Friday, January 6, 2012 by CommonDreams.org
The Cheery Jobs Report That Isn't: Outlook Still Dismal
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Almost 24 million people are unemployed or underemployed.
The Cheery Jobs Report That Isn't: Outlook Still Dismal
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Almost 24 million people are unemployed or underemployed.
Agencies are cheering a Labor Department report that showed a growth of 200,00 jobs in December.
AP reports:
As Baker bluntly notes today:
Friday, January 6, 2012 by The New York Times
Bain, Barack and Jobs
by Paul Krugman
AP reports:
Alan B. Krueger, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, stated:The nation added 200,000 jobs in December in a burst of hiring that drove the unemployment rate to its lowest in almost three years. The figures raised hopes that the economy might finally be healthy enough to power an even stronger job market.
This statement may be of little comfort to the long-term unemployed. The report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows:Today’s employment report provides further evidence that the economy is continuing to heal from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities gave a sobering look at the jobs report:The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 5.6 million and accounted for 42.5 percent of the unemployed.
Economist Dean Baker remarks that the touted 200,000 figure is not an accurate number of the jobs created:..a strong jobs recovery remains elusive. The overall jobs deficit remains large, the labor force shrank for the second straight month, and the proportion of people aged 16 and over who have a job remains depressed. Jobs are still hard to find, especially for the long-term unemployed.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities further notes today:We created 42,200 courier jobs in December. Was there really a big surge in hiring in the courier industry? Well, the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed a surge of more than 50,000 new courier jobs last December, all of which were gone in January and then some. In other words, pull out our 42,000 courier jobs and we are looking at job growth of 158,000, not much to celebrate.
- The recession and lack of job opportunities drove many people out of the labor force, and we have yet to see a sustained return to labor force participation (people aged 16 and over working or actively looking for work) that would mark a strong jobs recovery. That situation did not improve in December. The labor force shrank by 50,000 people in December after falling by 120,000 in November. The labor force participation rate remained 64.0 percent in December, which is lower than it was a year ago when the unemployment rate was nearly a full percentage point higher, and it remains at levels last seen in 1984.
- Finding a job remains very difficult. The Labor Department’s most comprehensive alternative unemployment rate measure (U6) — which includes people who want to work but are discouraged from looking and people working part time because they can’t find full-time jobs — was 15.2 percent in December, down from its all-time high of 17.4 percent in October 2009 in data that go back to 1994, but still 6.4 percentage points higher than at the start of the recession. By that measure, almost 24 million people are unemployed or underemployed.
- Long-term unemployment remains a significant concern. Over two-fifths (42.5 percent) of the 13.1 million people who are unemployed — 5.6 million people — have been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer. These long-term unemployed represent 3.6 percent of the labor force. Before this recession, the previous highs for these statistics over the past six decades were 26.0 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively, in June 1983.
As Baker bluntly notes today:
Coming out of a steep recession, we should be expected job growth in the 300k-400k monthly range. Unfortunately, there has been a huge effort to lower expectations so that we come to accept dismal economic performance as the best we can do.
***
Friday, January 6, 2012 by The New York Times
Bain, Barack and Jobs
by Paul Krugman
America’s recovery from recession has been so slow that it mostly
doesn’t seem like a recovery at all, especially on the jobs front. So,
in a better world, President Obama would face a challenger offering a
serious critique of his job-creation policies, and proposing a serious
alternative.
Instead, he’ll almost surely face Mitt Romney.
Mr. Romney claims that Mr. Obama has been a job destroyer, while he was a job-creating businessman. For example, he told Fox News: “This is a president who lost more jobs during his tenure than any president since Hoover. This is two million jobs that he lost as president.” He went on to declare, of his time at the private equity firm Bain Capital, “I’m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs.”
But his claims about the Obama record border on dishonesty, and his claims about his own record are well across that border.
Start with the Obama record. It’s true that 1.9 million fewer Americans have jobs now than when Mr. Obama took office. But the president inherited an economy in free fall, and can’t be held responsible for job losses during his first few months, before any of his own policies had time to take effect.
The economy lost 3.1 million jobs between January 2009 and June 2009 and has since gained 1.2 million jobs. That’s not enough.
Incidentally, the previous administration’s claims of job growth always started not from Inauguration Day but from August 2003, when Bush-era employment hit its low point. By that standard, Mr. Obama could say that he has created 2.5 million jobs since February 2010.
So Mr. Romney’s claims about the Obama job record aren’t literally false, but they are deeply misleading. Still, the real fun comes when we look at what Mr. Romney says about himself. Where does that claim of creating 100,000 jobs come from?
Well, Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post got an answer from the Romney campaign. It’s the sum of job gains at three companies that Mr. Romney “helped to start or grow”: Staples, The Sports Authority and Domino’s.
