Tag Archives: unemployment

Regional and State Employment Report

Regional and state unemployment rates were little changed in March. Thirty states recorded unemployment rate decreases, 8 states posted rate increases, and 12 states and the District of Columbia had no change, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia registered unemployment rate decreases from a year earlier, while New York experienced an increase. The national jobless rate was little changed from February at 8.2 percent but was 0.7 percentage point lower than in March 2011.

In March 2012, non-farm payroll employment increased in 29 states and the District of Columbia, decreased in 20 states, and was unchanged in Alabama. The largest over-the-month increase in employment occurred in New York (+19,100), followed by California (+18,200) and Arizona (+13,500). The largest over-the-month decrease in employment occurred in Ohio (-9,500), followed by New Jersey (-8,600) and Wisconsin (-4,500).

The West continued to record the highest regional unemployment rate in March, 9.6 percent, while the Midwest again reported the lowest rate, 7.4 percent. Over the month, only the South experienced a statistically significant unemployment rate change (-0.2 percentage point).

Nevada continued to record the highest unemployment rate among the states, 12.0 percent in March. Rhode Island and California posted the next highest rates, 11.1 and 11.0 percent, respectively. North Dakota again registered the lowest jobless rate, 3.0 percent, followed by Nebraska, 4.0 percent. In total, 23 states reported jobless rates significantly lower than the U.S. figure of 8.2 percent, 7 states and the District of Columbia had measurably higher rates, and 20 states had rates that were not appreciably different from that of the nation. Ohio was among those 20 states.

In spite of the loss of 9,500 jobs, Ohio gained 56,000 jobs since March 2011.

Not exactly earth-shaking figures, but at there is some good news.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary, April 20,2012.

Marriage and Unemployment : Some Advise on How to Cope

Even though financial expert claim the great recession is over, its effects on marriages and families still continues. One of those devastating outcomes is unemployment. Many marriages are strained to point of breaking as a result of job loss and as well as home foreclosures.

An article published by the online publication For Your Marriage addresses some of the problems many couples are experiencing as result of unemployment. Authored by Bill Dodds, the article titled “When Unemployment Hits Home: Seven Ways to Help Your Marriage” is written from the perspective of clinical health professional Sarah Griffin who provides counseling services at the Seattle Archdiocese’s Catholic Community Services in Everett, Washington.

“Unemployment can leave an individual—and a couple—feeling overwhelmed, powerless, frightened. In a word, crushed. Yes, the partner looking for work can follow all the recommended steps for landing that next job but in the meantime…the meantime can be a long time.”

The article continues by offering seven ways to for couples and individuals can cope as well as strengthen their marriage. Following is only one of the things a couple can do. The entire article can be read online at
For Your Marriage.

“6. They can notice and appreciate that, in the middle of all this turmoil, there may well be some positives. A formerly two-income family may not be able to afford day care anymore, but now the family doesn’t need day care. A dad may be surprised to discover he really enjoys being home with the kids. (Not that it’s easier than heading out every day to a job!) Now he gets to know them, and they get to know him, in ways that wouldn’t have happened without his unemployment. A couple that has talked about, and seriously considered, simplifying the family’s lifestyle can realize that now there’s both a perfect excuse to do just that–and little option to do otherwise.”

For Your Marriage is a publication of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Why Deficit Reduction Is Necessary and Need Not Hurt the Poor

By Isabel V. Sawhill, Brookings Senior Fellow, Economic Studies

We need to reduce our long-term deficits. We cannot forever spend more than we collect in taxes. And if we continue on our current path we risk another economic crisis that is likely to produce even more unemployment than we have now.

To be sure, we should not cut the deficit right now—that would be very bad for the economy. We should combine stimulus now with legislative initiatives that gradually rein in spending and raise taxes once the economy has recovered.

But if we continue to ignore the huge accumulation of debt in our future, or assume it can be addressed without cutting domestic spending, it is the least advantaged who are likely to suffer the most.
Why do I say this?

