Archive for Jobs

The Democrat’s War On African Americans

I’m back in town now, enjoying the beautiful New England weather, but still struggling a bit with jet lag. I do have a question though – Why do democrats hate African Americans? I mean why do they insist on bringing in hundreds of thousands of illegals, many of whom will do the low-skill work that many people in minority communities do today? Have they not noticed that the unemployment rate among African Americans is about twice what it is among whites? Isn’t this cruel?

Honestly, why would our first African American President be so damn hard on the African American community?

- Aggie

Comments (2)

BREAKING: ObamaCare Hurts Economy, Workers

Who could have seen this coming?

[U]nlike Settles’s other experiments, this one hasn’t been great for his business. He put raises and expansion plans on hold as he figured out the cost and logistics of making the changes. To his surprise, his employees have not leaped at the chance to get health insurance. And he is still trying to figure some things out — for example, how to safeguard employee information that must now be reported to the Internal Revenue Service, such as the Social Security numbers of children who are covered under their parents’ health plans.

“We don’t want to be liable for that,” he said. “What if we get hacked?”

In recent weeks, criticism of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate — one of the law’s most controversial components — has intensified, as employers such as Settles complain publicly and even some Obama administration allies acknowledge that the mandate has harmed some workers.

A number of businesses, including Regal Entertainment and SeaWorld, have reduced hours for part-time workers to fewer than 30 a week — the law’s definition of full time — to avoid having to offer them health insurance. Other companies say they are holding back on hiring to avoid the insurance requirement. Seasonal employees and low-wage workers, such as adjunct professors and cafeteria staffers, have been hit especially hard.

You’ll pardon Aggie and me, I hope, for laughing at Democrat stalwarts, “low-wage workers”, as the “law of the land” targets their asses. It’s more than we could have hoped for.

Did I say “law of the land”? Hardly:

“We’ve never thought [the employer mandate] was particularly good policy, and while people have probably screamed too loudly about the effects on employment, there is some of it that’s certainly true, and it’s not worth the price we seem to be paying,” said John Holahan, a fellow at the Urban Institute and a co-author of the recent paper “Why Not Just Eliminate the Employer Mandate?”

Am I the only one troubled by the concept of an optional mandate? It’s like asking your calculator to divide by zero. And the media pretend to discover these collateral damages as if they weren’t there all along.

See you in November.

Comments

Another Depressing Report On Obama’s Base [Update]

From time to time, we provide an overview of how various parts of Obama’s base voters have fared under his policies. African Americans? Not so hot? Women? Meh. Youth?

In President Obama’s speeches this year, a steady theme has been creating jobs and economic opportunity for Americans. In his State of the Union address in January he said that “what I believe unites the people of this nation . . . is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all—the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead.” And in his weekly address on Saturday, he repeated his strong appeal to young people: “As long as I hold this office, I’ll keep fighting to give more young people the chance to earn their own piece of the American Dream.”

Yet during the more than five years Mr. Obama has been in office, young people have been especially hard-hit by the slow and virtually jobless recovery. Given the destructive effect this has on individual initiative and the prospects of a productive and rewarding working life, the continuing struggle of young Americans to find jobs, start building families and contribute to society is no longer simply a matter of politics or policy. On a deeply human level, it’s profoundly sad.

Consider these grim employment numbers:

• In February the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recorded the lowest percentage of 16- to 19-year-olds working or actively looking for work (32.9%) since the bureau started tracking the data in 1948. The BLS recorded the second-lowest labor-participation rate for this group in April (33.2%) and the third-lowest in January (33.3%). May’s rate was the sixth lowest (33.8%).

• Over the past two years, the BLS has recorded some of the worst labor participation rates for 20- to 24-year-olds since 1973, when the Vietnam War was beginning to wind down. In August 2012, the 69.7% rate was the lowest since ’73. The second-lowest (70%) came in March last year. This year, the third-lowest rate came in April (70.2%). May’s rate was a still-miserable 71%.

• Looking at the seasonally unadjusted data—which is what the BLS makes publicly available—for 25- to 29-year-olds, the April 2014 labor-participation rate was the lowest the BLS has recorded since it started tracking the data in 1982 (79.8%). May’s rate was the second-lowest (79.9%). January, February and March tied with the fourth-lowest (80.3%).

These disturbing numbers raise a simple question: Where are the entry-level jobs?

Hmm? Where are the entry level jobs? On top of the refrigerator? That’s where my husband sometimes stores his reading glasses. Are they in the back seat of the car?

