Are you sure?
Because you have yet to produce an actual real world example of your Free Market philosophy.
Unemployment Rate Falls Below 8 Percent. Game Changer?
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
Are you sure?
Because you have yet to produce an actual real world example of your Free Market philosophy.
I've produce examples of more freedom being better than less freedom, and a free market is economic freedom.
A free market with a strong government oversight as a check is the best way for mass economic freedom and societal advancement. When either runs unchecked, or checked weakly, then people suffer.
I would also like to know, where did you get that quote? Are they Obama's words or your words ???
When did I advocate for weak government? I just said government needs to be subordinate to the same principles that govern individuals.
That's not inconsistent with strong government, and it would add moral authority instead of just relying on guns to get people to comply.
Instead of saying, "This year,..." like the President, I put the relevant timeframe. Am I attacking him QueEx?
3.9 million job openings
There were 3.9 million job openings on the last business day of June, little changed from May, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/jolts_08062013.pdf
There were 3.9 million job openings on the last business day of June, little changed from May, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/jolts_08062013.pdf
Last edited:
Talk to the right leaning, conservative, majority republican administration appointed Supreme Court about that.
Unemployment dips to 7.3 percent, but only 63% of Americans are in labor force
Unemployment dips to 7.3 percent, but only 63% of Americans are in labor force
Unemployment dips to 7.3 percent, but only 63% of Americans are in labor force
Women Waiting Tables Provide Most of Female Gains in U.S.
Women Waiting Tables Provide Most of Female Gains in U.S.
Women Waiting Tables Provide Most of Female Gains in U.S.
Re: Women Waiting Tables Provide Most of Female Gains in U.S.
Senate Republicans Block Another Jobs Bill, Face Backlash From American Public
Senate Republicans Block Another Jobs Bill, Face Backlash From American Public
Re: Women Waiting Tables Provide Most of Female Gains in U.S.
Well, you're nothing if not consistent, and you're barely that.
Businesses cut full-time workers to meet Obamacare mandate, study says
Businesses cut full-time workers to meet Obamacare mandate, study says
A study of small businesses found that many are cutting full-time workers or worker hours to comply with Obamacare. Franchises are making the biggest cuts.
By Mark Trumbull | Christian Science Monitor
6 hrs ago
First, President Obama had to backtrack from his promise that if you like your health insurance plan, under Obamacare "you can keep it." Now, a new study is suggesting that, under Obamacare, "If you like your workweek, you can’t necessarily keep it, either."
About 30 percent of small franchises and 12 percent of other small businesses say they are cutting work hours – or swapping full-time for part-time workers – because of the law, according to a poll sponsored by business groups.
The moves are part of a bid to control health-care expenses, and they are a sign of how the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was designed to greatly expand the number of Americans who have health insurance, could be having some unintended consequences in the job market.
A key Obamacare incentive is an “employer mandate” that asks businesses to sponsor health insurance (or pay a penalty) if they have more than 50 full-time employees. It defines a full-time worker as one serving 30 or more hours per week. So a firm can avoid the mandate by having fewer than 50 people working full-time.
Although the provision won’t be enforced until 2015, some employers with 40 to 500 workers have already started adjusting for the new landscape, the survey by Public Opinion Strategies found:
The poll arrives as Obamacare is already under attack for the botched rollout of its enrollment website, HealthCare.gov, and for insurance cancellations despite Mr. Obama’s pledge that if you like your health plan “you can keep it.”
Now, the business community is painting the workplace impact as a serious concern, and some labor groups have also voiced worry about the rise of the 29.5-hour workweek.
“Instead of providing affordable health care coverage to employees, the law will effectively take hours and wages away from Americans who need and want full-time jobs,” said Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the US Chamber of Commerce, in a statement accompanying the study. “That’s bad for businesses and their employees.”
It’s less clear, however, if the law is bad for workers’ health coverage.
Employers in some industries such as the restaurant business may feel pressed to follow suit when competitors drop health benefits. But in some cases, workers will gain access to Obamacare subsidies and be able to get coverage with much stronger benefits than their employer had been offering.
Basically, the ACA is a law that hinges on two “mandates,” one for individuals and one for employers. It calls on all individuals to have health insurance starting next year, or to pay a tax penalty. And come 2015, the “employer mandate” kicks in for firms with more than 50 full-time employees.
The arrival of the individual mandate – with enrollment starting this fall – means that part-time workers are eligible for Obamacare subsidies and the benefit plans now offered on state exchanges under labels like “silver” and “bronze.”
The poll surveyed more than 400 businesses with 40 to 500 employees – the ones most likely to be affected by the ACA. About half were franchises such as restaurant chains, and half were non-franchise businesses.
The number of firms polled is small relative to the vast and varied realm of US employers. Pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies told reporters he’s “comfortable” that his sample represents the “known universe” of firms in this size range.
Citing the challenge that the 30-hour cutoff represents for worker paychecks, the business groups that sponsored the poll are supporting legislation to lift the definition of a “full-time” week to 40 hours.
They say it will help more workers get ample paychecks. Critics of the idea say the move could still prompt firms to cut work hours to avoid the employer mandate, with the effects falling on people who currently work about 40 hours per week.
http://news.yahoo.com/businesses-cut-full-time-workers-meet-obamacare-mandate-011930832.html
Businesses cut full-time workers to meet Obamacare mandate, study says
A study of small businesses found that many are cutting full-time workers or worker hours to comply with Obamacare. Franchises are making the biggest cuts.
By Mark Trumbull | Christian Science Monitor
6 hrs ago
First, President Obama had to backtrack from his promise that if you like your health insurance plan, under Obamacare "you can keep it." Now, a new study is suggesting that, under Obamacare, "If you like your workweek, you can’t necessarily keep it, either."
About 30 percent of small franchises and 12 percent of other small businesses say they are cutting work hours – or swapping full-time for part-time workers – because of the law, according to a poll sponsored by business groups.
The moves are part of a bid to control health-care expenses, and they are a sign of how the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was designed to greatly expand the number of Americans who have health insurance, could be having some unintended consequences in the job market.
A key Obamacare incentive is an “employer mandate” that asks businesses to sponsor health insurance (or pay a penalty) if they have more than 50 full-time employees. It defines a full-time worker as one serving 30 or more hours per week. So a firm can avoid the mandate by having fewer than 50 people working full-time.
Although the provision won’t be enforced until 2015, some employers with 40 to 500 workers have already started adjusting for the new landscape, the survey by Public Opinion Strategies found:
- Some 31 percent of franchise businesses and 12 percent of non-franchise businesses say they have already reduced worker hours because of the law.
- About 27 percent of franchise businesses and 12 percent of non-franchise businesses have already replaced full-time workers with part-time employees because of the law.
- Some 41 percent of the non-franchise firms say they already see health-care costs rising because of the law.
The poll arrives as Obamacare is already under attack for the botched rollout of its enrollment website, HealthCare.gov, and for insurance cancellations despite Mr. Obama’s pledge that if you like your health plan “you can keep it.”
Now, the business community is painting the workplace impact as a serious concern, and some labor groups have also voiced worry about the rise of the 29.5-hour workweek.
“Instead of providing affordable health care coverage to employees, the law will effectively take hours and wages away from Americans who need and want full-time jobs,” said Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the US Chamber of Commerce, in a statement accompanying the study. “That’s bad for businesses and their employees.”
It’s less clear, however, if the law is bad for workers’ health coverage.
Employers in some industries such as the restaurant business may feel pressed to follow suit when competitors drop health benefits. But in some cases, workers will gain access to Obamacare subsidies and be able to get coverage with much stronger benefits than their employer had been offering.
Basically, the ACA is a law that hinges on two “mandates,” one for individuals and one for employers. It calls on all individuals to have health insurance starting next year, or to pay a tax penalty. And come 2015, the “employer mandate” kicks in for firms with more than 50 full-time employees.
The arrival of the individual mandate – with enrollment starting this fall – means that part-time workers are eligible for Obamacare subsidies and the benefit plans now offered on state exchanges under labels like “silver” and “bronze.”
The poll surveyed more than 400 businesses with 40 to 500 employees – the ones most likely to be affected by the ACA. About half were franchises such as restaurant chains, and half were non-franchise businesses.
The number of firms polled is small relative to the vast and varied realm of US employers. Pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies told reporters he’s “comfortable” that his sample represents the “known universe” of firms in this size range.
Citing the challenge that the 30-hour cutoff represents for worker paychecks, the business groups that sponsored the poll are supporting legislation to lift the definition of a “full-time” week to 40 hours.
They say it will help more workers get ample paychecks. Critics of the idea say the move could still prompt firms to cut work hours to avoid the employer mandate, with the effects falling on people who currently work about 40 hours per week.
http://news.yahoo.com/businesses-cut-full-time-workers-meet-obamacare-mandate-011930832.html
Re: Businesses cut full-time workers to meet Obamacare mandate, study says
Unemployment falls to 7%
SOURCE
Unemployment falls to 7%
The U.S. economy added 203,000 jobs in November. Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had predicted payroll gains of 183,000 jobs.
The unemployment rate fell to 7.0% -- the lowest level since November 2008, as more people said they got jobs and joined the labor force.
This is encouraging news for the 11 million Americans who remain unemployed. The job market has been improving for three years now, but at a frustratingly slow pace.
The hiring was broad based, with big gains for sectors that tend to pay low wages as well as those that offer higher salaries. While retailers, restaurants and bars all hired more workers, traditionally higher wage sectors boasted even stronger job growth.
For example, professional and business services added 35,000 jobs.
"This was a strong, good quality report, showing continuing momentum," said Deloitte's Chief Financial Officer Frank Friedman. Deloitte alone is planning to hire about 18,000 people this year in its tax auditing and consulting businesses.
"We're optimistic about 2014, and we continue to hire at a pretty robust pace."
The transportation and warehousing sector added 30,500 jobs, and health care added 28,000 jobs.
Meanwhile, manufacturers hired 27,000 workers and construction companies hired 17,000.
"This year started off lopsided -- low quality jobs were growing, but only in the last few months, the high quality jobs are coming back too," said Rajeev Dhawan, director of the Economic Forecasting Center at Georgia State University.
The federal government continued to cut jobs, but state and local governments more than made up for those losses, hiring 14,000 workers.
2013 is on track to be the best year for job creation since 2005, but the job market still has a long way to go until it's entirely healed from the recession.
Only about 63% of Americans over the age of 16 participate in the job market -- meaning they either have a job or are looking for one. That's nearly the lowest level since 1978, driven partly by Baby Boomers retiring, but also by workers who had simply given up hope after long and fruitless job searches.
The unemployment rate fell to 7.0% -- the lowest level since November 2008, as more people said they got jobs and joined the labor force.
This is encouraging news for the 11 million Americans who remain unemployed. The job market has been improving for three years now, but at a frustratingly slow pace.
The hiring was broad based, with big gains for sectors that tend to pay low wages as well as those that offer higher salaries. While retailers, restaurants and bars all hired more workers, traditionally higher wage sectors boasted even stronger job growth.
For example, professional and business services added 35,000 jobs.
"This was a strong, good quality report, showing continuing momentum," said Deloitte's Chief Financial Officer Frank Friedman. Deloitte alone is planning to hire about 18,000 people this year in its tax auditing and consulting businesses.
"We're optimistic about 2014, and we continue to hire at a pretty robust pace."
The transportation and warehousing sector added 30,500 jobs, and health care added 28,000 jobs.
Meanwhile, manufacturers hired 27,000 workers and construction companies hired 17,000.
"This year started off lopsided -- low quality jobs were growing, but only in the last few months, the high quality jobs are coming back too," said Rajeev Dhawan, director of the Economic Forecasting Center at Georgia State University.
The federal government continued to cut jobs, but state and local governments more than made up for those losses, hiring 14,000 workers.
2013 is on track to be the best year for job creation since 2005, but the job market still has a long way to go until it's entirely healed from the recession.
Only about 63% of Americans over the age of 16 participate in the job market -- meaning they either have a job or are looking for one. That's nearly the lowest level since 1978, driven partly by Baby Boomers retiring, but also by workers who had simply given up hope after long and fruitless job searches.
