tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post6280319536197954201..comments2024-01-17T00:45:37.075-08:00Comments on Bud Meyers: Jobs, Unemployment, Not in the Labor Force, Jobless Benefits & More (Jan. 2016)Bud Meyershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-26087201755665874612016-01-19T13:37:09.439-08:002016-01-19T13:37:09.439-08:00BIG UPDATES (January 19, 2016)
President Obama de...BIG UPDATES (January 19, 2016)<br /><br />President Obama delivered more specifics in his weekly radio address . Under the plan, workers laid off from a job they held at least three years would be eligible for state-based wage insurance if their new job paid less than the old one and no more than $50,000. The insurance payment would replace half the lost wages, the White House said, up to $10,000 over two years. The president also proposed requiring states to provide no fewer than 26 weeks' unemployment insurance benefits; extending those 26 weeks to a federally-funded 52 in states "experiencing rapid job losses or high unemployment" (according to a White House fact sheet ); and providing grants to help create work-sharing programs "that help employers reduce hours instead of laying off workers while providing partial unemployment benefits to workers whose hours are cut" (ditto). http://1.usa.gov/1n6Zsbh<br /><br />https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/16/fact-sheet-improving-economic-security-strengthening-and-modernizing<br /><br />New state and city minimum wage laws have drawn scrutiny from the Labor Department because they might require employers to reimburse tipped workers above a federal ceiling, the Portland Press Herald reports. In Maine, for example, Portland set its minimum wage at $10.10, but the tipped minimum was untouched at $3.75. Employers might therefore have to compensate tipped workers $6.35 to make up the difference. But the ceiling for such a credit is $5.12 under the Federal Labor Standards Act. The scrutiny has led Republican Gov. Paul LePage to expect a Labor Department lawsuit, but legal experts quizzed by the Press-Herald feel less certain about that. <br /><br />http://www.pressherald.com/2016/01/16/u-s-labor-department-reviewing-portlands-minimum-wage-hike/<br />Bud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-72391418904698957672016-01-15T14:28:47.426-08:002016-01-15T14:28:47.426-08:00Hillary Clinton has gone all the way around the be...Hillary Clinton has gone all the way around the bend, and has decided to ramp up unnecessary fearmongering, dispatching her daughter to New Hampshire to darkly warn that Bernie Sanders is gonna take everyone’s health care away. Of course, this is not true. Under a single-payer system, everybody gets health care. That's the entire point, as Hillary Clinton well knows. Chelsea Clinton knows it too. Chelsea Clinton has a masters degree in public health from Columbia. She knows exactly how what she’s saying obfuscates the issue.<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-is-botching-this_569808a9e4b0778f46f8b31bBud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-74720205787756025532016-01-15T13:49:11.337-08:002016-01-15T13:49:11.337-08:00Economist Joe Stiglitz warned back in 2010 that th...Economist Joe Stiglitz warned back in 2010 that the world risked sliding into a "Great Malaise." Recently he followed up on that grim prediction, saying, "We didn't do what was needed, and we have ended up precisely where I feared we would."<br /><br />The problems we face now, Stiglitz points out, include a deficiency of aggregate demand, brought on by a combination of growing inequality and a mindless wave of fiscal austerity. He says the only cure is an increase in aggregate demand, far-reaching redistribution of income and deep reform of our financial system. The obstacles to this cure, he writes, are not rooted in economics, but in politics and ideology.<br /><br />Indeed. Joe Stiglitz is right ... I was wrong.<br /><br />Western Europe and Japan are in even worse shape than the U.S. is. And today, the main engine of what world economic growth we have seen over the past seven years -- China -- is more than sputtering. The Chinese stock market this week is telling us that China's economy is possibly stalling-out entirely as far as growth is concerned.<br /><br />Unless something big and constructive in the way of global economic policy is done soon, we will have to change Joe Stiglitz's first name to "Cassandra" -- the Trojan prophet-princess who was always wise and always correct, yet cursed by the god Apollo to be always ignored. <br /><br />Future economic historians may not call the period that began in 2007 the "Greatest Depression." But as of now, it is highly and increasingly probable that they will call it the "Longest Depression."<br /><br />Regarding the share of prime-age adults [ages 25 to 54] who had jobs: We have climbed back less than halfway to where we were in 2007 and less than a third of the way back to where we were in the full-employment year of 2000 [In April of that you was the all-time high for the labor force partcipation rate. It also happens to be the same year that Bill Clinton gave permanent normal trade relations with China.]