Five years of 2% average yearly GDP growth simply doesn’t produce enough jobs to absorb the natural increase in the labor force, and over the past eight quarters GDP growth has averaged only 1.7%. Between May 2008 and May 2014, BLS data show that the employable population increased by 14,217,000 while the number of people employed actually decreased by 94,000 and the number of people unemployed increased by 1,404,000. It remains a bad time for young people to be looking for jobs.

A bad time for young people to be looking for jobs? Maybe their parents should have timed thing a little better. These kids are obviously coming of age in a bad time.

Oh well. Maybe Obama has a scheme to make them all into trust fund babies? There’s more at the link, if you’re worried about this.

Update: Half of college grads still living off parents

Two years out of college, half of graduates are relying on their parents or other family members for some sort of financial help, according to research from the University of Arizona. The study tracked more than 1,000 of its students over the course of five years — from when they entered college in 2007 to 2013.

“These people started college during the boom period, then the market fell apart and they came out of college into a very different environment,” said Ted Beck, president of the National Endowment for Financial Education, which helped sponsor the research.

Now, the purpose of this article is to explain to you, Buck and to you, BTL, and to me, Aggie, exactly why we have to pay off the college loans of total strangers. Which is coming, as you know. And there’s damn little to be done about it, because the same people who voted Obama in – twice – are the “folks” who will raid our wallets.

- Aggie

Comments (1)

Black Man Keeping the Young Down

No, that’s not dyslexia or a typo:

In President Obama’s speeches this year, a steady theme has been creating jobs and economic opportunity for Americans. In his State of the Union address in January he said that “what I believe unites the people of this nation . . . is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all—the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead.” And in his weekly address on Saturday, he repeated his strong appeal to young people: “As long as I hold this office, I’ll keep fighting to give more young people the chance to earn their own piece of the American Dream.”

Yet during the more than five years Mr. Obama has been in office, young people have been especially hard-hit by the slow and virtually jobless recovery. Given the destructive effect this has on individual initiative and the prospects of a productive and rewarding working life, the continuing struggle of young Americans to find jobs, start building families and contribute to society is no longer simply a matter of politics or policy. On a deeply human level, it’s profoundly sad.

Yeah, but parents’ basements have never been put to more use! Sorry, out of place.

Where are the entry-level jobs?

Five years of 2% average yearly GDP growth simply doesn’t produce enough jobs to absorb the natural increase in the labor force, and over the past eight quarters GDP growth has averaged only 1.7%. Between May 2008 and May 2014, BLS data show that the employable population increased by 14,217,000 while the number of people employed actually decreased by 94,000 and the number of people unemployed increased by 1,404,000. It remains a bad time for young people to be looking for jobs.

We noted the same point yesterday: the media may herald the recovery to the number of jobs pre-recession, but we’re fourteen million people bigger than we were then. Where are their jobs?

Nonetheless, various states and municipalities have increased their minimum wage, thereby increasing the cost of employing inexperienced workers. Minimum-wage jobs have always been a gateway to better opportunities. In making hiring decisions, businesses must weigh the quality and value of work that entry-level employees produce against the cost of employing them. For many businesses in high-minimum-wage states or municipalities—Seattle leads the list, having approved a move to a $15 minimum wage—that trade-off is no longer working.

The bottom line on labor: Make something less expensive and businesses will use more of it. Make something more expensive and businesses will use less of it. The Congressional Budget Office has forecast a loss of 500,000 jobs should the president’s proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour become law.

The CBO also forecast that this increase would lift a number of people who already have jobs above the poverty threshold. For 500,000 unemployed people, however, that’s 500,000 opportunities American businesses will never create.

Don’t get this guy started on ObamaCare. Talk about a job killer. In fact, looking at Obama’s policies, you’d almost think he was killing the job market on purpose. Perhaps to capture a permanent class of dependents. He couldn’t be doing a better job (fortunate as he is—and unfortunate for us—to have one).

I think more than a few young people would be happier to graze on ol’ Obama’s farm than work like this:

I’m not speaking primarily as a business CEO. My company will adjust to new laws. I’m speaking as someone from a working-class family. I started work scooping ice cream for the minimum wage at Baskin-Robbins. To put myself through college and law school while supporting my family, I cut lawns, painted houses and busted concrete with a jackhammer. I know how important these jobs are. For one thing, they taught me—as no lectures from my parents ever could—that I needed a good education so I wouldn’t have to settle for low-paying work the rest of my life. Too many young people today are being deprived of even that basic lesson.

For which they give great thanks!

Comments

Party Like It’s 2008!

We’ve “recovered” all the jobs lost in the “Great Recession”! Hooray!!