SOURCE
Why Kicking People Off Unemployment Benefits Might Lower the Unemployment Rate
Why Kicking People Off Unemployment Benefits Might Lower the Unemployment Rate
By Philip Bump | The Atlantic Wire
Fri, Dec 27, 2013
When over a million people who've been out of work for months lose their unemployment benefits tomorrow, it may actually lower the unemployment rate. But it won't only be because they suddenly were inspired to start filling out job applications and find gain employment. Instead, many people will just stop looking for work, if North Carolina's recent experience is any example.
According to November figures from House Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, over 1.3 million people will stop receiving unemployment insurance benefits on Saturday. The Washington Post made a map of the benefits lost as a function of state population — showing that New Jersey will be the most severely affected — but the map below tells the story well enough. Heavily populated states will see more people lose their benefits. And it's mostly in blue states: about 71 percent of those losing benefits live in states that voted for President Obama in 2012.
But notice that blip in North Carolina, the bare spot. That's because the state decided earlier this year to end benefits for the long-term unemployed (defined as those out of work for 27 weeks or longer) on July 1. That move affected some 70,000 people in the state.
This is the argument that's made: people have a disincentive to find jobs because of the unemployment insurance. End the insurance, give people the incentive to work. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul called the insurance a "disservice" to workers. And in the wake of North Carolina's move, unemployment did drop in the state. It was near 9.5 percent at the beginning of the year; now, it's around 7.5 percent.
But there isn't the direct line that people like Paul suggest. First of all, at least one study suggests that no significant disincentive actually exists. And as Business Insider reported earlier this month, yes, the unemployment rate in North Carolina dropped — but so did the size of the labor force. People in North Carolina stopped looking for jobs at a dramatic rate over the course of 2013. Since the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed divided by the size of the labor force, and since the labor force only includes people looking for jobs, the unemployment rate fell. The graph at right, via the Federal Reserve, shows the link between unemployment and labor force size in North Carolina. Blue is unemployment; red, labor force.
People in North Carolina did get new jobs, of course, but Business Insider, citing JP Morgan's chief economist, explains that this is in part thanks to "unemployed folks taking jobs for lower pay than they were waiting for." But, JP Morgan's Michael Feroli said, "the participation effect may be more important." You have to actively look for work to collect unemployment benefits, and without that push, it's easy for the long-term unemployed to lose hope.
If the benefits aren't restored nationally — a push Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he'll make as soon as Congress is back in session — another 1.9 million Americans could be kicked off of unemployment in the first six months of 2014. If that happens, you can expect the unemployment rate to drop. In part, because people finally got jobs. In part, because people took lower paying jobs than what they'd been expecting. And in part because people have given up, reducing the already-shrinking labor force to even lower levels.
http://news.yahoo.com/why-kicking-people-off-unemployment-benefits-might-lower-165638639.html
Why Kicking People Off Unemployment Benefits Might Lower the Unemployment Rate
By Philip Bump | The Atlantic Wire
Fri, Dec 27, 2013
When over a million people who've been out of work for months lose their unemployment benefits tomorrow, it may actually lower the unemployment rate. But it won't only be because they suddenly were inspired to start filling out job applications and find gain employment. Instead, many people will just stop looking for work, if North Carolina's recent experience is any example.
According to November figures from House Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, over 1.3 million people will stop receiving unemployment insurance benefits on Saturday. The Washington Post made a map of the benefits lost as a function of state population — showing that New Jersey will be the most severely affected — but the map below tells the story well enough. Heavily populated states will see more people lose their benefits. And it's mostly in blue states: about 71 percent of those losing benefits live in states that voted for President Obama in 2012.
But notice that blip in North Carolina, the bare spot. That's because the state decided earlier this year to end benefits for the long-term unemployed (defined as those out of work for 27 weeks or longer) on July 1. That move affected some 70,000 people in the state.
This is the argument that's made: people have a disincentive to find jobs because of the unemployment insurance. End the insurance, give people the incentive to work. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul called the insurance a "disservice" to workers. And in the wake of North Carolina's move, unemployment did drop in the state. It was near 9.5 percent at the beginning of the year; now, it's around 7.5 percent.
But there isn't the direct line that people like Paul suggest. First of all, at least one study suggests that no significant disincentive actually exists. And as Business Insider reported earlier this month, yes, the unemployment rate in North Carolina dropped — but so did the size of the labor force. People in North Carolina stopped looking for jobs at a dramatic rate over the course of 2013. Since the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed divided by the size of the labor force, and since the labor force only includes people looking for jobs, the unemployment rate fell. The graph at right, via the Federal Reserve, shows the link between unemployment and labor force size in North Carolina. Blue is unemployment; red, labor force.
People in North Carolina did get new jobs, of course, but Business Insider, citing JP Morgan's chief economist, explains that this is in part thanks to "unemployed folks taking jobs for lower pay than they were waiting for." But, JP Morgan's Michael Feroli said, "the participation effect may be more important." You have to actively look for work to collect unemployment benefits, and without that push, it's easy for the long-term unemployed to lose hope.
If the benefits aren't restored nationally — a push Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he'll make as soon as Congress is back in session — another 1.9 million Americans could be kicked off of unemployment in the first six months of 2014. If that happens, you can expect the unemployment rate to drop. In part, because people finally got jobs. In part, because people took lower paying jobs than what they'd been expecting. And in part because people have given up, reducing the already-shrinking labor force to even lower levels.
http://news.yahoo.com/why-kicking-people-off-unemployment-benefits-might-lower-165638639.html
Will surge of older workers take jobs from young?
Will surge of older workers take jobs from young?
By MATT SEDENSKY | Associated Press
Fri, Jan 3, 2014
CHICAGO (AP) — It's an assertion that has been accepted as fact by droves of the unemployed: Older people remaining on the job later in life are stealing jobs from young people.
One problem, many economists say: It isn't supported by a wisp of fact.
"We all cannot believe that we have been fighting this theory for more than 150 years," said April Yanyuan Wu, a research economist at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, who co-authored a paper last year on the subject.
The commonly accepted vision of a surge of workers looks like this: A young post-doctoral student dreams of a full-time teaching job at their university, but there are no openings. An 80-something professor who has remained on the job long past what's considered "normal" retirement is blamed.
The problem with that vision is that there are probably full-time teaching positions available elsewhere, or the person blocking the young grad student from the job is only 40 years old, economists say. Further, the veteran professor's decision to stay employed and productive may stir other job growth. He may bring research grants to his university allowing for other hiring, may take on assistants, and may be able to dine out and shop and fuel the economy more than if he weren't on the job.
None of that would have happened had he retired.
The theory Wu and other economists are fighting is known as "lump of labor," and it has maintained traction in the U.S., particularly in a climate of high unemployment. The theory dates to 1851 and says if a group enters the labor market — or in this case, remains in it beyond their normal retirement date — others will be unable to gain employment or will have their hours cut.
It's a line of thinking that has been used in the U.S. immigration debate and in Europe to validate early retirement programs, and it relies on a simple premise: That there are a fixed number of jobs available. In fact, most economists dispute this. When women entered the workforce, there weren't fewer jobs for men. The economy simply expanded.
The same is true with older workers, they argue.
"There's no evidence to support that increased employment by older people is going to hurt younger people in any way," said Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research and the co-author with Wu of "Are Aging Baby Boomers Squeezing Young Workers Out of Jobs?"
" It's not going to reduce their wages, it's not going to reduce their hours, it's not going to do anything bad to them," Munnell said.
Still, many remain unconvinced.
James Galbraith, a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin, has advocated for a temporary lowering of the age to qualify for Social Security and Medicare to allow older workers who don't want to remain on the job a way to exit and to spur openings for younger workers.
He doesn't buy the comparison of older workers to women entering the workforce and says others' arguments on older workers expanding the economy don't make sense when there are so many unemployed people. If there was a surplus of jobs, he said, there would be no problem with people working longer. But there isn't.
"I can't imagine how you could refute that. The older worker retires, the employer looks around and hires another worker," he said. "It's like refuting elementary arithmetic."
The perception has persisted, from prominent stories in The New York Times, Newsweek and other media outlets, to a pointed question to Rep. Nancy Pelosi last year by the NBC reporter Luke Russert, who asked whether her refusal to step out of the House leadership (and the similar decisions of other older lawmakers) was denying younger politicians a chance. A chorus of lawmakers around Pelosi muttered and shouted "discrimination," until the Democratic leader chimed in herself.
"Let's for a moment honor it as a legitimate question, although it's quite offensive," she said. "But you don't realize that, I guess."
The heart of Russert's question makes sense to many: If Pelosi doesn't give up her position, a younger person doesn't have a chance to take it. That viewpoint is repeated in countless workplaces around the country, where a younger person awaits a senior employee's departure for their chance to ascend.
In the microeconomic view of things, Pelosi remaining in her job at the age of 73 does deny others her district's seat in Congress or a chance to ascend to the leadership. But economists say the larger macroeconomic view gives a clearer picture: Having older people active and productive actually benefits all age groups, they say, and spurs the creation of more jobs.
Munnell and Wu analyzed Current Population Survey data to test for any changes in employment among those under 55 when those 55 and older worked in greater numbers. They found no evidence younger workers were losing work and in fact found the opposite: Greater employment, reduced unemployment and yielded higher wages.
Munnell said, outside of economists, the findings can be hard for people to understand when they think only of their own workplace.
"They just could not get in their heads this dynamism that is involved," she said. "You can't extrapolate from the experience of a single company to the economy as a whole."
Melissa Quercia, 35, a controller for a small information technology company in Phoenix, said she sees signs of the generational job battle all around her: jobs once taken by high schoolers now filled by seniors, college graduates who can't find work anywhere, the resulting dearth of experience of younger applicants. She doesn't see economists' arguments playing out. Older people staying on the job aren't spurring new jobs, because companies aren't investing in creating new positions, she said.
"It's really hard to retire right now, I understand that," she said. "But if the younger generation doesn't have a chance to get their foot in the door, then what?"
Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who edited a book on the subject for the National Bureau of Economic Research, said it's a frustrating reality of his profession: That those things he knows as facts are disputed by the populace.
"If you polled the average American they probably would think the opposite," he said. "There's a lot of things economists say that people don't get and this is just one of them."
http://news.yahoo.com/surge-older-workers-jobs-young-164512280.html
Will surge of older workers take jobs from young?
By MATT SEDENSKY | Associated Press
Fri, Jan 3, 2014
CHICAGO (AP) — It's an assertion that has been accepted as fact by droves of the unemployed: Older people remaining on the job later in life are stealing jobs from young people.
One problem, many economists say: It isn't supported by a wisp of fact.
"We all cannot believe that we have been fighting this theory for more than 150 years," said April Yanyuan Wu, a research economist at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, who co-authored a paper last year on the subject.
The commonly accepted vision of a surge of workers looks like this: A young post-doctoral student dreams of a full-time teaching job at their university, but there are no openings. An 80-something professor who has remained on the job long past what's considered "normal" retirement is blamed.
The problem with that vision is that there are probably full-time teaching positions available elsewhere, or the person blocking the young grad student from the job is only 40 years old, economists say. Further, the veteran professor's decision to stay employed and productive may stir other job growth. He may bring research grants to his university allowing for other hiring, may take on assistants, and may be able to dine out and shop and fuel the economy more than if he weren't on the job.
None of that would have happened had he retired.
The theory Wu and other economists are fighting is known as "lump of labor," and it has maintained traction in the U.S., particularly in a climate of high unemployment. The theory dates to 1851 and says if a group enters the labor market — or in this case, remains in it beyond their normal retirement date — others will be unable to gain employment or will have their hours cut.
It's a line of thinking that has been used in the U.S. immigration debate and in Europe to validate early retirement programs, and it relies on a simple premise: That there are a fixed number of jobs available. In fact, most economists dispute this. When women entered the workforce, there weren't fewer jobs for men. The economy simply expanded.
The same is true with older workers, they argue.
"There's no evidence to support that increased employment by older people is going to hurt younger people in any way," said Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research and the co-author with Wu of "Are Aging Baby Boomers Squeezing Young Workers Out of Jobs?"
" It's not going to reduce their wages, it's not going to reduce their hours, it's not going to do anything bad to them," Munnell said.
Still, many remain unconvinced.
