Federal Reserve Says Unemployment High Until 2015

[Guest Randel is not happy]

the Federal Reserve thinks it will take until around 2015 to lower the jobless rate to a more normal 5 or 6 percent.

 

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20100201/BIZ/2010316/Math-shows-the-challenge-of-reversing-joblessness#ixzz0eI8YcgSu

[Guest LAW]

This morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that the unemployment rate dropped in January to 9.7% from 10%. The Labor Dept. says the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000. Also today, Pres. Obama remarked on job creation and small business initiatives.

[Guest BLS]

The unemployment rate fell from 10.0 to 9.7 percent in January, and nonfarm

payroll employment was essentially unchanged (-20,000), the U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics reported today. Employment fell in construction and in

transportation and warehousing, while temporary help services and retail

trade added jobs.

 

Household Survey Data

 

In January, the number of unemployed persons decreased to 14.8 million,

and the unemployment rate fell by 0.3 percentage point to 9.7 percent.

(See table A-1.)

 

In January, unemployment rates for most major worker groups--adult men

(10.0 percent), teenagers (26.4 percent), blacks (16.5 percent), and

Hispanics (12.6 percent)--showed little change. The jobless rate for adult

women fell to 7.9 percent, and the rate for whites declined to 8.7 percent.

The jobless rate for Asians was 8.4 percent, not seasonally adjusted.

(See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

 

In January, the number of persons unemployed due to job loss decreased by

378,000 to 9.3 million. Nearly all of this decline occurred among permanent

job losers. (See table A-11.)

 

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over)

continued to trend up in January, reaching 6.3 million. Since the start of

the recession in December 2007, the number of long-term unemployed has risen

by 5.0 million. (See table A-12.)

 

In January, the civilian labor force participation rate was little changed at

64.7 percent. The employment-population ratio rose from 58.2 to 58.4 percent.

(See table A-1.)

 

The number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons (sometimes

referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell from 9.2 to 8.3 million

in January. These individuals were working part time because their hours had

been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See

table A-8.)

 

About 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in

January, an increase of 409,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not

seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted

and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior

12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched

for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

 

Among the marginally attached, there were 1.1 million discouraged workers in

January, up from 734,000 a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)

Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they

believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.5 million people

marginally attached to the labor force had not searched for work in the 4 weeks

preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsi-

bilities.

 

Establishment Survey Data

 

Total nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged in January (-20,000).

Job losses continued in construction and in transportation and warehousing,

while employment increased in temporary help services and retail trade. Since

the start of the recession in December 2007, payroll employment has fallen by

8.4 million. Over the last 3 months, however, employment has shown little net

change. (See table B-1.)

 

Construction employment declined by 75,000 in January, with nonresidential

specialty trade contractors (-48,000) accounting for the majority of the de-

cline. Since December 2007, employment in construction has fallen by 1.9

million.

 

In January, transportation and warehousing employment fell by 19,000, due to

a large job loss among couriers and messengers (-23,000).

 

Employment in manufacturing was little changed in January (11,000). After expe-

riencing steep job losses earlier in the recession, employment declines

moderated considerably in the second half of 2009. In January, job gains in

motor vehicles and parts (23,000) and plastics and rubber products (6,000)

offset small job losses elsewhere in the industry.

 

In January, temporary help services added 52,000 jobs. Since reaching a low

point in September 2009, temporary help services employment has risen by

247,000.

 

Retail trade employment rose by 42,000 in January, after showing little

change in the prior 2 months. Job gains occurred in January among food stores

(14,000), clothing stores (13,000), and general merchandise retailers (10,000).

 

Health care employment continued to trend up in January. Ambulatory health

care services added 15,000 jobs over the month.

 

In January, the federal government added 33,000 jobs, including 9,000 tempo-

rary positions for Census 2010. Employment in state and local governments,

excluding education, continued to trend down.

 

This release includes a new establishment survey table with information about

women employees. In January, women made up 49.9 percent of total nonfarm pay-

roll employment, compared with 48.8 percent when the recession began in

December 2007. (See table B-5.)

 

Also new in this release are data on hours and earnings for all employees in

the private sector. The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm

payrolls was up by 0.1 hour to 33.9 hours in January. The manufacturing work-

week for all employees rose by 0.3 hour to 39.9 hours, and factory overtime

increased by 0.1 hour over the month. Since June, the manufacturing workweek

has increased by 1.2 hours. In January, the average workweek for production

and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 0.1 hour to

33.3 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

 

In January, average hourly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm pay-

rolls increased by 4 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $22.45. Over the past 12 months,

average hourly earnings have risen by 2.0 percent. In January, average hourly

earnings of private production and nonsupervisory employees rose by 5 cents,

or 0.3 percent, to $18.89. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

 

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for November was revised from

4,000 to 64,000, and the change for December was revised from -85,000 to

-150,000. Monthly revisions result from additional sample reports and the

monthly recalculation of seasonal factors. The annual benchmark process also

contributed to these revisions.