The U.S. economy has regained all of the jobs lost during the Great Recession. The economy added 217,000 jobs were added in May, with the unemployment rate holding steady at 6.3%. The recovery has been the slowest in U.S. history and most of the new jobs are not paying as much as the jobs that were lost. Still, unemployment in America is at its lowest level since September 2008.

So what if the population has grown by 14,000,000 people in the interim? Most of them are still in short pants. We’ve essentially added the combined population of Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, and Alaska (Obama’s 57 states now makes sense!)—but they’re all on welfare. Let’s celebrate!

Comments

It’s Unexpected!™ Again.

Dudes, that was like a week ago. Get over it.

More Americans than projected filed applications for unemployment benefits last week, while total benefit rolls reached the lowest since December 2007, signs the U.S. job market may take time to show a sustained acceleration.

Jobless claims increased by 28,000 to 326,000 in the week ended May 17, after 298,000 filings a week earlier that were higher than initially reported, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 50 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a rise to 310,000. Continuing claims decreased for a third consecutive week.

A steady decline in firings is needed for employers to boost hiring and eventually raise wages that would spur consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy. Federal Reserve policy makers expect the job market will show further gradual improvement, according to minutes of their April meeting released yesterday.

What if Bush had presided over this national disaster? Bozos.

- Aggie

Comments

“A Tragic Era Of Lost Opportunity And Unrealized Potential”

Break out the handkerchiefs

I must confess, I do feel sorry for these young adults, sorrier even for the elders who will be dependent upon their contributions to our old age, but how could they possibly have been this stupid – twice???

The great irony of the Obama era is that the President’s base voters have disproportionately suffered from a sputtering economy, while the wealthy that Mr. Obama likes to criticize have enjoyed a booming stock market. A new study shows just how difficult this era has been for some of the President’s most loyal supporters.

Researchers at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning think tank, find that “The Great Recession has been hard on all recent college graduates, but it has been even harder on black recent graduates.”

In 2013, the unemployment rate for black college graduates ages 22-27 was a full 12.4%, more than double the 5.6% rate for all college grads in the same age range.

And for those African-American recent grads who did have jobs in 2013, study authors Janelle Jones and John Schmitt find that a staggering 56% were underemployed, meaning they were doing jobs that typically don’t require a four-year college degree. This compares to 45% underemployment among all recent graduates. For youngsters of all colors, these statistics describe a tragic era of lost opportunity and unrealized potential.

Even a career-friendly course of study isn’t protecting young graduates from the ravages of this historically slow recovery. The authors report that “for the years 2010 to 2012, among black recent graduates with degrees in engineering, the average unemployment rate was 10 percent and the underemployment rate was 32 percent.” Among all recent grads with engineering degrees, the average unemployment rate in those years was 6%, while 22% were underemployed.

This is what the children of my friends and acquaintances seem to be doing: They are remaining in college or grad school for as long as possible. But, sooner or later, once has to take that adjunct professor job(s) or put on the barista uniform. And just this morning I reminisced about the period when we were finishing school. Someone I know very well was having trouble getting an engineering job and his wife was about to give birth. He briefly considered running for Mayor of NYC on the Give Joe A Job, He’s The Only Candidate That Needs It platform, but was saved by the bell two week before k-day (Kid Day). Carter gave us a miserable economy too. But this time there is no excuse.

- Aggie

Comments (1)

Sequester Fester

Wasn’t the sequester supposed to be the greatest threat to humankind not called climate change?

I hope you’re sitting down:

Despite doomsday warnings from the White House and lawmakers on both sides that hundreds of thousands would lose their jobs as a result of the sequester, it turns out the budget cuts have only led to one job being lost among 23 federal agencies.

Now Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is demanding answers as to why the Obama administration repeatedly warned taxpayers that the $85.3 billion in spending cuts, which went into effect in March 2013, would threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs. The findings were revealed in a government watchdog report.

The report is a stark contrast from the dire predictions from the Obama administration and Democratic leadership, who blamed Republicans for the cuts.

In a memo released before the sequester cuts went into effect, the White House claimed they “threaten hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs.” In a speech at the White House that February, President Obama repeated those claims.

“These cuts are not smart, they are not fair, they will hurt our economy, they will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls,” he said. “This is not an abstraction. People will lose their jobs.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid upped the doomsday rhetoric in July, according to the Washington Post, saying on the Senate floor over a million jobs were already lost.

“We have learned that the sequestration already has cut 1.6 million jobs. So we need job creation. We need to help the middle class by creating jobs,” he said.

Team Obama knows what to do when caught in a lie: double down.

