From the Wall Street Journal, columnist Justin Lahart takes a look at how state and local job losses drove up the unemployment rate. Let's remember that the states run by Republican governors insisted on paying for tax cuts by laying off government workers, and that the Republicans in Congress and their Blue Dog enablers who blocked government spending to the states did their part, too. (Remember "jobs, jobs, jobs"? Thanks, Grand Old Piranas!)

One reason the unemployment rate may have remained persistently high: The sharp cuts in state and local government spending in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and the layoffs those cuts wrought.

The Labor Department’s establishment survey of employers — the jobs count that it bases its payroll figures on — shows that the government has been steadily shedding workers since the crisis struck, with 586,000 fewer jobs than in December 2008. Friday’s employment report showed the cuts continued in April, with 15,000 government jobs lost.

But the survey of households that the unemployment rate is based on suggests the government job cuts have been much, much worse.

In April the household survey showed that that there were 442,000 fewer people working in government than in March. The household survey has a much smaller sample size than the establishment survey, and so is prone to volatility, but the magnitude of the drop is striking: It marks the largest decline on both an absolute and a percentage basis on record going back to 1948. Moreover, the household survey has consistently showed bigger drops in government employment than the establishment survey has.

The unemployment rate would be far lower if it hadn’t been for those cuts: If there were as many people working in government as there were in December 2008, the unemployment rate in April would have been 7.1%, not 8.1%.

Ceteris is rarely paribus, of course: If there were more government jobs now, for example, it’s likely that not as many people would have left the labor force, and so the actual unemployment rate would be north of 7.1.

Economist Jared Bernstein adds:

A few additional points, if I may:

• these are real jobs by real people of the type you see everyday when you drop your kid off at school, get a speeding ticket (whoops…bad e.g., but you know what I mean), or pass a firehouse. You see their work when you go to a soccer game at a public field that’s in decent shape or stroll in a public park.

• there’s a significant multiplier to state and local spending, both in terms of contracting out work to private entities and spending by public workers in their communities (Zandi puts it at 1.4–for a dollar of state fiscal relief, GDP grows $1.4).

Herman Cain, who has made job creation a signature issue, was on the board of Whirlpool when the company engaged in a pattern of layoffs, outsourcing and the cutting of retiree benefits, all while accepting government subsidies and paying little to no taxes. Cain has made it clear that he doesn't understand jobs and the economy and has surrounded himself with people who don't know more than he does, but the Whirlpool example goes beyond a lack of understanding into an assault on American workers.

http://www.outsaurus.com/2011/11/04/outsourced-whirlpool/

Between 2008 and 2010, Whirlpool paid no federal taxes, despite sales of over $18 billion. In 2010, the company reported an effective tax rate of -10.9 percent. And the company continued to lay workers off and outsource their jobs after receiving $19 million in stimulus funds.

Cain joined the Whirlpool board of directors in 1992 and received payment for his work there as late as 2010. His compensation from Whirlpool ranged from $166,000 to $190,000 a year.

Bank of America has made it official: They plan to lay off 30,000 employees to bolster their bottom line and keep stock prices high.

Via Wall Street Journal:

We knew the Bank of America ax was going to fall, but we didn’t quite know the number. Today — after BofA CEO Brian Moynihan made no direct mention of job cuts during an investor presentation — the bank said it will cut about 30,000 jobs over the next few years.

The job cuts are part of the first phase of a sweeping Bank of America efficiency drive. BofA said in a statement that attrition and leaving vacant jobs unfilled with be a “significant part” of the expected headcount cuts.

That's a whole lot of attrition. As Laura Clawson over at Daily Kos points out:

Dealbook offers some insight into the lack of detail about 30,000 jobs and the emphasis on stock prices: Bank of America just isn't talking about it. When the bank's CEO described cost-cutting measures, he didn't even mention job cuts; that came later, in a statement that offered no specifics. Because to the big banks, jobs just aren't important. And financial reporters overwhelmingly go along with that.

While I agree with that analysis, there's something else people aren't talking about here that jumped out at me from this Reuter's article:

The Moynihan speech "was pretty underwhelming. They need to address the bigger issues the bank faces," said Jason Ware, equity analyst at Salt Lake City-based Albion Financial Group.

Continue reading »

Because when you scare them, that's how they act. I was watching "Temple Grandin" on HBO the other night and I was thinking how much Democrats are like cows in a poorly-designed cattle chute. They get spooked and start to stampede, even when there's nothing there.

Maybe we should hire Ms. Grandin to examine Congressional behavior and come up with a solution:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's plea for more stimulus spending as insurance against a double-dip recession hit a roadblock in the Senate on Wednesday, the victim of election-year anxiety over huge federal deficits.