[Guest LAW]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[Guest Human]

You got me on that one Law, what can I say? Hummmmm!!!! nothing like deep sixing one of Barack Obamas initiatives.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[Guest Human]

Come on you intellectual hypocrite. DO IT. Pathetics. You cherry pick issues thinking that you are gods’ gifts to human kind while all the time you are just creating more problems.

 

I stink at checkers, but I am demonic at chess.

Who in the heidi do you think that you are playing with?

[Guest anothervoice]

I think the Democrats need to pay attention to the fact that in January, the number of persons unemployed due to job loss decreased by 378,000 to 9.3 million. Nearly all of this decline occurred among permanent job losers.

[Guest Busy Bee]

The unemployment rate data looks at households, while the job creation figures come from companies.

[Guest Ron]

The numbers would have been worse if workers were not recalled to build back inventories depleted by the Cash For Clunkers program last Summer.

[Guest Human]

Busy Bee, I want the democrats to play with this. I want them to use fuzzy math. That's how we all got into this as well as other problems to begin with.

 

To score political points for the sake of just showing their own intellectual powers is in and of itself Insane. It solves nothing, it is self defeating.

 

The democrats are not solving any problems right now when it comes to jobs, they are just creating problems. What they have to understand is that in Reality it takes a whole bunch of different job creating industries to get this economy moving in the right direction.

 

The democrats are not rewarding creativity, they are punishing creativity.

There is a role for government in regulations, but based on Sound Economic Fiscal Policy.

 

I don't want the democrats to win, I want everyone to win. My God!!! Am I really asking for so much?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The unemployment rate data looks at households, while the job creation figures come from companies.

[Guest LAW]

The Congressional Budget Office Assessment of a Policy Option to Reduce Employers’ Payroll Taxes for Firms that Increase Their Payroll

 

Social Security (which consists of Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) is financed by payroll taxes. Under current law, both employers and employees pay Social Security taxes equal to 6.2 percent of an employee’s annual earnings, up to a maximum amount (currently $106,800) that is adjusted each year for overall growth in wages. In its January 2010 report Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011, CBO analyzed the effects of giving employers a one-year, nonrefundable credit against their payroll tax liability for increasing their payrolls in 2010 from their 2009 levels.

 

In CBO’s analysis, the effect of that policy (and others) on employment was measured as the cumulative effect on years of full-time-equivalent employment for each dollar of a policy’s total budgetary cost. (A year of full-time-equivalent employment is 40 hours of employment per week for one year.) By focusing on full-time equivalents, the calculations included increases in hours among part-time workers, and possibly increases in overtime hours among full-time workers, as well as the hours worked by new hires. To account for uncertainty, the analysis included both a “low” estimate and a “high” estimate for the effect of each policy.

 

CBO estimated that reducing payroll taxes for firms that increased their payrolls would raise output (gross domestic product, or GDP) by a total of $0.40 to $1.30 between 2010 and 2015 for each dollar of budgetary cost. CBO also estimated that the policy would add 8 to 18 cumulative years of full-time-equivalent employment in 2010 and 2011 per million dollars of total budgetary cost. Thus, the cost of increasing employment by one full-time person for one year in 2010 and 2011 would probably be between $56,000 and $125,000. Although such a policy would have economic benefits in the short run, it would also add to already large projected budget deficits. Unless offsetting actions were taken to reverse the accumulation of additional government debt, future incomes would tend to be lower than they otherwise would have been.

[Guest Human]

In other words "Law", you STILL want the political upper hand. You are so predictable.

Is there anything that you actually believe in?

[Guest Human]

One Last Point; The Only Reason I am not creating my own Threads on this Message Board?

Is that right now my group "Republicans" do not have an equal voice, nor do we have an equal footing in the Legislative branch of government. The ones holding all the cards still are the democrats.

 

In every respect from financial to regulatory, you name it.

[Guest Human]

By the way;

 

I still give the Homeless the directories that I have, because all of us are on the internet, and they are not.

 

And that's the type of monster that I am.

[Guest LAW]

Not true. We all need to work together to strengthen our foundation and to create jobs moving forward and curb risky lending or housing speculation or running up massive debt on credit cards. Both parties know that American voters have spoken. They want our leaders to create jobs in new manufacturing industries, so that we don't finish second place to the rest of the world in creating those new jobs.

[Guest Human]

Let me guess? Green Jobs. No bull, if we could get away from the politics? Oh my what we really could get done.

 

But I don't know if you know the political system here in dc. The kids thinking that they are smart, devise policy that will further their interest, and not the nations interest.