First, if we have another economic crisis that produces high rates of unemployment for an extended period, social programs will do no more than temporarily reduce the harm inflicted on the least advantaged. The safety net is no substitute for a job and a growing economy. Deficits matter because, in the longer term, they undermine the economy’s ability to produce the jobs that are especially critical to moving people out of poverty and into the middle class.

Second, many progressives believe that we can solve our fiscal problems by cutting defense and raising taxes. Although I believe they are right to fight for both of these solutions, I do not think they will be sufficient. As I have argued in more detail elsewhere (see my debate with Greg Anrig in the September issue of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas), the numbers simply don’t add up unless taxes are raised across the board to unprecedented levels—and not just for the wealthy. This level of taxation is not only politically unfeasible but unfair to the many middle and working class families who are currently struggling and whose incomes were stagnating even before the recent downturn.

Third, any effort to protect Social Security and Medicare from future spending reductions – as many advocates are now arguing – will simply put more pressure on programs that serve the disadvantaged and their children. The rapid growth of spending on entitlements has already forced the Obama Administration to propose a freeze in non-security domestic spending.

In California, Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed an elimination of the state’s welfare-to-work program as well as most child care assistance for low-income families, a harbinger of what may happen at the national level as the budget squeeze plays out over the next decade or two. This should give pause to those who argue that we can’t touch health or retirement benefits for those over about age 55, since they won’t have time to adjust to the changes. There’s no such “adjustment time” permitted for single moms with a low-wage job who are suddenly forced to spend one third of their income on child care.

Those who care about protecting the less advantaged need to be willing to find savings in the largest and fastest growing portion of the federal budget—the big three entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In 2010, 71 percent of all revenues are devoted to just these three programs.
What kinds of changes should advocates for the poor support?

First, they should support reforms that leave the core commitments behind Social Security and Medicare intact and ensure that no one is left bereft of access to basic health care and a decent income in old age.

Second, they should support reforms that gradually trim benefits for the more affluent over time while protecting those at the bottom.

Third, they should support reforms that recognize that not all spending on health care improves health. Specifically, we need to move toward reimbursement rates for providers that are tied to evidence of effectiveness. The goal should be to improve health, not just access to health care. Thanks to the recent health care bill, health care itself is now nearly universal. But some estimates suggest that as much as a third of all health care spending does not improve health—an estimate that is further reinforced by the good health outcomes achieved in other advanced countries that spend far less than the U.S. on health care.

But the answer for those who care about low-income Americans is not to ignore deficit reduction. It’s to pursue sensible deficit reduction in a way that protects poor people now and ensures a more prosperous future for everyone.

This article was originally published by Brookings on October 18, 2010 at www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/1018_deficit_reduction_sawhill.aspx

Real World Employment News

Last week, mainstream news outlets gleefully reported a booming growth of 151,000 new jobs. Even the liberal Economic Policy Institute (EPI) joined in the celebration of accelerated job growth. The EPI was also pleasantly surprised by the modest level of state and local government jobs. The real party pooper was the announcement that the national rate of unemployment remained at 9.6 percent. In a more sober moment, the EPI said it will take years before we will see pre-recession levels of employment growth. Bummer….

Unfortunately, the above employment numbers are not real. According to the Dr. Lacy Hunt of Hosington Investment Management, the broader measure of household employment fell by 330,000. While 151,000 more people where included in payroll statistics, 330,000 more working people living in households became unemployed. Using Dr. Lacy’s figures, the total number of newly unemployed was 171,000 in October.

Dr. Lacy also explained why the unemployment rate remained the same. The reason was 254,000 members of the unemployed dropped off the statistical charts. They are no longer getting unemployment checks. They are no longer hoping for a decent job or any job. They no long looking for work. They are dropouts. As of October, the civilian labor force participation rate fell to a record low 64.5 percent. This means 35.5 percent of working age people were not employed. One can only wonder about how the paternal godfathers and mothers on Capitol Hill will attempt to save those dropouts–a new entitlement program maybe?