In response, OMB spokesman Steve Posner said in a statement to FoxNews.com there is “no question” the sequestration has had an negative impact on Americans, pointing out the report also states that employees had their hours reduced and agencies were forced to curtail hiring as a result of the cuts, among other examples.

“GAO itself notes that many of the flexibilities used to mitigate the effects of sequestration in 2013 may not be available in future years, suggesting that the impacts would be even worse if sequestration is allowed to occur in future years,” he said.

In other words, you got off easy, America. This time.

PS: Harry Reid actually said that—1.6 million people had been canned? More proof that no one listens to that wizened little turd.

Comments

It’s Unexpected!™

Job postings down; media continues to obfuscate

U.S. employers advertised slightly fewer jobs and slowed hiring a bit in March, though the declines came after healthy gains the previous month. The figures suggest the job market is improving in fits and starts.

The Labor Department says employers posted 4 million jobs in March, 2.7 percent fewer than the previous month. But February’s total was the highest since January 2008, when the Great Recession was just beginning.

And let’s see if the weekly unemployment numbers were swell yesterday…

Yes. Absolutely swell!

* Weekly jobless claims fall 26,000

Drop in jobless claims signals firmer labor market Reuters
U.S. payrolls surge in April, jobless rate hits 5-1/2 year low Reuters
Economists expect rise in jobs in April report USA TODAY
U.S. jobless claims drop 26,000 to 319,000 MarketWatch
TABLE – U.S. jobless claims fall in latest week Reuters
* Four-week moving average of claims rises 4,500

The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week, indicating the labor market was strengthening despite a run-up in applications in prior weeks.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits declined 26,000 to a seasonally adjusted 319,000 for the week ended May 3, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

The decline snapped three straight weeks of increases that were driven by difficulties adjusting data during the Easter and Passover holidays and school spring breaks, which fall on different calendar days every year.

Blame it on Passover and Easter. And the cold and the heat. And Russia and Ukraine. We’re on the right track and anyone who disputes that is a dope.

- Aggie

Comments (1)

About The Unemployment Numbers

No dispute, 288,000 new jobs is good news. With that conceded, I’m a little confused how those 288,000 offset 1,280,000 lost jobs (the rolling four-week average of new unemployment claims).

Also:

The civilian labor force dropped by 806,000 in April, following an increase of 503,000 in March. The labor force participation rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 62.8 percent in April. The participation rate has shown no clear trend in recent months and currently is the same as it was this past October. The employment-population ratio showed no change over the month (58.9 percent) and has changed little over the year.

The labor force participation rate usually rises or falls by one or two-tenths of a percentage point. Four-tenths—and 806,000—is a huge number. It is joined by another huge number: 92,018,000 Americans “not in the labor force”, an increase of 880,000 in the last month. Ninety-two million Americans not working—the combined populations of Spain and the Ukraine just not working. The number had been declining in recent months, but boy did that change. It’s easy to see how 288k can drop the unemployment rate when so few people are working.

All of this has to be seen in the light of the GDP report last week. Zero-point-one percent growth does not bode well for a robust jobs market. To be continued.

Comments (2)

OMG! It’s Unexpected!™

How dumb are we?

Seriously, how many times can we buy this? Are we dumber than dirt?

The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week, but the underlying trend continued to point to improving labour market conditions.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 14,000 to a seasonally adjusted 344,000 for the week ended April 26, the Labor Department said on Thursday. That was the highest level since February.

Claims for the week ended April 19 were revised to show 1,000 more applications received than previously reported.

- Aggie

Comments

A New Twist On Kids Moving In With Mom And Dad

Middle-aged unemployed kids moving in with Mom.

This is very, very sad, but one has to ask: Who Did They Vote For?

Debbie Rohr lives with her husband and twin teenage sons in a well-tended three-bedroom home in Salinas.

The ranch-style house has a spacious kitchen that looks out on a yard filled with rosebushes. It’s a modest but comfortable house, the type that Rohr, 52, pictured for herself at this stage of life.

She just never imagined that it would be her childhood home, a return to a bedroom where she once hung posters of Olivia Newton-John and curled up with her beloved Mrs. Beasley doll.

Driven by economic necessity — Rohr has been chronically unemployed and her husband lost his job last year — she moved her family back home with her 77-year-old mother.

At a time when the still sluggish economy has sent a flood of jobless young adults back home, older people are quietly moving in with their parents at twice the rate of their younger counterparts.

For seven years through 2012, the number of Californians aged 50 to 64 who live in their parents’ homes swelled 67.6% to about 194,000, according to the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the Insight Center for Community Economic Development.

