Jobless Rate Drops Below 10% - NYTimes.com:
"City’s Jobless Rate Drops Below U.S. Rate
By PATRICK McGEEHAN
Published: May 20, 2010
The number of private-sector jobs in the city rose by 21,000 in April, nearly triple the average increase for that month in the last 10 years, said Colleen C. Gardner, the state’s labor commissioner.
The growth was widespread, with increases in all industries, but was especially strong in professional and business services and in leisure and hospitality, Ms. Gardner said.
For the city, the unemployment rate was 9.8 percent in April, down from 10 percent in March and a recent high of 10.5 percent at the end of 2009.
It is now lower than the national unemployment rate, which was 9.9 percent in April, for the first time since late summer 2009.
New York State’s unemployment rate also fell in April, declining to 8.4 percent, from the March rate of 8.6 percent.
...
Those employers that are hiring still have the leverage in negotiations over pay. According to data compiled by James A. Parrott, chief economist for the nonprofit Fiscal Policy Institute, the average wage of workers in the city, outside of the financial sector, declined almost 5 percent last year. Wages declined in 7 of the 10 biggest sectors of the city’s economy, he said. "
These numbers appear to be nothing more than statistical juggling. New York has "created" jobs that pay less than the jobs that it "lost" a few months ago, a swap over time, with a net decrease in salary. That's not growth, it's substituting pay scales, downwards.
"City’s Jobless Rate Drops Below U.S. Rate
By PATRICK McGEEHAN
Published: May 20, 2010
The number of private-sector jobs in the city rose by 21,000 in April, nearly triple the average increase for that month in the last 10 years, said Colleen C. Gardner, the state’s labor commissioner.
The growth was widespread, with increases in all industries, but was especially strong in professional and business services and in leisure and hospitality, Ms. Gardner said.
For the city, the unemployment rate was 9.8 percent in April, down from 10 percent in March and a recent high of 10.5 percent at the end of 2009.
It is now lower than the national unemployment rate, which was 9.9 percent in April, for the first time since late summer 2009.
New York State’s unemployment rate also fell in April, declining to 8.4 percent, from the March rate of 8.6 percent.
...
Those employers that are hiring still have the leverage in negotiations over pay. According to data compiled by James A. Parrott, chief economist for the nonprofit Fiscal Policy Institute, the average wage of workers in the city, outside of the financial sector, declined almost 5 percent last year. Wages declined in 7 of the 10 biggest sectors of the city’s economy, he said. "
These numbers appear to be nothing more than statistical juggling. New York has "created" jobs that pay less than the jobs that it "lost" a few months ago, a swap over time, with a net decrease in salary. That's not growth, it's substituting pay scales, downwards.
The Associated Press: Jobless claims rise by largest amount in 3 months
The Associated Press: Jobless claims rise by largest amount in 3 months:
"Jobless claims rise by largest amount in 3 months
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER (AP) – 18 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by the largest amount in three months. The surge is evidence of how volatile the job market remains, even as the economy grows.
Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.
The total was the highest since new claims reached 480,000 on April 10. It also pushed the average for the last four weeks to 453,500."
Unemployment benefits rose "unexpectedly"? What was the DoL expecting, flying pigs?
"Jobless claims rise by largest amount in 3 months
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER (AP) – 18 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by the largest amount in three months. The surge is evidence of how volatile the job market remains, even as the economy grows.
Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.
The total was the highest since new claims reached 480,000 on April 10. It also pushed the average for the last four weeks to 453,500."
Unemployment benefits rose "unexpectedly"? What was the DoL expecting, flying pigs?
Job hunting and the economy
Jobs. A simple four letter word, easy to pronounce. But a NOT so simple matter to obtain one.
Today's economy can best be described as ... a shambles. As employers fold up, employees get laid off. As employees turn into the un-employed, they spend less money. As the unemployed spend less money, more employers fold up. And more employees become unemployees. And the cycle goes on.
Here is what is going on with jobs in the US these days. Read 'em and weep.
Today's economy can best be described as ... a shambles. As employers fold up, employees get laid off. As employees turn into the un-employed, they spend less money. As the unemployed spend less money, more employers fold up. And more employees become unemployees. And the cycle goes on.
Here is what is going on with jobs in the US these days. Read 'em and weep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