James Galbraith, a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin, has advocated for a temporary lowering of the age to qualify for Social Security and Medicare to allow older workers who don't want to remain on the job a way to exit and to spur openings for younger workers.
He doesn't buy the comparison of older workers to women entering the workforce and says others' arguments on older workers expanding the economy don't make sense when there are so many unemployed people. If there was a surplus of jobs, he said, there would be no problem with people working longer. But there isn't.
"I can't imagine how you could refute that. The older worker retires, the employer looks around and hires another worker," he said. "It's like refuting elementary arithmetic."
The perception has persisted, from prominent stories in The New York Times, Newsweek and other media outlets, to a pointed question to Rep. Nancy Pelosi last year by the NBC reporter Luke Russert, who asked whether her refusal to step out of the House leadership (and the similar decisions of other older lawmakers) was denying younger politicians a chance. A chorus of lawmakers around Pelosi muttered and shouted "discrimination," until the Democratic leader chimed in herself.
"Let's for a moment honor it as a legitimate question, although it's quite offensive," she said. "But you don't realize that, I guess."
The heart of Russert's question makes sense to many: If Pelosi doesn't give up her position, a younger person doesn't have a chance to take it. That viewpoint is repeated in countless workplaces around the country, where a younger person awaits a senior employee's departure for their chance to ascend.
In the microeconomic view of things, Pelosi remaining in her job at the age of 73 does deny others her district's seat in Congress or a chance to ascend to the leadership. But economists say the larger macroeconomic view gives a clearer picture: Having older people active and productive actually benefits all age groups, they say, and spurs the creation of more jobs.
Munnell and Wu analyzed Current Population Survey data to test for any changes in employment among those under 55 when those 55 and older worked in greater numbers. They found no evidence younger workers were losing work and in fact found the opposite: Greater employment, reduced unemployment and yielded higher wages.
Munnell said, outside of economists, the findings can be hard for people to understand when they think only of their own workplace.
"They just could not get in their heads this dynamism that is involved," she said. "You can't extrapolate from the experience of a single company to the economy as a whole."
Melissa Quercia, 35, a controller for a small information technology company in Phoenix, said she sees signs of the generational job battle all around her: jobs once taken by high schoolers now filled by seniors, college graduates who can't find work anywhere, the resulting dearth of experience of younger applicants. She doesn't see economists' arguments playing out. Older people staying on the job aren't spurring new jobs, because companies aren't investing in creating new positions, she said.
"It's really hard to retire right now, I understand that," she said. "But if the younger generation doesn't have a chance to get their foot in the door, then what?"
Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who edited a book on the subject for the National Bureau of Economic Research, said it's a frustrating reality of his profession: That those things he knows as facts are disputed by the populace.
"If you polled the average American they probably would think the opposite," he said. "There's a lot of things economists say that people don't get and this is just one of them."
http://news.yahoo.com/surge-older-workers-jobs-young-164512280.html
GOP constituents also depend on jobless aid
GOP constituents also depend on jobless aid
By NICHOLAS RICCARDI | Associated Press
22 hrs ago
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) — When federal emergency unemployment benefits expired last month, the effects ran deep in a Colorado county marked by two exit ramps off Interstate 25 — one leading to the conservative religious group Focus on the Family, the other to the Fort Carson Army post.
Hardly a liberal bastion, El Paso County has the largest number of people in the state who lost unemployment benefits, and many aren't happy about it. Plenty of Republicans, too, depend on jobless aid that Republicans in Congress are hesitant to prolong. The ideological argument for standing against an extension of benefits — that the aid can ultimately make it harder to find work — meets a more complex reality where people live.
Democrats propose to extend the emergency benefits for people who have been or are about to be out of work for more than six months; Republicans are less inclined to take that step, particularly if it means the government borrows more money. The paralysis led to the expiration of benefits for 1.3 million long-term unemployed on Dec. 28. Lawmakers are still working on a compromise.
The standoff infuriates people such as Lita Ness, who lost her job as a civilian contractor at Peterson Air Force Base in August 2012 and just received her final check from the unemployment office.
"I'm registered as a Republican, but if they continue to use this not extending our (aid) I'm probably changing to Democrat," Ness, 58, said as she took a break from a computer training class at the Pikes Peak Workforce Center. "People in our district who vote 'No' on this, I'm not going to support them."
El Paso County is represented by Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn, a conservative who has objected to the extension of unemployment benefits unless they are fully paid for with money from elsewhere in the budget. "It's $6 billion, doesn't do anything to create jobs," Lamborn's spokesman, Jarred Rego, said of the Democrats' proposal. "House Republicans remain focused on creating jobs and improving the economy."
The overwhelmingly Republican district is considered a safe one for Lamborn. The lone Democrat who has announced a challenge, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Irv Halter, accused Lamborn of indifference to his constituents. "This is just another example of Congressman Lamborn being out of touch," Halter said in a statement.
There are no data showing the political affiliation of people who lost their emergency jobless benefits or tracking them by congressional district. Democratic staff on the House Ways and Means Committee crunched their own data from 20 states to demonstrate that jobless benefits have a bipartisan reach. They claim conservative stalwarts such as John Fleming in Louisiana and Michele Bachmann in Minnesota represent districts with disproportionately high percentages of people who drew the emergency benefits.
Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington, said those who lost benefits are "just a cross-section of the unemployed. They're not going to be predominantly Democratic or predominantly Republican. They're just going to be workers who had the bad luck to lose a job in the worst recession we've had in 70 years."
Economists say the longer-term unemployed tend to be older — a slice of the population that has become more supportive of Republicans in recent elections. Older workers may be more reluctant than younger ones to change fields of employment and surrender the advantages of years of experience.
Lengthy unemployment aid can exacerbate this problem by making it easier for those on aid to hold out for jobs that are similar to the ones they lost, said James Sherk, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "As the benefits draw down, they expand their search to jobs they wouldn't consider before," Sherk said. "But it's going to be a lot harder for them to find a job with one year out of work than with three months out of work."
"There's just a lot of places where workers are going to have to make wrenching decisions," Sherk said.
El Paso County spreads out beneath Pikes Peak to the arid high plains that stretch toward Kansas. It is dominated by conservative Colorado Springs and its surrounding military facilities, which include the Air Force Academy, NORAD and Fort Carson. The area's aerospace and defense industry was hit hard by last year's automatic cuts in federal spending, which economists blame for aggravating a persistent joblessness problem.
At the workforce center, desperation for help co-exists with the area's self-reliant conservative ethos.
One Army veteran who has been unemployed since his discharge last year rushed into the center after hearing his benefits may expire shortly. "If it gets cut off, it's nothing I'm ready for," said the man, who refused to give his name, fearing people would learn he's getting jobless aid. "I understand, you can't keep people on it forever. It's important to get people working."
Others feel that after having contributed to society, they are now being abandoned by the government. "I paid my taxes. I've helped people my whole life," said Barbara Greene, 59, who lost her job as a medical secretary in a hospital last year and expects her jobless benefits to end in March, "and now they're just throwing me to the side."
Ness started working as a maid at age 16. She spent her last 17 years in the labor force working in logistics and acquisitions at the Air Force base. For the past 17 months she's been unable to find a job that comes close to what she had. The only positions she's been offered interviews for are in call centers and pay about $9 an hour — less than she made three decades ago. She's been stunned at how "incredibly competitive" the job market is now.
"I find it very offensive when they say people on unemployment are just milking it," Ness said. "I'm not a big fan of rejection and I get rejected every day."
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-constituents-depend-jobless-aid-083303141.html
GOP constituents also depend on jobless aid
By NICHOLAS RICCARDI | Associated Press
22 hrs ago
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) — When federal emergency unemployment benefits expired last month, the effects ran deep in a Colorado county marked by two exit ramps off Interstate 25 — one leading to the conservative religious group Focus on the Family, the other to the Fort Carson Army post.
Hardly a liberal bastion, El Paso County has the largest number of people in the state who lost unemployment benefits, and many aren't happy about it. Plenty of Republicans, too, depend on jobless aid that Republicans in Congress are hesitant to prolong. The ideological argument for standing against an extension of benefits — that the aid can ultimately make it harder to find work — meets a more complex reality where people live.
Democrats propose to extend the emergency benefits for people who have been or are about to be out of work for more than six months; Republicans are less inclined to take that step, particularly if it means the government borrows more money. The paralysis led to the expiration of benefits for 1.3 million long-term unemployed on Dec. 28. Lawmakers are still working on a compromise.
The standoff infuriates people such as Lita Ness, who lost her job as a civilian contractor at Peterson Air Force Base in August 2012 and just received her final check from the unemployment office.
"I'm registered as a Republican, but if they continue to use this not extending our (aid) I'm probably changing to Democrat," Ness, 58, said as she took a break from a computer training class at the Pikes Peak Workforce Center. "People in our district who vote 'No' on this, I'm not going to support them."
El Paso County is represented by Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn, a conservative who has objected to the extension of unemployment benefits unless they are fully paid for with money from elsewhere in the budget. "It's $6 billion, doesn't do anything to create jobs," Lamborn's spokesman, Jarred Rego, said of the Democrats' proposal. "House Republicans remain focused on creating jobs and improving the economy."
The overwhelmingly Republican district is considered a safe one for Lamborn. The lone Democrat who has announced a challenge, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Irv Halter, accused Lamborn of indifference to his constituents. "This is just another example of Congressman Lamborn being out of touch," Halter said in a statement.
There are no data showing the political affiliation of people who lost their emergency jobless benefits or tracking them by congressional district. Democratic staff on the House Ways and Means Committee crunched their own data from 20 states to demonstrate that jobless benefits have a bipartisan reach. They claim conservative stalwarts such as John Fleming in Louisiana and Michele Bachmann in Minnesota represent districts with disproportionately high percentages of people who drew the emergency benefits.
Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington, said those who lost benefits are "just a cross-section of the unemployed. They're not going to be predominantly Democratic or predominantly Republican. They're just going to be workers who had the bad luck to lose a job in the worst recession we've had in 70 years."
Economists say the longer-term unemployed tend to be older — a slice of the population that has become more supportive of Republicans in recent elections. Older workers may be more reluctant than younger ones to change fields of employment and surrender the advantages of years of experience.
Lengthy unemployment aid can exacerbate this problem by making it easier for those on aid to hold out for jobs that are similar to the ones they lost, said James Sherk, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "As the benefits draw down, they expand their search to jobs they wouldn't consider before," Sherk said. "But it's going to be a lot harder for them to find a job with one year out of work than with three months out of work."
"There's just a lot of places where workers are going to have to make wrenching decisions," Sherk said.
El Paso County spreads out beneath Pikes Peak to the arid high plains that stretch toward Kansas. It is dominated by conservative Colorado Springs and its surrounding military facilities, which include the Air Force Academy, NORAD and Fort Carson. The area's aerospace and defense industry was hit hard by last year's automatic cuts in federal spending, which economists blame for aggravating a persistent joblessness problem.
At the workforce center, desperation for help co-exists with the area's self-reliant conservative ethos.
One Army veteran who has been unemployed since his discharge last year rushed into the center after hearing his benefits may expire shortly. "If it gets cut off, it's nothing I'm ready for," said the man, who refused to give his name, fearing people would learn he's getting jobless aid. "I understand, you can't keep people on it forever. It's important to get people working."
Others feel that after having contributed to society, they are now being abandoned by the government. "I paid my taxes. I've helped people my whole life," said Barbara Greene, 59, who lost her job as a medical secretary in a hospital last year and expects her jobless benefits to end in March, "and now they're just throwing me to the side."
Ness started working as a maid at age 16. She spent her last 17 years in the labor force working in logistics and acquisitions at the Air Force base. For the past 17 months she's been unable to find a job that comes close to what she had. The only positions she's been offered interviews for are in call centers and pay about $9 an hour — less than she made three decades ago. She's been stunned at how "incredibly competitive" the job market is now.
"I find it very offensive when they say people on unemployment are just milking it," Ness said. "I'm not a big fan of rejection and I get rejected every day."
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-constituents-depend-jobless-aid-083303141.html
Obama Recovery Fails to Resonate as Americans Left Behind
Obama Recovery Fails to Resonate as Americans Left Behind
By David J. Lynch
Jan 22, 2014 11:01 PM CT
Just as the world’s largest economy is finally getting better, the public’s opinion of President Barack Obama’s handling of it is getting worse.