 

There is a difference between being cleaver, and being smart.

 

The political system we have in place benefits the person, but not the nation.

 

Barack obama is thinking in first person which does not benefit the nation.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not true. We all need to work together to strengthen our foundation and to create jobs moving forward and curb risky lending or housing speculation or running up massive debt on credit cards. Both parties know that American voters have spoken. They want our leaders to create jobs in new manufacturing industries, so that we don't finish second place to the rest of the world in creating those new jobs.

[Guest Human]

Hey!!! "Law"; We are always going to be political rivals, but we do have 1 Common interest.

 

THE NATION. Lets try to work together on that one point.

[Guest LAW]

http://www.nam.org/NewsFromtheNAM.aspx?DID={76D39DD4-BDB9-437C-88ED-A45C041DB1F6}

 

The U.S. export promotion program has been a shadow of what other countries do to support their exporters -- this step will permit the first real expansion of export promotion support in decades.

 

But achieving a goal of doubling America's exports in five years is going to require much more than export promotion. The goal is equivalent to a 15 percent increase in exports every year for the next five years –one that can only be reached by major policy changes.

 

The most urgent action the Administration can take is to send Congress the three pending bilateral trade agreements with Colombia, Korea, and Panama – a move that would lead to thousands of new manufacturing jobs. The Administration must also turn to completing negotiations for a Trans Pacific trade agreement and other new agreements as well – including a Doha Round that will open foreign markets in a meaningful way.

 

Quick implementation of the President's call for modernizing the obsolete export controls system that harms both national security and jobs is another needed step. As the non-partisan, independent Milken Institute points out in their new Jobs for America study (http://www.milkeninstitute.org) commissioned by the NAM, modernizing the Cold War-oriented export control system could increase exports in high-value areas, enhancing real GDP by $64 billion by 2019, creating 160,000 manufacturing jobs and expanding total employment by 340,000.

 

U.S. export competitiveness also depends on a dollar that is fairly-valued. Manufacturers need policies that support market-determined currency exchange rates that will give U.S. companies the competitive edge they need in a global economy.

 

Additionally, to achieve the President's goal requires efforts to improve domestic production costs. The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate among major industrial countries. The Milken report shows that reducing the U.S. corporate income tax to match the average of other industrial countries could boost GDP by $375.5 billion (2.2 percent) in the next decade, enabling U.S. companies to be more competitive in global export markets while creating 350,000 manufacturing jobs.

 

America needs a broad array of trade initiatives and pro-growth tax policies to significantly boost manufactured exports and jobs. America's manufacturers look forward to working with the Administration and Congress to obtain the programs and policies that will enable manufacturers, farmers, and services producers to double exports in five years.

[Guest Human]

As for the rest, I don't have a problem with except for what your underlying policy is.

 

Interesting chat that we are having here. Don't you think?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5725Z520090803

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nam.org/NewsFromtheNAM.aspx?DID={76D39DD4-BDB9-437C-88ED-A45C041DB1F6}

 

The U.S. export promotion program has been a shadow of what other countries do to support their exporters -- this step will permit the first real expansion of export promotion support in decades.

 

But achieving a goal of doubling America's exports in five years is going to require much more than export promotion. The goal is equivalent to a 15 percent increase in exports every year for the next five years –one that can only be reached by major policy changes.

 

The most urgent action the Administration can take is to send Congress the three pending bilateral trade agreements with Colombia, Korea, and Panama – a move that would lead to thousands of new manufacturing jobs. The Administration must also turn to completing negotiations for a Trans Pacific trade agreement and other new agreements as well – including a Doha Round that will open foreign markets in a meaningful way.

Quick implementation of the President's call for modernizing the obsolete export controls system that harms both national security and jobs is another needed step. As the non-partisan, independent Milken Institute points out in their new Jobs for America study (http://www.milkeninstitute.org) commissioned by the NAM, modernizing the Cold War-oriented export control system could increase exports in high-value areas, enhancing real GDP by $64 billion by 2019, creating 160,000 manufacturing jobs and expanding total employment by 340,000.

 

U.S. export competitiveness also depends on a dollar that is fairly-valued. Manufacturers need policies that support market-determined currency exchange rates that will give U.S. companies the competitive edge they need in a global economy.

 

Additionally, to achieve the President's goal requires efforts to improve domestic production costs. The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate among major industrial countries. The Milken report shows that reducing the U.S. corporate income tax to match the average of other industrial countries could boost GDP by $375.5 billion (2.2 percent) in the next decade, enabling U.S. companies to be more competitive in global export markets while creating 350,000 manufacturing jobs.

 

America needs a broad array of trade initiatives and pro-growth tax policies to significantly boost manufactured exports and jobs. America's manufacturers look forward to working with the Administration and Congress to obtain the programs and policies that will enable manufacturers, farmers, and services producers to double exports in five years.