Mr. Kessler immediately pointed out two problems with this tally. It’s “based on current employment figures, not the period when Romney worked at Bain,” and it “does not include job losses from other companies with which Bain Capital was involved.” Either problem, by itself, makes nonsense of the whole claim.
On the point about using current employment, consider Staples, which has more than twice as many stores now as it did back in 1999, when Mr. Romney left Bain. Can he claim credit for everything good that has happened to the company in the past 12 years? In particular, can he claim credit for the company’s successful shift from focusing on price to focusing on customer service (“That was easy”), which took place long after he had left the business world?
Then there’s the bit about looking only at Bain-connected companies that added jobs, ignoring those that reduced their work forces or went out of business. Hey, if pluses count but minuses don’t, everyone who spends a day playing the slot machines comes out way ahead!
In any case, it makes no sense to look at changes in one company’s work force and say that this measures job creation for America as a whole.
Suppose, for example, that your chain of office-supply stores gains market share at the expense of rivals. You employ more people; your rivals employ fewer. What’s the overall effect on U.S. employment? One thing’s for sure: it’s a lot less than the number of workers your company added.
Better yet, suppose that you expand in part not by beating your competitors, but by buying them. Now their employees are your employees. Have you created jobs?
The point is that Mr. Romney’s claims about being a job creator would be nonsense even if he were being honest about the numbers, which he isn’t.
At this point, some readers may ask whether it isn’t equally wrong to say that Mr. Romney destroyed jobs. Yes, it is. The real complaint about Mr. Romney and his colleagues isn’t that they destroyed jobs, but that they destroyed good jobs.
When the dust settled after the companies that Bain restructured were downsized — or, as happened all too often, went bankrupt — total U.S. employment was probably about the same as it would have been in any case. But the jobs that were lost paid more and had better benefits than the jobs that replaced them. Mr. Romney and those like him didn’t destroy jobs, but they did enrich themselves while helping to destroy the American middle class.
And that reality is, of course, what all the blather and misdirection about job-creating businessmen and job-destroying Democrats is meant to obscure.
'Job Creators' Aren't Doing Their Job
by Carl Gibson
Instead, he’ll almost surely face Mitt Romney.
Mr. Romney claims that Mr. Obama has been a job destroyer, while he was a job-creating businessman. For example, he told Fox News: “This is a president who lost more jobs during his tenure than any president since Hoover. This is two million jobs that he lost as president.” He went on to declare, of his time at the private equity firm Bain Capital, “I’m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs.”
But his claims about the Obama record border on dishonesty, and his claims about his own record are well across that border.
Start with the Obama record. It’s true that 1.9 million fewer Americans have jobs now than when Mr. Obama took office. But the president inherited an economy in free fall, and can’t be held responsible for job losses during his first few months, before any of his own policies had time to take effect.
The economy lost 3.1 million jobs between January 2009 and June 2009 and has since gained 1.2 million jobs. That’s not enough.
Incidentally, the previous administration’s claims of job growth always started not from Inauguration Day but from August 2003, when Bush-era employment hit its low point. By that standard, Mr. Obama could say that he has created 2.5 million jobs since February 2010.
So Mr. Romney’s claims about the Obama job record aren’t literally false, but they are deeply misleading. Still, the real fun comes when we look at what Mr. Romney says about himself. Where does that claim of creating 100,000 jobs come from?
Well, Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post got an answer from the Romney campaign. It’s the sum of job gains at three companies that Mr. Romney “helped to start or grow”: Staples, The Sports Authority and Domino’s.
Mr. Kessler immediately pointed out two problems with this tally. It’s “based on current employment figures, not the period when Romney worked at Bain,” and it “does not include job losses from other companies with which Bain Capital was involved.” Either problem, by itself, makes nonsense of the whole claim.
On the point about using current employment, consider Staples, which has more than twice as many stores now as it did back in 1999, when Mr. Romney left Bain. Can he claim credit for everything good that has happened to the company in the past 12 years? In particular, can he claim credit for the company’s successful shift from focusing on price to focusing on customer service (“That was easy”), which took place long after he had left the business world?
Then there’s the bit about looking only at Bain-connected companies that added jobs, ignoring those that reduced their work forces or went out of business. Hey, if pluses count but minuses don’t, everyone who spends a day playing the slot machines comes out way ahead!
In any case, it makes no sense to look at changes in one company’s work force and say that this measures job creation for America as a whole.
Suppose, for example, that your chain of office-supply stores gains market share at the expense of rivals. You employ more people; your rivals employ fewer. What’s the overall effect on U.S. employment? One thing’s for sure: it’s a lot less than the number of workers your company added.