The U.S. economy wrapped up its best six-month performance since the recession ended, according to estimates by economists at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Morgan Stanley. And the jobless rate is below 7 percent for the first time since 2008.
Yet Obama will carry into next week’s State of the Union address weakening approval ratings on the economy. What’s happening, Republicans and some Democrats say, is that voters left behind in the recovery now blame him and not his predecessor, George W. Bush, and could punish Obama’s fellow Democrats in this year’s congressional elections.
“At some point, the president is going to start owning the economy,” said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a Democratic-leaning research group. “It could be we’re at that point.”
In a Bloomberg National Poll last month, 58 percent of Americans disapproved of Obama’s economic stewardship, his worst showing since September 2011. Surveys by the Wall Street Journal/NBC News and Quinnipiac University show similar results.
At the root of the dissatisfaction are flat-lining household income and a jobs market that still hasn’t fully recovered from the worst recession in seven decades.
The contrast between improving growth and deteriorating presidential approval frustrates some White House allies, who say Obama and Democratic House and Senate candidates need to convince voters things are looking up.
“The president and the Democrats have to do much more,” Rosenberg said. “They have to make the case better. They’re losing the argument.”
Same Feeling
The issue is more than political. For many families, the recovery doesn’t feel much different than the recession. Real median household income of $51,000 is 8 percent lower than in 2007. Almost 4 million people have been out of work for more than six months, three times the pre-recession average. One-third of black men aren’t even in the labor force, the highest mark since records began in 1972. And there are fewer people with jobs in the U.S. today than six years ago.
Amid such distress, voters give the president little credit for the economic turnaround since March 2009 that’s reflected in the gain of some 170 percent in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.
One indication of Obama’s limited coattails came last week during a presidential visit to North Carolina, where he toured a manufacturing-innovation institute.
Democratic Senator Kay Hagan, who faces a tough re-election fight in a state with 7.4 percent unemployment, opted to remain in Washington rather than accompany the president.
Present Policies
By 49 percent to 41 percent, voters now blame “policies of the present” rather than “policies of the past” for their economic problems, a reversal from a year earlier, according to David Winston, a Republican pollster.
Black Americans, Obama’s most loyal supporters, are among the hardest hit by the uneven recovery.
Curtis Clark, 56, of Detroit lost his $32,000-a-year job as a records clerk for an accounting firm two-and-a-half years ago. His unemployment benefits ran out in January 2013, and he has tapped his retirement savings to pay the bills. Less than one-third of his $100,000 lump-sum payment remains.
Clark was among the almost 20 percent of black workers who were unemployed at some point last year, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Though he remains an Obama supporter, he’s frustrated with political bickering in Washington.
“I would like to see the unemployed people not treated as a stigma,” he said. “It’s not like it’s our fault. You got to help the people or else nothing’s going to work.”
74,000 Jobs
The economy created just 74,000 jobs in December. Only 62.8 percent of working-age Americans are employed or actively seeking work, the lowest mark since February 1978.
A mix of baby boomer retirements and job-seeker discouragement is behind the slump in labor force participation, economists say.
An April, 2013 Boston Fed study blamed “cyclical factors” for the labor-participation decline since 2007. A later study by economist Shigeru Fujita of the Philadelphia Fed concluded that retirements of baby boomers -- those born between 1946 and 1964 -- explained the entire drop since the first quarter of 2012.
“It is misleading to attribute the decline in the unemployment rate in the last few years to discouragement,” Fujita wrote.
Puzzling Data
Jim O’Sullivan, chief U.S. economist for High-Frequency Economics, says the data are puzzling. The participation rate dropped in the past six months as much as it did in the previous 21 months even as other indicators flashed improvement. An index of small businesses reporting hard-to-fill job openings is at its highest level since January 2008, when the jobless rate was 5 percent, showing workers are in demand.
“Why would they be dropping out?” O’Sullivan said. “The labor market is clearly better than 12 months ago. It doesn’t make sense.”
The government says the number of “discouraged workers” - - those not looking for work because they believe none is available -- was 151,000 lower in December than a year earlier.
Still, the jobs being created are disproportionately in low-wage sectors, such as hospitality. Half the 2.2 million jobs generated last year were in occupations with wages that didn’t keep pace with inflation, according to an analysis by Daniel Alpert, managing partner at Westwood Capital LLC in New York.
Republican Opportunity
For Republicans, there’s opportunity -- and peril -- in the labor force erosion.
“The president’s taken his eye off the ball,” House Speaker John Boehner said on Jan. 14. Republicans will campaign this year on jobs and Obama’s health-insurance overhaul, Boehner told reporters.
The botched introduction of the government’s health-care website has prompted voters to reassess Obama’s policies across the board, pollster Winston said.
“Health care is the tip of the iceberg, but the rest of the iceberg is the economy,” he said.
The danger for Republicans is that they’ve resisted moves to address the plight of the jobless. Senate Republicans last week blocked a $6.4 billion extension of unemployment insurance for 1.3 million people whose benefits had expired.
Winston says an annual party retreat at the end of this month may fill in the blanks.
‘Be Patient’
That would be welcome news for Karl Walden, 56, a former preschool manager in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Both he and his wife, Carmen, a mortgage executive, lost their jobs 17 months ago. She returned to work after seven months. Karl, who cares for his octogenarian mother and uncle, says he has applied for about 300 positions and has gotten five interviews.
He’s enrolled in a program called Platform to Employment, a public-private partnership that helps the long-term jobless find work by providing training and temporary wage subsidies.
“They’re telling me just be patient, things will get better,” he says. “But it’s tough to be patient.”
There are reasons for optimism. Despite December’s disappointing employment report, companies last year created more than 180,000 jobs per month. The economy has been growing at or above its historical trend for the past three months, according to the Chicago Fed National Activity Index.
Previous bursts of strength have fizzled, however, so Obama, who delivers his State of the Union message on Jan. 28, walks a fine line in his public remarks. He takes credit for rescuing the economy from the recession and predicts this could be a “breakthrough year” while acknowledging the plight of those still idle.
“The economy’s improving,” he said at the White House last week, “but it can be improving even faster.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-economy-s-downside-amid-signs-of-growth.html
Obama Recovery Fails to Resonate as Americans Left Behind
By David J. Lynch
Jan 22, 2014 11:01 PM CT
Just as the world’s largest economy is finally getting better, the public’s opinion of President Barack Obama’s handling of it is getting worse.
The U.S. economy wrapped up its best six-month performance since the recession ended, according to estimates by economists at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Morgan Stanley. And the jobless rate is below 7 percent for the first time since 2008.
Yet Obama will carry into next week’s State of the Union address weakening approval ratings on the economy. What’s happening, Republicans and some Democrats say, is that voters left behind in the recovery now blame him and not his predecessor, George W. Bush, and could punish Obama’s fellow Democrats in this year’s congressional elections.
“At some point, the president is going to start owning the economy,” said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a Democratic-leaning research group. “It could be we’re at that point.”
In a Bloomberg National Poll last month, 58 percent of Americans disapproved of Obama’s economic stewardship, his worst showing since September 2011. Surveys by the Wall Street Journal/NBC News and Quinnipiac University show similar results.
At the root of the dissatisfaction are flat-lining household income and a jobs market that still hasn’t fully recovered from the worst recession in seven decades.
The contrast between improving growth and deteriorating presidential approval frustrates some White House allies, who say Obama and Democratic House and Senate candidates need to convince voters things are looking up.
“The president and the Democrats have to do much more,” Rosenberg said. “They have to make the case better. They’re losing the argument.”
Same Feeling
The issue is more than political. For many families, the recovery doesn’t feel much different than the recession. Real median household income of $51,000 is 8 percent lower than in 2007. Almost 4 million people have been out of work for more than six months, three times the pre-recession average. One-third of black men aren’t even in the labor force, the highest mark since records began in 1972. And there are fewer people with jobs in the U.S. today than six years ago.
Amid such distress, voters give the president little credit for the economic turnaround since March 2009 that’s reflected in the gain of some 170 percent in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.
One indication of Obama’s limited coattails came last week during a presidential visit to North Carolina, where he toured a manufacturing-innovation institute.
Democratic Senator Kay Hagan, who faces a tough re-election fight in a state with 7.4 percent unemployment, opted to remain in Washington rather than accompany the president.
Present Policies
By 49 percent to 41 percent, voters now blame “policies of the present” rather than “policies of the past” for their economic problems, a reversal from a year earlier, according to David Winston, a Republican pollster.
Black Americans, Obama’s most loyal supporters, are among the hardest hit by the uneven recovery.
Curtis Clark, 56, of Detroit lost his $32,000-a-year job as a records clerk for an accounting firm two-and-a-half years ago. His unemployment benefits ran out in January 2013, and he has tapped his retirement savings to pay the bills. Less than one-third of his $100,000 lump-sum payment remains.
Clark was among the almost 20 percent of black workers who were unemployed at some point last year, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Though he remains an Obama supporter, he’s frustrated with political bickering in Washington.
“I would like to see the unemployed people not treated as a stigma,” he said. “It’s not like it’s our fault. You got to help the people or else nothing’s going to work.”
74,000 Jobs
The economy created just 74,000 jobs in December. Only 62.8 percent of working-age Americans are employed or actively seeking work, the lowest mark since February 1978.
A mix of baby boomer retirements and job-seeker discouragement is behind the slump in labor force participation, economists say.
An April, 2013 Boston Fed study blamed “cyclical factors” for the labor-participation decline since 2007. A later study by economist Shigeru Fujita of the Philadelphia Fed concluded that retirements of baby boomers -- those born between 1946 and 1964 -- explained the entire drop since the first quarter of 2012.
“It is misleading to attribute the decline in the unemployment rate in the last few years to discouragement,” Fujita wrote.
Puzzling Data
Jim O’Sullivan, chief U.S. economist for High-Frequency Economics, says the data are puzzling. The participation rate dropped in the past six months as much as it did in the previous 21 months even as other indicators flashed improvement. An index of small businesses reporting hard-to-fill job openings is at its highest level since January 2008, when the jobless rate was 5 percent, showing workers are in demand.
“Why would they be dropping out?” O’Sullivan said. “The labor market is clearly better than 12 months ago. It doesn’t make sense.”
The government says the number of “discouraged workers” - - those not looking for work because they believe none is available -- was 151,000 lower in December than a year earlier.
Still, the jobs being created are disproportionately in low-wage sectors, such as hospitality. Half the 2.2 million jobs generated last year were in occupations with wages that didn’t keep pace with inflation, according to an analysis by Daniel Alpert, managing partner at Westwood Capital LLC in New York.
Republican Opportunity
For Republicans, there’s opportunity -- and peril -- in the labor force erosion.
“The president’s taken his eye off the ball,” House Speaker John Boehner said on Jan. 14. Republicans will campaign this year on jobs and Obama’s health-insurance overhaul, Boehner told reporters.
The botched introduction of the government’s health-care website has prompted voters to reassess Obama’s policies across the board, pollster Winston said.
“Health care is the tip of the iceberg, but the rest of the iceberg is the economy,” he said.
The danger for Republicans is that they’ve resisted moves to address the plight of the jobless. Senate Republicans last week blocked a $6.4 billion extension of unemployment insurance for 1.3 million people whose benefits had expired.
Winston says an annual party retreat at the end of this month may fill in the blanks.
‘Be Patient’
That would be welcome news for Karl Walden, 56, a former preschool manager in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Both he and his wife, Carmen, a mortgage executive, lost their jobs 17 months ago. She returned to work after seven months. Karl, who cares for his octogenarian mother and uncle, says he has applied for about 300 positions and has gotten five interviews.
He’s enrolled in a program called Platform to Employment, a public-private partnership that helps the long-term jobless find work by providing training and temporary wage subsidies.
“They’re telling me just be patient, things will get better,” he says. “But it’s tough to be patient.”
There are reasons for optimism. Despite December’s disappointing employment report, companies last year created more than 180,000 jobs per month. The economy has been growing at or above its historical trend for the past three months, according to the Chicago Fed National Activity Index.