To make matters worse, the number of full-time workers who lost jobs was 124,000 increasing the total number of full-time job losses over the past 5 months to 1.1 million. This reduces the level of full-time employment to those in 1999. An economy cannot generate income growth by continuing to substitute part-time work for full-time employment, according to Dr. Lacy.

The Feds recent infusion of $600 billion new dollars will further erode the household incomes with which to purchase goods and service and pay their bills.

Xenia taxpayers will have even less after-tax income to spend once the 1/2% income tax, health service tax, and other tax increases take effect.

Source: Thoughts from the Frontline Weekly Newsletter

Xenia Employee Conundrum and Issue 9

By Daniel Downs

City management claims the proposed income tax levy (Issue 9) will allow them to rehire six police and fire employees. The proposed levy also will be used for streets and other capital improvement projects. When looking at the 2009 State Audit Report, the employment data does not match the levy rhetoric.

Consider the following:

In 2009, the City of Xenia reported having 297 employees. The number of total city employees for 2007 was 290. That means the city had more not less employees last year than the past two years. If city officials laid off 6 police and fire employees, how can there more employees than in 2008?

The employment conundrum only gets more interesting.

In the same financial report for 2009, the total number of full time equivalent employees numbered 216.5, but in 2008 the total was 227.5 and 227.25 for 2007.

I have heard of “Two and a Half Men,” but a quarter!

The difference between the employment figures above shows the city actually laid off 11 full time employees, none of which adds up to 297 or 290.

By now, you smart readers have figured out that the large differences between 297 and 216.5 employees is probably due to volunteers who are considered employees. If the 60.5 employees are not volunteers, then who the heck are they?

Accounting for the 60.5 volunteers-employees does not solve the entire conundrum. According to the State audited report, Xenia laid off 9 full time and 2 part-time employees plus 2 employees retired. This adds up to 13. City management wants to rehire 6 laid off security personnel. So who were the other 5 employees the city let go?

Let’s look at a summary of changes in city employment for 2009:

– 3 full-time and 1 part-time finance department workers were laid off.
– 2 full-time and 1 part-time employees were added or transferred to the legal    department or court.
– 1 full-time administrator was laid off or transferred elsewhere.
– 2 full-time information technology positions were added and filled.
– 3 full-time police officers were laid off.
– 1 full-time fire fighter also was laid off.
– 7 full-time and 1 part-time street maintenance personnel were laid off.
– 2 full time of street maintenance workers were transfer to a new department    called garage.
– 4 full-time and 1 part-time recreation workers were laid off.
– 1 full-time and 1 part employee were transferred to newly formed positions    under Parks.
– 8 full-time service employees were transferred to (at least on paper) to the    following categories:
– 4 full-time positions were created under development and planning.
– 4 full-time positions transferred to engineering.
– 4 full-time and 1 part-time employees were added (or transferred) to the    water department, and finally,
– 1 full-time sewer worker was laid off–that job stunk anyway.
–  28 total full-time and 3 part-time workers laid off.
+ 17 total full-time and 3 part-time workers added (or transferred).
 

Out of all the lay-offs, transfers, and new positions, it is difficult to pinpoint who the 5 actually were. We know for certain that the number of police and fire personnel actually laid off were 4 and not six in 2009.

Did you notice only one fire fighter was laid off? Did the Second Street fire station (No. 2) employ only one fire fighter? He must have been one tired professional working 24 hours a day and seven days a week.

Interestingly, closing fire state no.2 and laying one fire fighter did not decrease expenditures of the fire department. Instead of offsetting a $500,000 decrease in tax revenue, expenditures increased $26,000 in 2009.