Better yet, suppose that you expand in part not by beating your competitors, but by buying them. Now their employees are your employees. Have you created jobs?
The point is that Mr. Romney’s claims about being a job creator would be nonsense even if he were being honest about the numbers, which he isn’t.
At this point, some readers may ask whether it isn’t equally wrong to say that Mr. Romney destroyed jobs. Yes, it is. The real complaint about Mr. Romney and his colleagues isn’t that they destroyed jobs, but that they destroyed good jobs.
When the dust settled after the companies that Bain restructured were downsized — or, as happened all too often, went bankrupt — total U.S. employment was probably about the same as it would have been in any case. But the jobs that were lost paid more and had better benefits than the jobs that replaced them. Mr. Romney and those like him didn’t destroy jobs, but they did enrich themselves while helping to destroy the American middle class.
And that reality is, of course, what all the blather and misdirection about job-creating businessmen and job-destroying Democrats is meant to obscure.
***
Friday, January 6, 2012 by CommonDreams.org 'Job Creators' Aren't Doing Their Job
by Carl Gibson
If you put in long hours and hard work into a job, would you be
upset with a boss who paid you with a handful of nickels, especially if
hundred-dollar bills spilled out of your boss’s pockets while he dug
around for the coins?
As taxpayers, Americans expect to get what they pay for—safe infrastructure, prompt emergency response, good schools, and a strong social safety net. As shareholders in profitable companies, investors expect to get what they pay for—dividends. And as job seekers in a troubled economy, America’s unemployed are trying to find work wherever they can; but corporate greed is depriving taxpayers, shareholders and job seekers of what they need and deserve.
With $2 trillion at home and $1.4 trillion abroad, corporations are sitting on record-high piles of cash. For example, Apple holds $76 billion by itself, more than the U.S. Treasury. Yet, these hoards of cash remain untaxed. A 35% tax on corporate America’s cash reserves in the United States alone would generate $700 billion in revenue. That amount would reverse every budget cut in every state, rejuvenating America’s schools and infrastructure by re-creating almost a half-million public sector jobs lost since the recession.
If corporations simply invested their American stash of cash reserves in creating good jobs for America’s unemployed, they could put 3.5 million new people to work in the private sector each year for five years, at an annual salary of $40,000. If corporations just used their cash reserves to pay dividends to their shareholders, investors like the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System wouldn’t have to cut benefits for their retirees.
Corporate executives blame the “uncertainty” of the economy as an excuse to sit on piles of cash, yet the economic boost of 17.5 million jobs created in five years would dramatically lower the unemployment rate and increase GDP, bolstering local economies by creating a surge of new demand for struggling small business owners. Using cash reserves to pay dividends to shareholders would restore confidence in the market and strengthen the investments millions are counting on for their retirement.
It is both greedy and irresponsible for American corporations to allow untaxed cash to pile up on their balance sheets while American infrastructure crumbles, public education suffers, the unemployed struggle to survive and shareholders lose their investments. It’s time for America’s “job creators” to do their job.
As taxpayers, Americans expect to get what they pay for—safe infrastructure, prompt emergency response, good schools, and a strong social safety net. As shareholders in profitable companies, investors expect to get what they pay for—dividends. And as job seekers in a troubled economy, America’s unemployed are trying to find work wherever they can; but corporate greed is depriving taxpayers, shareholders and job seekers of what they need and deserve.
With $2 trillion at home and $1.4 trillion abroad, corporations are sitting on record-high piles of cash. For example, Apple holds $76 billion by itself, more than the U.S. Treasury. Yet, these hoards of cash remain untaxed. A 35% tax on corporate America’s cash reserves in the United States alone would generate $700 billion in revenue. That amount would reverse every budget cut in every state, rejuvenating America’s schools and infrastructure by re-creating almost a half-million public sector jobs lost since the recession.
If corporations simply invested their American stash of cash reserves in creating good jobs for America’s unemployed, they could put 3.5 million new people to work in the private sector each year for five years, at an annual salary of $40,000. If corporations just used their cash reserves to pay dividends to their shareholders, investors like the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System wouldn’t have to cut benefits for their retirees.
Corporate executives blame the “uncertainty” of the economy as an excuse to sit on piles of cash, yet the economic boost of 17.5 million jobs created in five years would dramatically lower the unemployment rate and increase GDP, bolstering local economies by creating a surge of new demand for struggling small business owners. Using cash reserves to pay dividends to shareholders would restore confidence in the market and strengthen the investments millions are counting on for their retirement.
It is both greedy and irresponsible for American corporations to allow untaxed cash to pile up on their balance sheets while American infrastructure crumbles, public education suffers, the unemployed struggle to survive and shareholders lose their investments. It’s time for America’s “job creators” to do their job.
No comments:
Post a Comment