Previous bursts of strength have fizzled, however, so Obama, who delivers his State of the Union message on Jan. 28, walks a fine line in his public remarks. He takes credit for rescuing the economy from the recession and predicts this could be a “breakthrough year” while acknowledging the plight of those still idle.
“The economy’s improving,” he said at the White House last week, “but it can be improving even faster.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-economy-s-downside-amid-signs-of-growth.html
32 states trail US as a whole in job recovery
32 states trail US as a whole in job recovery
By PAUL WISEMAN
July 2, 2014 5:16 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — Five years after the Great Recession officially ended, most states still haven't regained all the jobs they lost, even though the nation as a whole has.
In May, the overall economy finally recovered all 9 million jobs that vanished in the worst downturn since the 1930s. Another month of solid hiring is expected in the U.S. jobs report for June that will be released Thursday.
Yet 32 states still have fewer jobs than when the recession began in December 2007 — evidence of the unevenness and persistently slow pace of the recovery.
Even though economists declared the recession over in June 2009, Illinois is still down 184,000 jobs from pre-recession levels. New Jersey is down 147,000. Both states were hurt by layoffs at factories. Florida is down 170,000 in the aftermath of its real estate market collapse.
The sluggish job market could weigh on voters in some key states when they go to the polls this fall. A Quinnipiac University poll out Wednesday found that voters named the economy by far the biggest problem facing the United States.
The states where hiring lags the most tend to be those that were hit most painfully by the recession: They lost so many jobs that they've struggled to replace them all.
Nevada, which suffered a spectacular real estate bust and four years of double-digit unemployment — has fared worst. It has 6 percent fewer jobs than it did in December 2007. Arizona, also slammed by the housing collapse, is 5 percent short.
By contrast, an energy boom has lifted several states to the top of job creation rankings.
"North Dakota is the No. 1 example," says Dan White, senior economist at Moody's Analytics. "It's like its own little gold rush."
North Dakota has added 100,000 jobs since December 2007 — a stunning 28 percent increase, by far the nation's highest. The state has benefited from technology that allows energy companies to extract oil from shale, sedimentary rock formed by the compression of clay and silt.
Not surprisingly, the capital of North Dakota, Bismarck, has the lowest unemployment rate of any American city: 2.2 percent as of May.
Mark and Valerie Luna and their eight children had been struggling in Arizona when they heard on television about North Dakota's prosperity and decided to move there in 2010.
"It was becoming like the Great Depression in Arizona," Valerie Luna said. "We were tired of seeing our friends lose their houses and their businesses."
Mark, 40, a laid-off electrician, and Valerie, 37, a corrections officer, immediately found work in North Dakota. He took a job as an electrician, she at an insurance company.
But Mark always had a dream of opening a Mexican restaurant, and Bismarck was ripe for one. Los Lunas Authentic Mexican Food opened last year.
On Wednesday, Mark Luna was busy in the kitchen and had no time for talking. Orders for his homemade tamales, chimichangas, enchiladas were stacking up.
"Business," he said, "is good. Real good."
Another state benefiting from the energy boom is Texas, which has added more than 1 million jobs since December 2007, an increase of nearly 10 percent. For comparison, the nation as a whole has added only a net 113,000 jobs over that period.
Jobs in Washington D.C., where lobbying is an all but recession-proof occupation, are up 49,000, or 7 percent. The gain was led by a 10 percent increase in hiring by private employers.
Wall Street's recovery from the financial crisis has helped New York gain 237,000 jobs since the recession ended, an increase of nearly 3 percent.
Moody's White says many states are struggling because the recession wiped out solid middle-class jobs — in manufacturing and construction — that haven't returned. He says it will take a stronger housing recovery to put significantly more people back to work building houses, installing wiring and plumbing and selling furniture and appliances to new owners of homes.
Housing has rebounded somewhat since bottoming a couple of years ago. But the industry's recovery has slowed. Home construction is running at barely half the pace of the early and mid-2000s. And the United States has lost nearly 1.5 million construction workers since the end of 2007 — a 20 percent plunge. Nevada has lost half its construction workforce.
Factories have added 105,000 jobs over the past year, but manufacturing payrolls remain down 1.6 million, or 12 percent, since the start of the recession. Manufacturing jobs in Michigan hit bottom in June 2009. But the state still has 45,000, or 7 percent, fewer factory workers than it did in December 2007.
https://news.yahoo.com/32-states-trail-us-whole-job-recovery-175341059--finance.html
32 states trail US as a whole in job recovery
By PAUL WISEMAN
July 2, 2014 5:16 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — Five years after the Great Recession officially ended, most states still haven't regained all the jobs they lost, even though the nation as a whole has.
In May, the overall economy finally recovered all 9 million jobs that vanished in the worst downturn since the 1930s. Another month of solid hiring is expected in the U.S. jobs report for June that will be released Thursday.
Yet 32 states still have fewer jobs than when the recession began in December 2007 — evidence of the unevenness and persistently slow pace of the recovery.
Even though economists declared the recession over in June 2009, Illinois is still down 184,000 jobs from pre-recession levels. New Jersey is down 147,000. Both states were hurt by layoffs at factories. Florida is down 170,000 in the aftermath of its real estate market collapse.
The sluggish job market could weigh on voters in some key states when they go to the polls this fall. A Quinnipiac University poll out Wednesday found that voters named the economy by far the biggest problem facing the United States.
The states where hiring lags the most tend to be those that were hit most painfully by the recession: They lost so many jobs that they've struggled to replace them all.
Nevada, which suffered a spectacular real estate bust and four years of double-digit unemployment — has fared worst. It has 6 percent fewer jobs than it did in December 2007. Arizona, also slammed by the housing collapse, is 5 percent short.
By contrast, an energy boom has lifted several states to the top of job creation rankings.
"North Dakota is the No. 1 example," says Dan White, senior economist at Moody's Analytics. "It's like its own little gold rush."
North Dakota has added 100,000 jobs since December 2007 — a stunning 28 percent increase, by far the nation's highest. The state has benefited from technology that allows energy companies to extract oil from shale, sedimentary rock formed by the compression of clay and silt.
Not surprisingly, the capital of North Dakota, Bismarck, has the lowest unemployment rate of any American city: 2.2 percent as of May.
Mark and Valerie Luna and their eight children had been struggling in Arizona when they heard on television about North Dakota's prosperity and decided to move there in 2010.
"It was becoming like the Great Depression in Arizona," Valerie Luna said. "We were tired of seeing our friends lose their houses and their businesses."
Mark, 40, a laid-off electrician, and Valerie, 37, a corrections officer, immediately found work in North Dakota. He took a job as an electrician, she at an insurance company.
But Mark always had a dream of opening a Mexican restaurant, and Bismarck was ripe for one. Los Lunas Authentic Mexican Food opened last year.
On Wednesday, Mark Luna was busy in the kitchen and had no time for talking. Orders for his homemade tamales, chimichangas, enchiladas were stacking up.
"Business," he said, "is good. Real good."
Another state benefiting from the energy boom is Texas, which has added more than 1 million jobs since December 2007, an increase of nearly 10 percent. For comparison, the nation as a whole has added only a net 113,000 jobs over that period.
Jobs in Washington D.C., where lobbying is an all but recession-proof occupation, are up 49,000, or 7 percent. The gain was led by a 10 percent increase in hiring by private employers.
Wall Street's recovery from the financial crisis has helped New York gain 237,000 jobs since the recession ended, an increase of nearly 3 percent.
Moody's White says many states are struggling because the recession wiped out solid middle-class jobs — in manufacturing and construction — that haven't returned. He says it will take a stronger housing recovery to put significantly more people back to work building houses, installing wiring and plumbing and selling furniture and appliances to new owners of homes.
Housing has rebounded somewhat since bottoming a couple of years ago. But the industry's recovery has slowed. Home construction is running at barely half the pace of the early and mid-2000s. And the United States has lost nearly 1.5 million construction workers since the end of 2007 — a 20 percent plunge. Nevada has lost half its construction workforce.
Factories have added 105,000 jobs over the past year, but manufacturing payrolls remain down 1.6 million, or 12 percent, since the start of the recession. Manufacturing jobs in Michigan hit bottom in June 2009. But the state still has 45,000, or 7 percent, fewer factory workers than it did in December 2007.
https://news.yahoo.com/32-states-trail-us-whole-job-recovery-175341059--finance.html
Rise in part-time workers worries some experts
Rise in part-time workers worries some experts
Paul Davidson, USA TODAY
11:09 a.m. EDT July 6, 2014
Economists have few concerns about the number of workers employers are hiring this year, with the government reporting Friday that the economy added a surprising 288,000 jobs in June.
The number of hours employees are working?
That's a different story.
Among the few worrisome signs in Friday's generally encouraging employment report was a sharp rise in the number of part-time workers who prefer full-time jobs. The total jumped by 275,000 to 7.5 million, the Labor Department said.
Monthly changes in the jobs data are volatile and the ranks of so-called involuntary part-time workers fell by 196,000 the previous month. Still, June's total is the highest this year. Since the recovery began five years ago, the drop in the number of these part-time workers had been tracing the decline in the overall unemployment rate, but it has lagged so far this year, says Jim O'Sullivan, chief U.S. economist of High Frequency Economics.
The high number of involuntary part-time workers is consistent with an average workweek that was unchanged at 34.5 hours for the fourth straight month in June, says Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist of The Economic Outlook Group.
"It stands to reason that if the economy is improving, we would see employees put in more time on the job," Baumohl says. "This is usually a leading indicator of both future hiring and pay increases."
Instead, he notes, the economy has been running in place this year. Second-quarter growth will likely offset a 2.9% first-quarter contraction caused partly by bad weather.
Baumohl also cites a shift in the labor market, with employers increasingly using part-time and temporary workers to handle short-term projects. "Companies view labor more as inventory that is to be hired when they need it and let go when they don't need it."
The Affordable Care Act, which requires firms with at least 50 employees to provide health insurance to those working at least 30 hours, also could be prompting some businesses to hire more part-time workers, O'Sullivan says.
Baumohl says the shift toward part-time work is a big reason wage gains remain modest. In June, average wages were up just 2% over the previous 12 months.
O'Sullivan is more bullish. Despite the recent increase, he says, the number of involuntary part-time workers has fallen by 650,000 the past year. And he downplays concerns over the stable workweek. Employers, he says, simply may have squeezed all they can from workers and must hire to meet new demand.
Citing average monthly job gains of 231,000 so far this year, O'Sullivan says: "It's pretty unambiguous — the labor market is improving."
He also expects wage growth to accelerate. He pointed to a survey released last week by the National Federation of Independent Business that shows 24% of small businesses had openings they couldn't fill last month — the highest since 2007.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/06/part-time-workers/12185871/
Rise in part-time workers worries some experts
Paul Davidson, USA TODAY
11:09 a.m. EDT July 6, 2014
Economists have few concerns about the number of workers employers are hiring this year, with the government reporting Friday that the economy added a surprising 288,000 jobs in June.
The number of hours employees are working?
That's a different story.
Among the few worrisome signs in Friday's generally encouraging employment report was a sharp rise in the number of part-time workers who prefer full-time jobs. The total jumped by 275,000 to 7.5 million, the Labor Department said.
Monthly changes in the jobs data are volatile and the ranks of so-called involuntary part-time workers fell by 196,000 the previous month. Still, June's total is the highest this year. Since the recovery began five years ago, the drop in the number of these part-time workers had been tracing the decline in the overall unemployment rate, but it has lagged so far this year, says Jim O'Sullivan, chief U.S. economist of High Frequency Economics.
The high number of involuntary part-time workers is consistent with an average workweek that was unchanged at 34.5 hours for the fourth straight month in June, says Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist of The Economic Outlook Group.
"It stands to reason that if the economy is improving, we would see employees put in more time on the job," Baumohl says. "This is usually a leading indicator of both future hiring and pay increases."
Instead, he notes, the economy has been running in place this year. Second-quarter growth will likely offset a 2.9% first-quarter contraction caused partly by bad weather.
Baumohl also cites a shift in the labor market, with employers increasingly using part-time and temporary workers to handle short-term projects. "Companies view labor more as inventory that is to be hired when they need it and let go when they don't need it."
The Affordable Care Act, which requires firms with at least 50 employees to provide health insurance to those working at least 30 hours, also could be prompting some businesses to hire more part-time workers, O'Sullivan says.
Baumohl says the shift toward part-time work is a big reason wage gains remain modest. In June, average wages were up just 2% over the previous 12 months.
O'Sullivan is more bullish. Despite the recent increase, he says, the number of involuntary part-time workers has fallen by 650,000 the past year. And he downplays concerns over the stable workweek. Employers, he says, simply may have squeezed all they can from workers and must hire to meet new demand.
Citing average monthly job gains of 231,000 so far this year, O'Sullivan says: "It's pretty unambiguous — the labor market is improving."
He also expects wage growth to accelerate. He pointed to a survey released last week by the National Federation of Independent Business that shows 24% of small businesses had openings they couldn't fill last month — the highest since 2007.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/06/part-time-workers/12185871/
Many who have left U.S. labor force say they would like to return
Many who have left U.S. labor force say they would like to return
By Howard Schneider
August 20, 2014 1:22 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mike Yack has left the workforce twice in the last eight years and calls himself retired, yet at age 62 the former General Motors employee does not consider his working life over.
"I'd be open to anything - learning a new trade or something. I don't expect top wages. But I am not going to work for ten dollars an hour," said Yack, who accepted a buyout from GM in 2006 and was then laid off earlier this year by a GM contractor.
Yack, who says he can get by on Social Security and his GM pension, is among millions of Americans who could re-enter the U.S. labor force if the economy improves. They don’t show up in the U.S. jobless rate, currently at 6.2 percent.
For U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, the willingness of people like Yack to return to the workforce contributes to the "slack" she sees in the labor force that could keep wages growth and inflation under control even as the economy picks up. Yellen and other Fed policymakers will be studying the labor market overhang carefully as they gather for their annual retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyoming this week.
Heading into that event, an exclusive Reuters/Ipsos poll - which was conducted between June 6 and Aug. 8 - shows there are many retired, and other jobless people who have stopped looking for employment, declaring they are ready to re-enter the labor force if the right opportunity came along.
The poll of 7,727 individuals aged 18 and older who said they were unemployed, retired, or declined to provide their employment status, found that 34 percent said they had stopped looking for work because the job market was so bad. Despite the falling unemployment rate, 40 percent said they were no more optimistic about their job search today than when they initially stopped working.
Among those who said they had halted a job search, many were ready to resume the hunt if they received the right signals from the market – those signals included more job postings that match their qualifications, evidence of a stronger economic recovery, and word that friends or relatives had landed jobs.
For people who identified themselves as retired, 40 percent said they would have preferred to keep working and 30 percent said they would go back to work if the right job came along.
Of the poll respondents, 44 percent had not worked in the past five years, though nearly two thirds of those people were close to or had reached retirement age when they stopped working.
Large numbers of discouraged workers are key to why the U.S. labor participation rate lingers at 62.9 percent, down from 66.4 percent in January 2007, just before the recession and the financial crisis was about to roll over the economy.
And this is in addition to the 7.5 million Americans who are currently working part-time but want to work full-time, often referred to as involuntary part-time workers. Most want a full-time job but can't find it or their employers have cut back on their hours for business reasons. The number is still about 3 million more than before the financial crisis.
PHYSICALLY ABLE
For Yack, the equation is quite simple. If wages start moving up at the auto parts suppliers and other companies near his home in Howell, Michigan, he says he would be ready to return to the workforce.
“I am physically able. The opportunity is not there,” he said.
In the U.S., the Fed's mandate is to maintain full employment consistent with stable prices, giving it a direct interest in knowing not only how many people are working, but in how many might want to work but have been discouraged from looking.
But the extent of the changes under way in the U.S. job market are not fully known, nor is the ability of the Fed or other government officials to address them. Some trends seem inexorable: perhaps half the recent decline in labor force participation, for example, can be explained by the aging of the U.S. workforce, a number of studies have concluded.
Six years into the recovery, U.S. policymakers confront a few problems. Wages are hardly keeping up with inflation, productivity is in the doldrums, and the churn between jobs – an indicator of economic dynamism – has slowed.
In addition, the labor force participation rate for people aged 25-54 – considered the prime working years – has dropped from 84 percent at the turn of the century to just 81.4 percent now, a fact economists have found difficult to explain. And the number of people unemployed for six months or more has been dropping, but still stands at 3.2 million – nearly triple the number in the months before the last recession hit.
Those and other factors have convinced Yellen the U.S. still has room to grow before inflation becomes a concern, and has made her reluctant to raise interest rates before employment and wage growth recover.
What she, academic researchers, Obama administration officials, and others are trying to understand is whether those trends have become a permanent part of the U.S. labor landscape.
They have plenty of recent research, much of it containing worrying findings, to comb through.
Studies by economists like Robert Litan at Brookings Institution and John Haltiwanger at the University of Maryland have documented the growing importance of larger and older firms in the U.S. economy -- and noted how those tend to be less dynamic job creators than new companies.
Other research, noted with concern at the Fed and elsewhere, has found a decline in demand for higher skilled and better educated workers. That means college graduates may be competing for positions further down the "job ladder," pushing the less skilled to the margins.
"A year or so ago many labor economists would have said this was just a really bad recession and we have seen a huge cyclical impact and it takes a while to reverse," said Paul Swaim, senior labor economist at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. "It looks like the longer-run trends are more and more the story ... It is not just declining employment participation. It is a whole sort of ebbing of vitality."
The Fed's response to the problem is necessarily blunt: keeping interest rates lower than might otherwise be warranted in hopes of encouraging growth, investment, job creation and higher wages.
Some of the forces at work in the U.S., however, may be of a more subtle sort that require changes in government policy and not simply stronger economic growth.
The fact that labor force participation among women has declined in the U.S. while it continues rising in much of Europe, for example, may be related to European policies that provide better family leave and care for aging parents.
There is evidence as well that the jobs which are being created are those that pay less, perhaps adding to the level of income inequality in the U.S. and undermining the spending power of households. A higher federally mandated minimum wage could help to address this, though critics say that could hurt jobs growth and risk a much higher inflation rate.
AILING WIFE
Conversations with the unemployed, meanwhile, show that there are many reasons why they may stay out of the workforce.
For some, like Bill Young of suburban Atlanta, a simple bump in the overall economy might help. The 41-year-old landscaper said his last full time job was a decade ago, before the housing boom turned to a bust. The sector has yet to recover.
"It is almost impossible to get a full-time job," said Young, who gets by on "a lot of little part-time jobs."
April Phelps, 40, of Sycamore, Illinois., has been making do on her disability payment since she left the Army. She got a master's degree in psychology in 2011, but has yet to land a job and is only intermittently searching because of the frustration.
Donald Oremus, 63, left his job two years ago to care for his ailing wife. After that long out of the workforce he feels his skills as an architectural draftsman are out of date in a profession driven by fast advances in software.
The Veterans Benefits Administration recently agreed to provide home nursing care for his wife. Both served in the Navy during the Vietnam War.
He's now weighing whether to invest the necessary time and money to learn the latest tools and return to work. "I would love to get back," Oremus said by phone from his home in Boise, Idaho. "Suddenly I have fallen far behind."
https://news.yahoo.com/many-left-u-labor-force-return-050511935.html
Many who have left U.S. labor force say they would like to return
By Howard Schneider
August 20, 2014 1:22 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mike Yack has left the workforce twice in the last eight years and calls himself retired, yet at age 62 the former General Motors employee does not consider his working life over.
"I'd be open to anything - learning a new trade or something. I don't expect top wages. But I am not going to work for ten dollars an hour," said Yack, who accepted a buyout from GM in 2006 and was then laid off earlier this year by a GM contractor.
Yack, who says he can get by on Social Security and his GM pension, is among millions of Americans who could re-enter the U.S. labor force if the economy improves. They don’t show up in the U.S. jobless rate, currently at 6.2 percent.
For U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, the willingness of people like Yack to return to the workforce contributes to the "slack" she sees in the labor force that could keep wages growth and inflation under control even as the economy picks up. Yellen and other Fed policymakers will be studying the labor market overhang carefully as they gather for their annual retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyoming this week.
Heading into that event, an exclusive Reuters/Ipsos poll - which was conducted between June 6 and Aug. 8 - shows there are many retired, and other jobless people who have stopped looking for employment, declaring they are ready to re-enter the labor force if the right opportunity came along.
The poll of 7,727 individuals aged 18 and older who said they were unemployed, retired, or declined to provide their employment status, found that 34 percent said they had stopped looking for work because the job market was so bad. Despite the falling unemployment rate, 40 percent said they were no more optimistic about their job search today than when they initially stopped working.
Among those who said they had halted a job search, many were ready to resume the hunt if they received the right signals from the market – those signals included more job postings that match their qualifications, evidence of a stronger economic recovery, and word that friends or relatives had landed jobs.
For people who identified themselves as retired, 40 percent said they would have preferred to keep working and 30 percent said they would go back to work if the right job came along.
Of the poll respondents, 44 percent had not worked in the past five years, though nearly two thirds of those people were close to or had reached retirement age when they stopped working.
Large numbers of discouraged workers are key to why the U.S. labor participation rate lingers at 62.9 percent, down from 66.4 percent in January 2007, just before the recession and the financial crisis was about to roll over the economy.
And this is in addition to the 7.5 million Americans who are currently working part-time but want to work full-time, often referred to as involuntary part-time workers. Most want a full-time job but can't find it or their employers have cut back on their hours for business reasons. The number is still about 3 million more than before the financial crisis.
PHYSICALLY ABLE
For Yack, the equation is quite simple. If wages start moving up at the auto parts suppliers and other companies near his home in Howell, Michigan, he says he would be ready to return to the workforce.
“I am physically able. The opportunity is not there,” he said.
In the U.S., the Fed's mandate is to maintain full employment consistent with stable prices, giving it a direct interest in knowing not only how many people are working, but in how many might want to work but have been discouraged from looking.
But the extent of the changes under way in the U.S. job market are not fully known, nor is the ability of the Fed or other government officials to address them. Some trends seem inexorable: perhaps half the recent decline in labor force participation, for example, can be explained by the aging of the U.S. workforce, a number of studies have concluded.
Six years into the recovery, U.S. policymakers confront a few problems. Wages are hardly keeping up with inflation, productivity is in the doldrums, and the churn between jobs – an indicator of economic dynamism – has slowed.
In addition, the labor force participation rate for people aged 25-54 – considered the prime working years – has dropped from 84 percent at the turn of the century to just 81.4 percent now, a fact economists have found difficult to explain. And the number of people unemployed for six months or more has been dropping, but still stands at 3.2 million – nearly triple the number in the months before the last recession hit.
Those and other factors have convinced Yellen the U.S. still has room to grow before inflation becomes a concern, and has made her reluctant to raise interest rates before employment and wage growth recover.
What she, academic researchers, Obama administration officials, and others are trying to understand is whether those trends have become a permanent part of the U.S. labor landscape.
They have plenty of recent research, much of it containing worrying findings, to comb through.
Studies by economists like Robert Litan at Brookings Institution and John Haltiwanger at the University of Maryland have documented the growing importance of larger and older firms in the U.S. economy -- and noted how those tend to be less dynamic job creators than new companies.
Other research, noted with concern at the Fed and elsewhere, has found a decline in demand for higher skilled and better educated workers. That means college graduates may be competing for positions further down the "job ladder," pushing the less skilled to the margins.
"A year or so ago many labor economists would have said this was just a really bad recession and we have seen a huge cyclical impact and it takes a while to reverse," said Paul Swaim, senior labor economist at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. "It looks like the longer-run trends are more and more the story ... It is not just declining employment participation. It is a whole sort of ebbing of vitality."
The Fed's response to the problem is necessarily blunt: keeping interest rates lower than might otherwise be warranted in hopes of encouraging growth, investment, job creation and higher wages.
Some of the forces at work in the U.S., however, may be of a more subtle sort that require changes in government policy and not simply stronger economic growth.
The fact that labor force participation among women has declined in the U.S. while it continues rising in much of Europe, for example, may be related to European policies that provide better family leave and care for aging parents.
There is evidence as well that the jobs which are being created are those that pay less, perhaps adding to the level of income inequality in the U.S. and undermining the spending power of households. A higher federally mandated minimum wage could help to address this, though critics say that could hurt jobs growth and risk a much higher inflation rate.
AILING WIFE
Conversations with the unemployed, meanwhile, show that there are many reasons why they may stay out of the workforce.
For some, like Bill Young of suburban Atlanta, a simple bump in the overall economy might help. The 41-year-old landscaper said his last full time job was a decade ago, before the housing boom turned to a bust. The sector has yet to recover.
"It is almost impossible to get a full-time job," said Young, who gets by on "a lot of little part-time jobs."
April Phelps, 40, of Sycamore, Illinois., has been making do on her disability payment since she left the Army. She got a master's degree in psychology in 2011, but has yet to land a job and is only intermittently searching because of the frustration.
Donald Oremus, 63, left his job two years ago to care for his ailing wife. After that long out of the workforce he feels his skills as an architectural draftsman are out of date in a profession driven by fast advances in software.
The Veterans Benefits Administration recently agreed to provide home nursing care for his wife. Both served in the Navy during the Vietnam War.
He's now weighing whether to invest the necessary time and money to learn the latest tools and return to work. "I would love to get back," Oremus said by phone from his home in Boise, Idaho. "Suddenly I have fallen far behind."
https://news.yahoo.com/many-left-u-labor-force-return-050511935.html
Millions of job openings, so why aren’t companies hiring?
Millions of job openings, so why aren’t companies hiring?
By Yahoo Finance
September 4, 2014 2:34 PM
The number of jobs added to the U.S. economy in August came in lighter than expected at 142,000 (analysts were looking for 230,000), according to the Labor Department. Other data reveals plenty of help is wanted, but employers aren't hurrying to hire.
Even though there were 4.7 million jobs openings in June, the most since 2001, employers are waiting longer to fill them than they have in more than a decade, according to an index created by University of Chicago economist Steven Davis.
It's taking 25 working days on average to fill vacancies, a 13-year high, according to the Dice-DFH Vacancy Duration Measure. And for companies with 5,000 employees or more, it's taking more than twice that long -- an average of 58.1 working days.
In the accompanying video, Davis points to a few key reasons that could explain why. "The economy remains pretty sluggish, so employers don't feel desparate," he tells us. And second, he points to "anecdotal evidence that employers are relying on social media [e.g. LinkedIn] and job banks to identify attractive candidates who are already employed and not actively looking, so that makes for a longer courtship process ... hence it takes longer to fill the job openings they have."
He also says that policy changes could be involved. By his account there have "been some pretty significant changes in the labor market environment in recent decades, that make employers more cautious about hiring" decisions. As examples, he says there's been an erosion of the employment at-will doctrine in recent decades and he cites the expansion of protected classes of workers. In short, there are more reasons employers can be sued when they let a worker go.
He also says the expansion of tools that can eliminate potential hires, like criminal background checks and credit checks, have enabled employers to be pickier.
So would Davis reccomend any policy change to make it easier for workers to fill these jobs at a time when close to 10 million people are still unemployed? He says he thinks we should consider making it easier for employers to enter into no-risk or little-risk trial employment relationships with workers. That would allow them to hire someone who might not be the ideal candidate and continue the relationship if it works out, but fire them without fear of litigation risk if it does not.
http://news.yahoo.com/jobs-are-open-----but-companies-aren-t-filling-them--here-s-why-183423110.html
Millions of job openings, so why aren’t companies hiring?
By Yahoo Finance
September 4, 2014 2:34 PM
The number of jobs added to the U.S. economy in August came in lighter than expected at 142,000 (analysts were looking for 230,000), according to the Labor Department. Other data reveals plenty of help is wanted, but employers aren't hurrying to hire.
Even though there were 4.7 million jobs openings in June, the most since 2001, employers are waiting longer to fill them than they have in more than a decade, according to an index created by University of Chicago economist Steven Davis.
It's taking 25 working days on average to fill vacancies, a 13-year high, according to the Dice-DFH Vacancy Duration Measure. And for companies with 5,000 employees or more, it's taking more than twice that long -- an average of 58.1 working days.
In the accompanying video, Davis points to a few key reasons that could explain why. "The economy remains pretty sluggish, so employers don't feel desparate," he tells us. And second, he points to "anecdotal evidence that employers are relying on social media [e.g. LinkedIn] and job banks to identify attractive candidates who are already employed and not actively looking, so that makes for a longer courtship process ... hence it takes longer to fill the job openings they have."
He also says that policy changes could be involved. By his account there have "been some pretty significant changes in the labor market environment in recent decades, that make employers more cautious about hiring" decisions. As examples, he says there's been an erosion of the employment at-will doctrine in recent decades and he cites the expansion of protected classes of workers. In short, there are more reasons employers can be sued when they let a worker go.
He also says the expansion of tools that can eliminate potential hires, like criminal background checks and credit checks, have enabled employers to be pickier.
So would Davis reccomend any policy change to make it easier for workers to fill these jobs at a time when close to 10 million people are still unemployed? He says he thinks we should consider making it easier for employers to enter into no-risk or little-risk trial employment relationships with workers. That would allow them to hire someone who might not be the ideal candidate and continue the relationship if it works out, but fire them without fear of litigation risk if it does not.
http://news.yahoo.com/jobs-are-open-----but-companies-aren-t-filling-them--here-s-why-183423110.html
Re: Millions of job openings, so why aren’t companies hiring?
Employment report:
U.S. added 248,000 jobs in September
Unemployment rate dropped to 5.9 percent,
its lowest level in six years
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/employment-report-us-added-248k-jobs-in-september/
Employment report:
U.S. added 248,000 jobs in September
Unemployment rate dropped to 5.9 percent,
its lowest level in six years
The U.S. economy generated 248,000 jobs in September, the Labor Department said Friday. The unemployment rate dropped to 5.9 percent, its lowest level in six years.
Economists surveyed by FactSet had forecast that the government's report would show 215,000 jobs were added last month. Over the last three months, payroll gains have averaged 224,000.
Job growth last month represents "a strong gain in payrolls, despite the tendency in past years at least for September to be under-reported initially," said Jim O'Sullivan, chief U.S. economist with High Frequency Economics, in a client note.
Economists surveyed by FactSet had forecast that the government's report would show 215,000 jobs were added last month. Over the last three months, payroll gains have averaged 224,000.
Job growth last month represents "a strong gain in payrolls, despite the tendency in past years at least for September to be under-reported initially," said Jim O'Sullivan, chief U.S. economist with High Frequency Economics, in a client note.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/employment-report-us-added-248k-jobs-in-september/
Way too many people camped out in college using government backed debt to make it (16 million). Way too many that have given up or retired early that are not counted. Way too many people that are underemployed. Way too many people in prison. Way too many minorities that have this unemployment problem dumped on them.
We need long term structural reform to our economy, not using gimmicks to get the number down through debt defaults. This is not a victory lap for me.
We need long term structural reform to our economy, not using gimmicks to get the number down through debt defaults. This is not a victory lap for me.
Missing Men in U.S. Workforce Risk Permanent Separation
Missing Men in U.S. Workforce Risk Permanent Separation
By Kasia Klimasinska
Sep 18, 2014
Tom Kaminski is back at work, three years after losing his job as a human-resources manager and dropping out of the labor force for a time to go back to college.
Kaminski, 43, dipped into his retirement savings while he earned a master’s degree. The added credential helped him land the position at Intuitive HR LLC, a consulting company in Woodbridge, Connecticut, last September.
“It was always my goal to come back to work,” he said. “I thought I was a very good human-resource person and I thought I had a lot more to achieve.”
Too few men like Kaminski are returning to work in a decades-long puzzle about prime working-age males ages 25 to 54 falling away from the U.S. labor force. Their participation rate slid to 88.4 percent in August in a steady decline from 97.9 percent in 1954. Over the last 10 years, the slump was the steepest for those ages 25 to 34.
About 7 million male Americans waste their best years of wealth formation not employed or even trying to find work. The pattern will persist, economists say, putting some men -- particularly those without a college degree -- at risk of permanent isolation from the job market.
The pace of decline was among the fastest during the last two contractions and the drop has continued in the current expansion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from Labor Department reports. This shows the labor-market recovery isn’t strong enough for some men to find jobs or even continue looking.
Gradual Disappearance
A key reason is the change in labor demand: the gradual disappearance of construction and manufacturing positions, especially those demanding relatively few skills, such as furniture, shoe or leather-goods making, said David Autor, professor of economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.
“The trend will remain downward,” Autor said in a phone interview. “I don’t see any recovery for low-skilled labor demand coming. There’s never going to be a great time in America again to be a high-school dropout.”
A fall in inflation-adjusted earnings for less-educated men, more stay-at-home dads and a surge in the number of veterans with military-service disability benefits also contribute to the decline, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics economist Steve Hipple.
The number of veterans receiving such assistance rose 42 percent to 3.7 million in 2013 from 2.6 million in 2005, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs data show. About 40 percent were 54 years old or younger, and about 89 percent were men.
Falling Wages
Inflation-adjusted earnings fell 5.4 percent between 2007 and 2013 for men ages 25 and older who have a high-school education, according to the BLS data. For those with less schooling, wages dropped 7.4 percent.
Still, the lure of a paycheck can be enough to encourage some young men not to pursue higher education, said Anthony P. Carnevale, director and research professor of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce in Washington.
“They can still get a job that pays enough for them to move out of their parents’ house and get a car,” he said. “But it’s seductive, because by the time they are in their mid-thirties, they’re not really improving their earnings anymore.”
That was the experience of Jim Senac of Rochester, Michigan, who never completed college and became a salesman.
“I was more interested in making money,” said Senac, 46.
Stop Working
In 2002, he and his wife decided he would stop working, since he earned less money than she did, to care for their three children whose health demanded constant attention. He didn’t return to full-time employment until last month, when his bank, Fifth Third Bancorp, offered him career-coaching assistance.
He is still a salesman, working for Mansfield, Ohio-based Universal Church Directories, making less than he did more than a decade ago. He says he hopes to go back to finish college “in the near future.”
The portion of married-couple families with only the wife employed rose to 7.8 percent in 2013 from 5.7 percent in 1994, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The shrinking overall participation rate is a primary concern for Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, who has said that the central bank shouldn’t be in a hurry to unwind monetary stimulus because of the slack in the labor market.
Structural Causes
Fed economists concluded in a research paper earlier this month that much of the decline in labor-force participation since 2007 is because of long-lasting structural causes, such as the aging workforce. It also cited an increase in disability recipients, attributed to mostly structural reasons with some cyclical elements.
Alan Grandberry, 54, worked as a cosmetologist in Chicago until about four-and-a-half years ago, when he began collecting disability because of kidney failure. While he would have been interested in some sort of part-time position, he said he wasn’t able to find anything.
“We still have a pretty slack labor market, especially for low-skilled workers,” said MIT’s Autor. “We should be concerned about it, very concerned.”
One reason the trend won’t be reversed is that not enough men are willing to follow Kaminski’s example and go back to school. While there was some optimism this would change as the number of men pursuing higher education increased after the recession started, the surge subsided as the economy improved, said Carnevale.
Declining Number
The number of men enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary education declined to 8.92 million in 2012 from the record high of 9.04 million in 2010, according to data from the Washington-based National Center for Education Statistics.
“It’s an education issue for men,” Carnevale said. “The male middle manufacturing jobs did disappear, but they’ve been supplanted by a whole set of health care, business services, computer and other jobs, which aren’t like those old jobs” because they require more learning.
For Kaminski, the return to work wasn’t without a pay cut: He’s earning about 15 percent less than in his former position. And the improving economy didn’t make the job hunt any easier.
“There’s just as few jobs now as there was two years ago,” he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-18/missing-men-in-u-s-workforce-risk-permanent-separation.html
Missing Men in U.S. Workforce Risk Permanent Separation
By Kasia Klimasinska
Sep 18, 2014
Tom Kaminski is back at work, three years after losing his job as a human-resources manager and dropping out of the labor force for a time to go back to college.
Kaminski, 43, dipped into his retirement savings while he earned a master’s degree. The added credential helped him land the position at Intuitive HR LLC, a consulting company in Woodbridge, Connecticut, last September.