Just when I was certain the conundrum was resolved, city council sent out a “Vote No on Issue 10” postcard claiming the passage of the 1/2% income tax levy will enable the city to bring 12 laid off public safety officers. Since when did the city lay off 12 fire and police officers? Not last year! It just so happens the city laid off 5 police officers and 2 fire fighters in 2004. Adding those laid off in 2009, the number of laid off safety personnel equals 11.

So what’s 1 lost employee anyway? Maybe he/she fell into the black hole of political rhetoric.

It is true the city had less revenue in 2009, which is actually part of a recurring trend in municipal finance. The 10-year history of the city’s revenue and expenditures shows this trend occurs every 2-3 years. This time around the decreased revenue stream is the result of government bureaucrats in Washington and their fellows in the state house as well as reckless lenders. In the financial report, city management reported a 12% unemployment rate for Xenia. Because of this, it is claimed city tax revenues have decreased. It is true some taxpayers are without jobs; some have moved away; and some small business owners who are still in business remain concerned about the possibility of a double-dip recession. Yet, if the number of tax filers is any indication, employment among residents actually increased in 2009. The number of tax filers increased by 76 among last year. The problem with more individual income tax filers was less income tax revenue. According to the financial report, their contribution to the city’s general revenues was down by $4,400. It is clear the nearly $500,000 decrease in tax revenues was not the result of unemployment. It was the result of both recessionary effects on business and property values.

Once the economy fully recovers, city tax revenue will exceed pre-recession levels. The lost employee might be found and 6-11 new safety personnel hired. That is as long most of the nearly 3,000 new residents remain and new businesses replace those the recession closed.

Because of all these factors, Xenia voters should say NO to the municipal tax levy (Issue 9); NO to the fire and police unions’ ordinance that will force Xenia taxpayers to hire previous or new employees and allow them to increase expenditures (Issue 10); and YES on Issue 11, which will enable the city to hire part-time employees until unemployment is reduced to post-recession levels and the economy is viable once again.

Why the Stimulus has Failed Ohio

By Mary McCleary

It is a generally accepted fact that the stimulus did not work and the supposed “Summer of Recovery” was anything but that. Since the original stimulus package was passed under President George W. Bush, national unemployment has doubled from 4.8 percent to 9.6 percent while Ohio unemployment has risen from 5.6 percent to 10.1 percent. When Congress passed the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, President Barack Obama promised unemployment would stay below eight percent, yet unemployment continued to rise.

Both the original stimulus and the ARRA have miserably failed, and the big question is why. Why isn’t all this spending leading to a revitalized economy?

Stimulus spending does nothing to create wealth. It is merely a redistribution of already existing wealth. Sound confusing? Frederic Bastiat, a nineteenth century political economist, illustrates this concept well through his Broken Window Fallacy.

In Bastiat’s example, a child carelessly breaks a store window. The shopkeeper, in turn, must spend money to replace the broken window. Therefore, the shopkeeper stimulates the economy through purchasing a new window, right? Not so fast.

While the window company benefits from the broken window, other people and industries are hurt by the destruction of capital. Due to the broken window, the shopkeeper has less disposable income to spend on other goods and services. He has to purchase a new window instead of spending his money on new business equipment or whatever he chooses. Thus, the shopkeeper is poorer than he previously was, and other industries do not benefit from the shopkeeper’s dollars. No real wealth is created.

How does this tie into all the stimulus spending? Pretend you are the shopkeeper and the government is the child that forces you to spend money. To “stimulate” the economy, the government forces you to give $500 to subsidize a window company. You lose $500 of disposable income, as do the establishments where you would have spent that money. No wealth is created – it is merely redistributed.

When the government stimulates the economy, it doesn’t create wealth. Instead, it merely picks the winners and the losers.

Since March 2000, Ohio has lost 588,600 private sector jobs (second only to Michigan). Of these job losses, 137,000 occurred after ARRA went into effect (Ohio has lost 386,800 jobs since Governor Ted Strickland took over). If “stimulus” spending isn’t helping Ohio reach better days, what will?