A dozen Democrats joined Republicans on a key 52-45 test vote rejecting an Obama-endorsed, $140 billion package of unemployment benefits, aid to states, business and family tax breaks and Medicare payments for doctors because it would swell the federal debt by $80 billion.

The swing toward frugality runs counter to the advice of economists who support the bill's funding for additional jobless benefits and help to states to avoid layoffs of public service jobs. They fear that the economy could slip back into recession just as it's emerging from the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned last week that while lawmakers need to come up with a plan for tackling the nation's long-term deficit crisis, the U.S. recovery is still fragile. It's too early for large, immediate spending cuts, Bernanke said.

"We've got to do more to build on the existing jobs momentum and that's what these targeted measures are about," said White House economist Jared Bernstein.

The Senate earlier passed another version with even bigger deficits. But that was before tea party-backed candidates running on anti-deficit, anti-big government platforms began knocking off more established politicians in spring primaries.

Despite the loss, Democratic leaders predicted serenely that a scaled-back version of the measure — extending unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and providing $24 billion in aid to the states — could pass, possibly as early as later this week, after relatively minor revisions.

Dave Johnson adds:

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus says the Senate will now present a "less costly" plan" that will cost the states, the poor and the unemployed a lot more.

Bush left us with a $1.4 trillion deficit, and the unemployed and poor are paying for that. Part of the problem is that conservatives have been successful at misleading the public into thinking this huge deficit was the result of Obama's stimulus when it wasn't. (The public also conflates the stimulus with the Bush banker bailouts.)

With the election looming this misperception puts the heat on Democrats who didn't get the Cheney message that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." They are putting themselves in the role of taking the candy away -- and hurting the unemployed and poor, while risking tipping the economy back into recession. They think this will help them in the election.

Republicans are barely able to keep their snickering to themselves.Outside of the DC bubble it is clear that the Republican strategy is to cause economic pain, and then run against Democrats for causing economic pain. And this is exactly what they are doing. (Similar to the strategy of blocking everything the Congress does, and then running a campaign of "Democrats aren't getting anything done so vote for us.")

Yes, all the Republicans had to do was leave a hat on the fence to scare the most skittish Democratic cattle! Ezra Klein explains:

Other politicians, as Arthur Delaney explains, have decided that unemployment insurance is just "too much of an allure" for people. It keeps them from going back to work. In theory, you could imagine unemployment benefits so lavish such that that would happen. But in America, benefits are 36 percent of the worker's average previous wage. Imagine living on one-third of your income. That sound "alluring" to you?

Unemployment is at 9.7 percent right now. It's extraordinarily high. And it's extraordinarily high because not enough jobs are being created to absorb all the workers who got laid off during the recession. Killing their unemployment benefits wouldn't magically make more jobs appear. It would just make those people poorer, and because they'd be poorer, they'd have less to spend, and because unemployment is geographically concentrated, that would mean the economy in areas with lots of unemployed workers would tank further and thus it would take longer for it to create jobs.

From the excellent Working In These Times, Roger Bybee writes quite movingly about the growing despair of the unemployed.

It's important that we keep the heat on Congress about this, because it looks like the only unemployment politicians care about is their own:

"[Layoffs] are the opposite of life-giving; they literally deplete life… Layoffs diminish the ability to restart. You can have all kinds of people like spouses and friends say you are terrific, ... but in the core you say, I am not, and I have big evidence that I am not."

—Prof. Kim Carmon, psychologist, University of Michigan

For anyone who has ever been out of work, Kim Carmon's statement captures your innermost feelings of worthlessness that "literally deplete life." Unemployment exacts both an enormous toll on both one's self-esteem and physical health, as Prof. Peter Dreier and Dr. Harvey Brenner have documented, respectively.

When I wrote last week about the plight of America's 4.8 million unemployed, it triggered some powerful responses from unemployed workers. They're excerpted below.

The economic situation is especially dire for the 1.2 million jobless Americans who face a loss of benefits if long-term unemployment benefits are not extended beyond February 28. Many people, like this man who responded to my column last week, have already exhausted their benefits and are barely managing to scrape by:

I lost my job through no fault of my own when the economy went south. It’s a spit in the face to move up the ladder and then go from making $800 a week to $350 before taxes. My benefits recently ran out and I’ve still had no luck finding a job.