“It was always my goal to come back to work,” he said. “I thought I was a very good human-resource person and I thought I had a lot more to achieve.”
Too few men like Kaminski are returning to work in a decades-long puzzle about prime working-age males ages 25 to 54 falling away from the U.S. labor force. Their participation rate slid to 88.4 percent in August in a steady decline from 97.9 percent in 1954. Over the last 10 years, the slump was the steepest for those ages 25 to 34.
About 7 million male Americans waste their best years of wealth formation not employed or even trying to find work. The pattern will persist, economists say, putting some men -- particularly those without a college degree -- at risk of permanent isolation from the job market.
The pace of decline was among the fastest during the last two contractions and the drop has continued in the current expansion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from Labor Department reports. This shows the labor-market recovery isn’t strong enough for some men to find jobs or even continue looking.
Gradual Disappearance
A key reason is the change in labor demand: the gradual disappearance of construction and manufacturing positions, especially those demanding relatively few skills, such as furniture, shoe or leather-goods making, said David Autor, professor of economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.
“The trend will remain downward,” Autor said in a phone interview. “I don’t see any recovery for low-skilled labor demand coming. There’s never going to be a great time in America again to be a high-school dropout.”
A fall in inflation-adjusted earnings for less-educated men, more stay-at-home dads and a surge in the number of veterans with military-service disability benefits also contribute to the decline, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics economist Steve Hipple.
The number of veterans receiving such assistance rose 42 percent to 3.7 million in 2013 from 2.6 million in 2005, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs data show. About 40 percent were 54 years old or younger, and about 89 percent were men.
Falling Wages
Inflation-adjusted earnings fell 5.4 percent between 2007 and 2013 for men ages 25 and older who have a high-school education, according to the BLS data. For those with less schooling, wages dropped 7.4 percent.
Still, the lure of a paycheck can be enough to encourage some young men not to pursue higher education, said Anthony P. Carnevale, director and research professor of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce in Washington.
“They can still get a job that pays enough for them to move out of their parents’ house and get a car,” he said. “But it’s seductive, because by the time they are in their mid-thirties, they’re not really improving their earnings anymore.”
That was the experience of Jim Senac of Rochester, Michigan, who never completed college and became a salesman.
“I was more interested in making money,” said Senac, 46.
Stop Working
In 2002, he and his wife decided he would stop working, since he earned less money than she did, to care for their three children whose health demanded constant attention. He didn’t return to full-time employment until last month, when his bank, Fifth Third Bancorp, offered him career-coaching assistance.
He is still a salesman, working for Mansfield, Ohio-based Universal Church Directories, making less than he did more than a decade ago. He says he hopes to go back to finish college “in the near future.”
The portion of married-couple families with only the wife employed rose to 7.8 percent in 2013 from 5.7 percent in 1994, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The shrinking overall participation rate is a primary concern for Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, who has said that the central bank shouldn’t be in a hurry to unwind monetary stimulus because of the slack in the labor market.
Structural Causes
Fed economists concluded in a research paper earlier this month that much of the decline in labor-force participation since 2007 is because of long-lasting structural causes, such as the aging workforce. It also cited an increase in disability recipients, attributed to mostly structural reasons with some cyclical elements.
Alan Grandberry, 54, worked as a cosmetologist in Chicago until about four-and-a-half years ago, when he began collecting disability because of kidney failure. While he would have been interested in some sort of part-time position, he said he wasn’t able to find anything.
“We still have a pretty slack labor market, especially for low-skilled workers,” said MIT’s Autor. “We should be concerned about it, very concerned.”
One reason the trend won’t be reversed is that not enough men are willing to follow Kaminski’s example and go back to school. While there was some optimism this would change as the number of men pursuing higher education increased after the recession started, the surge subsided as the economy improved, said Carnevale.
Declining Number
The number of men enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary education declined to 8.92 million in 2012 from the record high of 9.04 million in 2010, according to data from the Washington-based National Center for Education Statistics.
“It’s an education issue for men,” Carnevale said. “The male middle manufacturing jobs did disappear, but they’ve been supplanted by a whole set of health care, business services, computer and other jobs, which aren’t like those old jobs” because they require more learning.
For Kaminski, the return to work wasn’t without a pay cut: He’s earning about 15 percent less than in his former position. And the improving economy didn’t make the job hunt any easier.
“There’s just as few jobs now as there was two years ago,” he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-18/missing-men-in-u-s-workforce-risk-permanent-separation.html
Re: Millions of job openings, so why aren’t companies hiring?
Economy Adds 214,000 Jobs in October,
Unemployment Rate Drops to 5.8%
Unemployment rate drops to lowest level since July 2008
STORY HERE: http://time.com/3572116/new-jobs-report/
Economy Adds 214,000 Jobs in October,
Unemployment Rate Drops to 5.8%
Unemployment rate drops to lowest level since July 2008
STORY HERE: http://time.com/3572116/new-jobs-report/
A majority of Americans make less than $20 per hour
A majority of Americans make less than $20 per hour
By Steve Goldstein
Published: Nov 17, 2014 9:05 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Where do you fit on the earnings scale?
According to data compiled by Goldman Sachs, most American workers earn below $20 per hour. Goldman Sachs economists David Mericle and Chris Mischaikow crunched Labor Department data that is used to generate the monthly jobs report that the market closely watches, in particular from the survey of employers.
The chart, shown above, shows that 19% of workers make less than $12.50 per hour, 32% of workers make between $12.50 and $20 per hour, 30% make between $20 and $30 an hour, 14% make between $30 and $45 per hour, and 5% make over $45 an hour.
(It’s important to note that this includes all workers covered by the establishment survey, not just hourly workers; to convert annual pay to hourly pay, divide by 2080, for a standard 40-hour week.)
The economists also found that, while wage growth has been soft, the fastest growth in income has come to the lowest-paid workers.
And they found that the biggest driver to income growth has been rising employment, with help from rising wages and more hours worked.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-majority-of-americans-make-less-than-20-per-hour-2014-11-14
A majority of Americans make less than $20 per hour
By Steve Goldstein
Published: Nov 17, 2014 9:05 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Where do you fit on the earnings scale?
According to data compiled by Goldman Sachs, most American workers earn below $20 per hour. Goldman Sachs economists David Mericle and Chris Mischaikow crunched Labor Department data that is used to generate the monthly jobs report that the market closely watches, in particular from the survey of employers.
The chart, shown above, shows that 19% of workers make less than $12.50 per hour, 32% of workers make between $12.50 and $20 per hour, 30% make between $20 and $30 an hour, 14% make between $30 and $45 per hour, and 5% make over $45 an hour.
(It’s important to note that this includes all workers covered by the establishment survey, not just hourly workers; to convert annual pay to hourly pay, divide by 2080, for a standard 40-hour week.)
The economists also found that, while wage growth has been soft, the fastest growth in income has come to the lowest-paid workers.
And they found that the biggest driver to income growth has been rising employment, with help from rising wages and more hours worked.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-majority-of-americans-make-less-than-20-per-hour-2014-11-14
Exclusive: America's part-time economy
Exclusive: America's part-time economy
By Patrick Gillespie
@CNNMoney
November 21, 2014: 6:52 AM ET
The West Coast isn't a dreamy place for many workers. Millions of Americans are languishing there in part-time jobs with no other options.
In California alone, 1.2 million people are "underemployed." That equals the entire population of San Francisco and Oakland.
California is the hardest state for part-time workers to find full-time jobs, according to CNNMoney's analysis of previously unpublished data from the Labor Department.
The Golden State is hardly alone. Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona are nearly as bad. Washington is also above the national average.
Part-time workers are far more likely to live in poverty. They are paid less than other workers and often don't receive benefits. It's a bad sign when states have a high percentage of part-time employees in the labor force, especially those working part-time involuntarily because they can't get a full-time job.
"It's a sign that the labor market isn't healthy enough," says Robert Valletta, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
The worst state: In California, the nation's largest state economy, 7.1% of the workforce consists of involuntary part-time workers. That's well above the national average of 4.7% in October.
To look at it another way, California has over half a million more underemployed workers now than in 2007. That's greater than the population of Sacramento.
Part-time work always increases in a recession, but the alarming sign is that it hasn't gone down much during America's recovery.
Eight states, including New York and New Jersey, still have double the number of involuntary part-time jobs since the recession began, according to the Labor Department. And involuntary part-time jobs are actually increasing in places like Florida and Texas.
Alarming trend: The growing concern is that the part-time job trend is here to stay. Look at Pennsylvania: its unemployment rate is right below the national average, but its number of involuntary part-time workers is about 90% higher than when the recession began.
The West has a particularly acute problem. Agriculture and forestry are big industries in West Coast states that have lots of seasonal employment, which may help explain their part-time problem, says Chris Tilly a professor at UCLA.
"Both [industries] tend to have high rates of unemployment in the off-season, but also higher rates of involuntary part-time," Tilly says.
Nationwide, Tilly added: "Employers have been moving in that direction towards maintaining more part-time work whether people want it or not."
Even good state economies are struggling with part-time. Texas has added lots of jobs in the economic recovery and its unemployment rate is below the national average. But there are 72%, or about a quarter million, more unwanted part-time jobs in the Lone Star State than when the recession began.
Economists are not exactly sure why some states have such high rates of involuntary part-time compared to others.
Eight out of the 10 states with the highest part-time rates have unemployment rates above the national average, according to Labor Department data. But that's not true everywhere.
"It's an enigma," says Valletta. "For some of the states there's a disconnect between the status of their labor market as a whole...and a surprisingly high level of involuntary part-time work."
http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/21/new...x.html?cid=ob_articlesidebarall&iid=obnetwork
Exclusive: America's part-time economy
By Patrick Gillespie
@CNNMoney
November 21, 2014: 6:52 AM ET
The West Coast isn't a dreamy place for many workers. Millions of Americans are languishing there in part-time jobs with no other options.
In California alone, 1.2 million people are "underemployed." That equals the entire population of San Francisco and Oakland.
California is the hardest state for part-time workers to find full-time jobs, according to CNNMoney's analysis of previously unpublished data from the Labor Department.
The Golden State is hardly alone. Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona are nearly as bad. Washington is also above the national average.
Part-time workers are far more likely to live in poverty. They are paid less than other workers and often don't receive benefits. It's a bad sign when states have a high percentage of part-time employees in the labor force, especially those working part-time involuntarily because they can't get a full-time job.
"It's a sign that the labor market isn't healthy enough," says Robert Valletta, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
The worst state: In California, the nation's largest state economy, 7.1% of the workforce consists of involuntary part-time workers. That's well above the national average of 4.7% in October.
To look at it another way, California has over half a million more underemployed workers now than in 2007. That's greater than the population of Sacramento.
Part-time work always increases in a recession, but the alarming sign is that it hasn't gone down much during America's recovery.
Eight states, including New York and New Jersey, still have double the number of involuntary part-time jobs since the recession began, according to the Labor Department. And involuntary part-time jobs are actually increasing in places like Florida and Texas.
Alarming trend: The growing concern is that the part-time job trend is here to stay. Look at Pennsylvania: its unemployment rate is right below the national average, but its number of involuntary part-time workers is about 90% higher than when the recession began.
The West has a particularly acute problem. Agriculture and forestry are big industries in West Coast states that have lots of seasonal employment, which may help explain their part-time problem, says Chris Tilly a professor at UCLA.
"Both [industries] tend to have high rates of unemployment in the off-season, but also higher rates of involuntary part-time," Tilly says.
Nationwide, Tilly added: "Employers have been moving in that direction towards maintaining more part-time work whether people want it or not."
Even good state economies are struggling with part-time. Texas has added lots of jobs in the economic recovery and its unemployment rate is below the national average. But there are 72%, or about a quarter million, more unwanted part-time jobs in the Lone Star State than when the recession began.
Economists are not exactly sure why some states have such high rates of involuntary part-time compared to others.
Eight out of the 10 states with the highest part-time rates have unemployment rates above the national average, according to Labor Department data. But that's not true everywhere.
"It's an enigma," says Valletta. "For some of the states there's a disconnect between the status of their labor market as a whole...and a surprisingly high level of involuntary part-time work."
http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/21/new...x.html?cid=ob_articlesidebarall&iid=obnetwork