* Broad-base tax reform. Ohio has the seventh highest state and local tax burden. High taxes hurt economic growth and give companies an incentive to locate to lower tax states.

* Regulatory reform. Regulations increase the cost of doing business. Just recently, Continental Plastics moved to Indiana to avoid an Ohio regulation costing Toledo over 200 jobs. According to the Toledo Blade, since 2000, about 140 factories have closed in northwest Ohio with a majority relocating to the southern United States. In fact, 20 companies over the last ten years have left Ohio for just Atlanta, Georgia.

* Right-to-work reform. Ohio does not protect a worker’s freedom to choose whether or not to join a union to obtain employment. Over the last 20 years, right-to-work states have added and sustained jobs twice as fast as forced unionization states like Ohio – even after large housing-related job losses in Arizona, Florida, and Nevada. The 15 worst states for job growth since January 1990 are all forced unionization states, while 11 of the 15 top states are right-to-work states.

* Budget reform. Ohio currently faces an estimated $8.4 billion budget deficit. In a state already struggling, raising taxes is not a viable option for recovery. The budget must be realigned to fit the economic conditions of the time. To minimize the effect on our vulnerable populations, the compensation of government workers cannot be taken off the table. If state government worker compensation is realigned to match the private sector, the state could save over $2 billion dollars in the next budget.

As Bastiat and the stimulus have proven, redistributive spending is no way to dig out of an economic hole. While Ohioans have relatively little sway over federal government spending, Ohioans do have an important say in how this state is run. It is time for our leaders to make the tough choices and for the people to hold them accountable when they don’t.

Mary McCleary is a policy analyst at the Buckeye Institute.

Good News-Ohio Unemployment Rate Drops 10.8%; Bad News-It’s still Above 10%

According to a 20 September report in the Dayton Business Journal, the Ohio economy faces some positive development in the labor market. Ohio unemployment dropped a whopping 0.4% from 11.2% in July to 10.8% in August.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is the unemployment rate is still well over last year’s rate of a mere 6.7%.

The multiple million dollar question (that represents loss of income) is whatever happened to full employment? That is the employment of all able-bodied citizens. I would include domestic labor such as stay -at-home moms and homemakers as among the employed. Could it be that the welfare state needs unemployment for its beneficent rule?

What scares me is the possibility that the devil really is in the details. As reported by the Dayton Business Journal, “Nonfarm payroll fell about 30,100 jobs to 5.1 million employees from 5.13 million in July, while the ranks of Ohio’s unemployed – those without jobs and actively looking for work – fell to 641,000 from 666,000.” See, 666 x 1,000 probably means there are a thousand devils ruining Ohio jobs. Some people seem to think that if you add up all politicians including lobbyists the number equals about the same.

I’m not blaming the Dayton Business Journal for preaching this bad news in a positive way for one simple reason: they were simply reporting what the Jobs and Family Department of Ohio reported. For example:

“A decrease in Ohio’s labor force was a primary factor in the drop of the August unemployment rate,” department Director Douglas Lumpkin said in a release. “The unemployment rate declined as the number of service-providing and goods-producing jobs decreased and fewer Ohioans were actively seeking work.”

Did you notice the double-speak oozing out of that statement?

I always thought a reduction in the labor force resulted in an increase in the unemployment rate, but not in Ohio. If you get depressed or otherwise sick of trying to find work, it means you are non-existent. It implies that members in the non-labor force are no longer independent citizens. They are nobodies in the statistical world of imperial politics. Such no-bodies may become some-bodies if they submit the imperial paternalism of the welfare state, which by the way, is run mostly by rich politicians and quasi-state institutions called national corporations.