The frustration of the jobless is now being intensified by Congress' inability to accomplish four relatively simple things:

1. Develop a jobs bill commensurate with the massive problem unemployment crisis we face.
2. Extend unemployment compensation benefits due to expire on February 28, along with the provision where the federal government covers 65% of otherwise-unaffordable COBRA health insurance payments.
3. Provide aid to state and local governments that are looking at a combined deficit of $142 billion for next fiscal year, starting July 1.
4. Remove the outrageous federal income tax on unemployment benefits, which kicks in after $2,400 in benefits. For many of the unemployed, that means the tax starts being collected after just six checks.

However, as Art Levine wrote on this website, the Democrats—particularly in the Senate—seem to be on a suicide mission as they're fumbling the opportunity to merely pass am appropriately-sized jobs bill and extend unemployment and COBRA health benefits.

Continue reading »

Awfully optimistic, aren't they? I hope they're right:

Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Fewer Americans than anticipated filed claims for unemployment benefits last week, pointing to an improvement in the labor market that will help sustain economic growth next year.

Initial jobless claims fell by 22,000 to 432,000 in the week ended Dec. 26, the lowest level since July 2008, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The number of people receiving unemployment insurance fell in the prior week to 4.98 million, and those receiving extended benefits jumped.

Companies are retaining staff as sales improve and production picks up. Gains in consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of the economy, may encourage more hiring in coming months, helping to bolster the rebound from the worst recession since the 1930s.

“It’s boding well for outright job growth,” said Stephen Gallagher, chief U.S. economist at Societe Generale in New York, who forecast claims would drop to 430,000. “It seems that some of the layoffs that took place in the early part of the year were excessive.”

When these stories come out, I have to laugh. Because women on the working-class end of the economic spectrum have had to work for a very long time. Pay raises haven't get pace with the cost of living, to the point where paychecks aren't worth what they were in the 70s. Women stepped in to pick up the slack.

No, what the Wall St. Journal means is that the sort of women who are married to the men who read the Journal have to work now. (It's a class thing!) But some things remain the same: Women still get paid less.

The composition of the nation's work force is approaching an unprecedented benchmark. Due in part to deep layoffs of men, women are poised to become the majority of workers for the first time. As of September, women held 49.9% of the nation's jobs, excluding farm workers and the self-employed, a rise of 1.2 percentage points from their 48.7% share when the recession began in December 2007. In 1970, women held 35% of jobs.

Deep cuts in male-heavy sectors like construction and manufacturing have left unemployment for men age 16 and over at 11.4% as of October -- a quarter-century high. Joblessness among women is lower, at 8.8%, as employment in female-heavy sectors like education and health care has remained steadier.

There is evidence that women's growing representation in the labor force stems not only from men losing their jobs but from women who previously didn't work seeking employment. Since the recession began, the number of women age 16 and over in the labor force -- which includes both the employed and those who are looking for work -- has expanded by 300,000 to 71.7 million. Meanwhile, the number of men working or seeking work has dropped by 123,000 to 82.28 million, according to the Department of Labor.

"I think we are at a pivotal moment," said Arlie Hochschild, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who has written several books on work-life balance. For many households, it used to be that "she worked because she wanted to," said Ms. Hochschild. "Now, she's working because she has to."

Despite households' increasing reliance on the female paycheck, women still earn markedly less than men.

Women are either the sole earner or make as much as or more than their male spouses in four out of 10 U.S. families with children under 18, said Heather Boushey, a senior economist with the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank. Yet the median earnings of full-time working women in 2008, the first year of the recession, fell by 1.9% to $35,745, while earnings for men declined 1% to $46,367, according to the Commerce Department.

Gee, ya think? Everyone I know is depressed - depressed because they don't have a job, depressed because they might lose the one they have, or depressed because they're stuck in a job they hate for the benefits:

WASHINGTON - Workplace suicides surged 28 percent last year, the Labor Department said Thursday, as anxious workers dealt with a struggling economy and watched colleagues depart in a rash of layoffs.

At the same time, the agency’s Bureau of Labor Statistics said the total number of workers who died on the job from any cause fell by 10 percent.

The 5,071 workplace fatalities recorded in 2008 was the lowest number since the agency began tracking the data in 1992. That number includes 251 suicides, the highest number since official reporting began.

Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Labor officials did not seek to explain the sudden rise in workplace suicides. A BLS spokesman said the agency plans to research it more extensively.

The agency says economic factors could be responsible for the overall decline in fatalities. Workers on average worked 1 percent fewer hours last year and the construction industry — which usually accounts for a major share of accidental workplace deaths — posted even larger declines in employment or hours worked.

Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., said the numbers suggest the struggling economy taking a toll on worker morale.

“Those who are at places where there have been substantial layoffs are trying to cope with survivor’s guilt,” Chaison said. “I also think there’s tremendous anxiety in the American workplace. It’s not just being anxious, its being depressed.”