[Guest Human]

You see "Law" I understand that Barack Obama is a Lawyer, and even in an open forum?

Barack obama WILL set the conditions in the forum that are favorable to his view points.

 

It's in the wording.

 

To have honest opened debates; neither side can have the advantage. As your side "Lawyers" puts it "Whom ever makes the best argument wins".

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As for the rest, I don't have a problem with except for what your underlying policy is.

 

Interesting chat that we are having here. Don't you think?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5725Z520090803

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest Ron]

I think you need to add investment barriers as well. In China many industry sectors demand a Chinese partner. This regulatory position gives the foreign investor no choice. This regulatory position gives the Chinese access to gain a new knowledge base. If you can accept this, then welcome to the largest pool of cheap labor in the world.

[Guest LAW]

Here is the current Chinese Joint Venture Law

 

Law of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-foreign Equity Joint Ventures

 

Adopted by the Second Session of the Fifth National People's Congress on July 1, 1979

 

Revised in the Third Session of the Seventh National People's Congress on April 4, 1990

 

Revised for the second time in accordance with "Resolution on Revision of the Law of the

 

People's Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Venture" of the Fourth Session of

 

the Ninth National People's Congress on March 15, 2001

 

 

Article 1

 

With a view to expanding international economic co-operation and technical exchange, the

 

People's Republic of China permits foreign companies, enterprises, other economic organizations

 

or individuals (hereafter referred to as "foreign joint venturers")to joint with Chinese

 

companies, enterprise or other economic organizations (hereafter referred to as "Chinese joint

 

ventures") in establishing joint ventures in the People's Republic of China in accordance with

 

the principle of equality and mutual benefit and subject to approval by the Chinese Government.

 

Article 2

 

The Chinese Government protects, in accordance with the law, the investment of foreign joint

 

ventures, the profits due to them and their other lawful rights and interest in a joint venture,

 

pursuant to the agreement, contract and articles of association approved by the Chinese

 

Government.

 

 

　　Joint ventures shall follow the provisions of the laws and regulations of the People's

 

Republic of China in all their activities.

 

 

　　 The state does not practise nationalization and expropriation of a joint venture; under

 

special circumstances, the state, in accordance with the needs of social public interest,

 

expropriates a joint venture pursuant to legal procedures and offers corresponding

 

compensations.

 

 

Article 3

 

The joint venture agreement, contract and articles of association signed by the parties to

 

the venture shall be submitted to the competent authorities of foreign economic relations and

 

trade (hereafter referred to as approval authorities), and the approval authorities shall,

 

within three months, decide whether to approve or disapprove them. After approval, the joint

 

venture shall register with the state competent authorities of administration for industry and

 

commerce to obtain a license to do business and start operations.

 

Article 4

 

A joint venture shall take the form of a limited liability company.

 

　　The proportion of the investment contributed by the foreign joint venturer(s) shall generally

 

not be less than 25% of the reistered capital of a joint venture.

 

　　The parties to the venture shall share the profits, risks and losses in proportion to their

 

respective contributions to the registered capital.

 

　　No assignment of the registered capital of a joint venturer shall be made without the consent

 

of the other parties to the venture.

 

Article 5

 

Each party to a joint venture may make its investment in cash, in kind or in industrial

 

property rights, etc.

 

　　The technology and the equipment that serve as a foreign joint venturer's investment must

 

be advanced technology and equipment that actually suit our country's needs. If the foreign

 

joint venturer causes losses by deception through the intentional use of backward technology and

 

equipment, it shall pay compensation for the losses.

 

　　The investment of a Chinese joint venturer may include the right to the use of a site

 

provided for the joint venture during the period of its operation. If the right to the use of

 

the site does not constitute a part of a Chinese joint venturer's investment, the joint venture

 

shall pay the Chinese Government a fee for its use.

 

The various investments referred to above shall be specified in the joint venture contract

 

and articles of association, and the value of each (excluding that of the site) shall be jointly

 

assessed by the parties to the venture.

 

http://www.saic.govspam/english/LawsRegulations/Laws/200602/t20060227_55249.html

[Guest Phil]

I have no respect for manufacturers that will off shore their labor. They should put tax them hard instead of putting an unemployment tax knife into manufactures that keep employment in America. I do like Obama's idea of Small business employment tax credit. They should do the same thing for manufacturers as well. If it is already in the works, then someone should explain it in plain english to me. Keep up your good work.

[Guest 84Saints]

We need to instead start manufacturing innovative products which other countries CANNOT manufacture.

[Guest Enron Ex]

If the dollar keeps getting weaker than all the foreign intellectuals in the field of science, internet technology, and engineering will go back to the home countries. Then we will have real problems.