The poor saps who have stopped looking for work are ba-a-a-d people. I can’t understand why anyone could quit looking for work in a society run by rich people who have intentionally worked to put people out of work by their wonderfully increasing debt producing policies that is making it nearly impossible for all but those bailed out by Chinese government loans to continue employing non-labor force people–go figure.

The government should thank those non-labor force people for making the unemployment rate look better than it is. Maybe it will assist political bureaucrats to convince foreign investors to continue loaning them more money.

The unemployed and the state’s economic dependents, however, will be unable to help pay back all of that beneficial debt that will continue to tax Ohio and American citizens’ economic prosperity without their full knowledge and approval.

Source: Dayton Business Journal, September 18, 2009

Ohio Ranked at 45th on the Happiness Index

On Nov. 6, 2009, the misery index peaked. The cause was attributed to too many Democrats winning elections. Soon after, masses of Ohioans were visiting their doctors asking for tranquilizers or Prozac to numb the cataclysmic consequences of Democratic control of the economy. The misery index didn’t just peak it burst the barometer.

The folks on MainStreet have devised a new barometer to measure our financial misery. Instead of calling a misery index, they have taken a more positive and patriotic approach. They now measure our happiness via our economic misery the supposed lack thereof.

The folks on MainStreet make a reasonable argument for a happiness index.

“We all know that money alone can’t buy happiness, but having a job, home and enough money to cover your basic budgetary needs is a good start.

“The Happiness Index, which looks at household income, debt, employment and foreclosures, is a fresh take on the old and tired Misery Index, made popular in the 1970s. The Misery Index takes into account unemployment and inflation rates and seeks to identify the most financially miserable places to live.

“The Happiness Index, on the other hand, is all about which states are best weathering the current economic storm.”

Who can argue against chucking the Misery Index for one that is not so personal but is rather only about the financial misery or happiness of states. After all, states are only made up of things like individuals and people. Stuff like animals, bugs, plants, stupid buildings, and the like are just colorful ornaments.

Anyway, as the title of this post indicates, the state of Ohio must be feeling pretty unhappy. Out of 50 states–that is those in the U.S.–Ohio’s place in the economic rat race to happiness is almost at the bottom. The folks on MainStreet ranked Ohio at an overwhelmingly depressive 45.

If the trend holds, the government will want to give Ohio doctors and drugs companies a gigantic stimulus package to put Ohioans on Prozac, Ritalin, or some other wonder working drugs to keep Ohioans on-track to happy prosperity.

Lest I become the first patient, let me return to the hard work of the folks on Main Street.com. Their efforts are meant to show us poor Ohioans how a low percent of our portion of the multiple trillions of dollars of debt outside of our loans on home and other property, how a low percentage of unemployed, and how low number of foreclosures per household makes our state a happy one.

Being an analytical ole’ cuss, I see something rather interesting. Most happy state in dis-union is Nebraska. On the “non-mortgage debt as a percent of income” category, the happiest state was at 29.2% while poor miserable Ohio was at 33.9%. That’s a meager difference of only 4.7%. On the “unemployment category, the happy, happy state has an unemployment rate of 4.2% while our depressed state has an unemployment rate of 9.4%. That is a small difference that equates to many thousands times of unhappiness. On the last category called “one foreclosure per number of households,” Nebraska is on a high of about 25,187 while Ohio suffers severe withdrawals of 452. These increasingly troublesome differences can mean only one of three things:
(1) Warren Buffet, a Nebraskan, is paying for these results. (2) The high Nebraskan who sits on a mountain of paper gold is bailing-out his would-be miserable state. Or, (3) Ohio is among the kings of bad mortgage loans to people wanting desperately to participate in the American Dream while still hallucinating on the welfare drug–or something similar.

In my opinion, Ohioans need less stimulants and more real food. Government is not capable of creating or maintaining a healthy diet or a healthy economy for all or even most citizens. That is because too many of state representatives are high on drugs like power, lobby money, and other items of special interest.

Source: MainStreet, April 6, 2009.