First, the bad news:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June, driving the unemployment rate up to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent, suggesting that the economy's road to recovery will be bumpy.

The Labor Department report, released Thursday, showed that even as the recession flashes signs of easing, companies likely will want to keep a lid on costs and be wary of hiring until they feel certain the economy is on a solid ground.

June's payroll reductions were deeper than the 363,000 that economists expected.

However, the rise in the unemployment rate from 9.4 percent in May wasn't as sharp as the expected 9.6 percent. Still, many economists predict the jobless rate will hit 10 percent this year, and keep rising into next year, before falling back.

All told, 14.7 million people were unemployed in June.

If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June, the highest on records dating to 1994.

Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost a net total of 6.5 million jobs.

As the downturn bites into sales and profits, companies have turned to layoffs and other cost-cutting measures to survive. Those include holding down workers' hours and freezing or cutting pay.

The average work week in June fell to 33 hours, the lowest on records dating to 1964.

The worse news: as some economists predicted, the stimulus package was too small to affect the "real" economy - you know, the one you and I live in? - in any significant way. Sounds like those who urged Obama to think large and visionary (a la FDR's Public Works Administration) really did have the right idea:

Reporting from Washington -- Even as the nation's economy begins clawing its way out of the worst recession in 60 years, there are growing signs that this recovery could come with an unsettling twist: The wheels of commerce may begin to turn again without any substantial boost in jobs.

Not only is the national unemployment rate, now 9.4%, likely to climb into double digits later this year, but it is also expected to remain there well into 2010, economists say. That would prolong the misery of the unemployed, squeeze retailers and other businesses, and add millions of dollars in government costs and lost productivity. It could even threaten the recovery itself.

Though it's common for the jobless rate to keep climbing for a time after economic output turns positive, the aftermath of the last two downturns, in 1990-91 and 2001, introduced the idea of a "jobless recovery." Even though the economy improved, many unemployed workers discovered that jobs as good as the ones they'd lost were almost impossible to find.

This time, many economists say, there are new factors that could make the problem worse. Many more layoffs in this recession have been permanent, not temporary.

HOURS DECLINE FOR EMPLOYED

"The humanitarian benefit of unemployment insurance also causes people to look with less intensity for a new job." - James Sherk, labor economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Don't you love it? Record layoffs, hiring contractions everywhere, and the wingnuts blame people who can't find the non-existent jobs. Or, even worse, the people who can't afford to work for $5 an hour. Geeze, they're all about economic self-interest: "What should I do - keep the unemployment checks that at least cover the bills, or take a minimum wage job that puts me in the red?" Wouldn't you think they'd get that simple equation?

These people are either nuts, or just plain amoral. What do you think?

People who still have jobs are faring worse than at any time since the Great Depression, a USA TODAY analysis of employment data found. Furloughs, pay cuts and reduced hours are taking a toll on workers who so far have escaped job cuts.

The employed worked fewer hours in May — an average of just 33.1 hours a week — than at any time since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began counting in 1964. Part-time work is at a record high. Overtime is at a record low.

The magnitude of job losses — 6 million jobs gone, a 9.4% unemployment rate — has overshadowed the groundbreaking nature of the nation's employment troubles, especially the financial decline of those still working.

"You can rip a whole chapter out of your Economics 101 textbook because the job market isn't behaving the way we were taught," says David Rosenberg, chief economist at money manager Gluskin Sheff and Associates.

Even working people have less to spend.

Businesses cut total wages at a 6.2% annual rate in the first quarter. Federal, state and local governments increased spending on wages by 6.1%, offsetting some of the decline.

The use of pay cuts — the last choice at most companies after hiring freezes, salary freezes and layoffs — shows how the recession is unlike any since the Depression, says Laura Sejen of compensation consultant Watson Wyatt.

"The recession has been broad, deep and long. No one has been immune," she says.

Baby boomers— 79 million people born from 1946 to 1964 — have been hit particularly hard.

Unemployment rates for workers 45 and older have soared to their highest level since at least 1948, when the government started tracking it.

Job losses for baby boomers come at a difficult time: during the traditional peak earning years, as retirement nears.

"It's hard for an older worker to compete in the job market with younger guys and women. The jobs may not pay what they were making," says Austin Sargent, an economist with Utah's Department of Workforce Services.

The average time a person has been out of work is at a post-Depression record of 22.5 weeks.

Congress' approval of higher and longer unemployment benefits may contribute to the extra time spent between jobs, says James Sherk, a labor economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"The humanitarian benefit of unemployment insurance also causes people to look with less intensity for a new job," he says.