<br />=<br />What we need now is 1) debt relief to unwind the overhang and 2) much tighter financial regulation to prevent the growth of new fragilities. And if those prove inconsistent with full recovery, then we need massive government spending on infrastructure and other investments financed by money printing until full employment is reattained.<br /><br />The second task will be one of political organization. For until politicians, finance ministry technocrats and central bankers feel under pressure to respond to and in fact internalize the diagnoses of Stiglitz, Eichengreen, Wolf and others, our problems will remain, as Stiglitz puts it, "not rooted in economics, but in politics and ideology."<br /><br />And it is only after those ideological and political blockages have been removed that the tasks of economic policy -- and then of shifting policy to deal with the new problems that arise as consequences of fixing our current economic policies -- can be seriously begun.<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-delong/global-economic-depression_b_8924596.htmlBud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-40584471883647078672016-01-15T13:35:38.710-08:002016-01-15T13:35:38.710-08:00On January 15, 2016 at 1;25 p.m. PT on MSNBC --- I...On January 15, 2016 at 1;25 p.m. PT on MSNBC --- I just heard a pundit say (while fact-checking Donald Trump from the GOP debate last night) that the reason why the labor participation rate is so low is because of the massive number of baby boomers retiring.<br /><br />That's total B.S. because the labor force participation rate has been in decline since 2000 and the first boomer didn't retire until 2008. But yet, most economists says it because of the boomers, even though they have a higher LFPR than prime-age workers, because they are working longer.<br /><br />Millennials now out-number the baby boomers, so expect them to be the next scape goat.<br />Bud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-66142508978149012112016-01-15T13:06:59.010-08:002016-01-15T13:06:59.010-08:00The Real Ttate of the Union: Economy (by Dean Bake...The Real Ttate of the Union: Economy (by Dean Baker) January 12, 2016<br /><br />"Many Americans are not happy, and with good reason. First, if the economy had followed the path projected in 2010, we would have seen the unemployment rate fall back to 5.0 percent in 2015... However, there is a big difference between the CBO projections on employment and what we have seen over the last six years. CBO expected that the people who dropped out of the labor force in the downturn would soon return to the labor force; it projected in 2010 that total employment in 2015 would be more than 6 million higher it actually was ... The CBO projected that the wage share of GDP would bounce back after its falloff in the recession, reaching 45.4 percent of GDP in 2015. Instead, profits continued to grow at the expense of wages...If GDP had grown as the CBO projected and the wage share had followed the predicted course, then total wages in the economy would be almost 12 percent higher today ... or $6,000 per worker..."<br /><br />http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016/1/the-real-state-of-the-union-economy.htmlBud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7895164153505105997.post-53467259321019833552016-01-15T12:50:38.744-08:002016-01-15T12:50:38.744-08:00UPDATE (JANUARY 15, 2016)
The Atlantic:
The gulf...UPDATE (JANUARY 15, 2016)<br /><br />The Atlantic:<br /><br />The gulf between the two Democrats on taxes is perhaps most evident in the debate over paid family leave. Sanders supports the FAMILY Act, which would require employees and employers to each contribute just 0.2 percent of wages, an average of roughly $2 per person, per week. Only wages up to $113,700 would be taxed, meaning the maximum contribution possible—even for the highest earners—would be $227.40 per year.<br /><br />Clinton, on the other hand, would rely on increased taxes on only the wealthiest Americans to fund paid leave. According to her campaign website, “American families need paid leave, and to get there, Hillary will ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. She’ll ensure that the plan is fully paid for by a combination of tax reforms impacting the most fortunate.” Clinton has pledged not to raise taxes on middle-class families, which she defines as those making $250,000 or less annually.<br /><br />Clinton’s campaign promise to not raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000, particularly in the context of paid family and medical leave, ignores the fact that the social, economic, familial, and health benefits of the program—supported by Sanders and so many others—would exponentially outweigh the very modest tax it calls for. <br /><br />http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/the-great-clinton-sanders-tax-divide/423318/Bud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.com