The jump is almost exclusively the result of financial hardship caused by the recession rather than for other reasons, such as the need to care for aging parents, said Steven P. Wallace, a UCLA professor of public health who crunched the data.

“The numbers are pretty amazing,” Wallace said. “It’s an age group that you normally think of as pretty financially stable. They’re mid-career. They may be thinking ahead toward retirement. They’ve got a nest egg going. And then all of a sudden you see this huge push back into their parents’ homes.”

Many more young adults live with their parents than those in their 50s and early 60s live with theirs. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 1.6 million Californians have taken up residence in their childhood bedrooms, according to the data.

Though that’s a 33% jump from 2006, the pace is half that of the 50 to 64 age group.

The surge in middle-aged people moving in with parents reflects the grim economic reality that has taken hold in the aftermath of the Great Recession.

Long-term unemployment is especially acute for older people. The number of Americans 55 and older who have been out of work for a year or more was 617,000 at the end of December, a fivefold jump from the end of 2007 when the recession hit, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Whatever the cause, moving in with Mom and Dad exacts a bruising emotional toll. Even asking to move the family in was difficult for Rohr.

“I said ‘Mom, I’m so sorry but I don’t know what to do,’” she said. “I dreaded it. If it wasn’t for my boys I wouldn’t have done it. I would have lived in my car.”

Jenny Chung Mejia knows how tough it can be. As a public policy consultant at the Insight Center for Community Economic Development in Los Angeles, she helps people and communities regain their economic health.

“It’s unexpected vulnerability at this point in your life,” she said. “When you’re supposed to be the provider, sort of the rock for yourself and your family and maybe your parents, the table just gets turned on you and the rug gets pulled out from under you.”

That’s what happened to Janine Rosales, who moved into her mother’s San Francisco home two years ago after a career of mostly low-paying jobs left her unable to afford the city’s towering rents.

For Rosales, 53, it represented a personal defeat, an unofficial marker of unmet goals in life.

“I sit here sometimes and I see baby pictures of myself and my teenage years and remember all the dreams I had,” Rosales said. “I never thought I’d end up where I am.”

Cohabitation also brings a slew of more mundane challenges.
Rosales’ mother goes to bed at 7 p.m. and, as she did when Rosales was a child, tells her daughter to do the same.
“I’m being treated like a child, being told when to turn off the lights and when to go to sleep,” Rosales said.

The situation is also trying on elderly parents.
..
“When I use up all of my money, who’s going to help me?” said Rohr’s mother, Penny Goulart.

After years of living by herself, the arrival of her daughter’s family threw off the daily rhythms of Goulart’s carefully ordered life.
“I know it’s very difficult on them because they feel like they’re invading my space,” Goulart said. “But from my standpoint, I’ve had years of peace and quiet and I like my house in a certain way. Everything in its place. All neat and clean, and then four people move in. There’s more laundry and more drama.”

Goulart sleeps in one of the three bedrooms and uses a second bedroom as her office, Rohr said.

Rohr, her husband and twin 16-year-old boys squeeze into the third bedroom. The boys sleep in the bed, and Rohr and her husband spread blankets on the floor for themselves.
As Rohr has learned, even families that generally get along suffer tension.

When the family moved in in October, Goulart initially didn’t allow Rohr’s husband, Ron, to sleep in the home. He spent nights in his car on the street.
“I come from an era when a man takes care of his family first and foremost,” Goulart said. “My thought was ‘This is your family. You’re the head of the household and you should be supporting them.’”

Rohr, however, thought her mother was being cruel. “She would not let him come in the home at all,” Rohr said. “Not to use the restroom. Nothing.”
After Ron Rohr landed a temporary job, Goulart allowed him back in the house. “I felt like ‘OK, he’s working. He needs a comfortable bed to sleep in,’” Goulart said. “I’m not hardhearted.”

Goulart recently left to visit other family members, and Rohr said her mother asked her to move out when she returns in three weeks.

As she has for months, Rohr is applying frantically for jobs. She’s willing to do anything but has had no luck.
“It’s really hard mentally,” Rohr said. “You feel kind of helpless, that you can’t provide for your family anymore and you have to move back home to Mom’s house.”

OK, I have to admit that this is one of the saddest stories I’ve read – but again, a vote for Obama was a vote against arithmetic, basically. It was a vote against common sense. It was a vote against job creation. They live in California, so I’m going to make the wild and crazy guess that that is just what they did. Probably twice. I could certainly be wrong. Reading this, is seems to me like they might be better off in a State of California homeless shelter. Let the liberals who run the state support them.

- Aggie

Comments (2)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »