The latest jobs numbers came out last Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They show a preliminary job creation number of 173,000 new private-sector non-farm American jobs were created in August. When final statistics come in that number may be adjusted up or down somewhat, but it's a good snapshot.The most important thing it shows is that positive news keeps coming in. We are currently on the longest roll of consecutive months of net positive job creation since statistics have been kept for the nation.
The other thing the stats do is underscore an important but little-known fact about American employment statistics: the strong superiority of these numbers when a Democrat occupies the White House. I went back to the inauguration of John F. Kennedy in 1961, ran the numbers, and here is what I found: There have been 5 Republicans in office for a total of 28 years. During that time there was a net gain of 857,000 jobs a year during Republican administrations. There have also been 5 Democrats as president from JFK to now, for a total of a little less than 27 years. During that time a net average of 1,844,000 jobs have been added every year during Democratic administrations.
The numbers are stark and remarkable. More than twice as many jobs per year have been created under Democrats as under Republicans, almost a million a year more! Why Democrats don't trumpet this to the skies every election cycle is beyond my understanding. Maybe they ought to start doing that.
Showing posts with label Jobs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jobs. Show all posts
Friday, September 11, 2015
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Match Training to the Job Requirements!
When you go to the barber shop or beauty salon, do you care whether your barber or hair stylist can do quadratic equations? When you hear a prowler in the backyard and call 911 is it important to you that the responding police officers be able to do geometric proofs? If you were hiring air conditioning repair technicians would you check to see if they could factor trinomials? Of course not, which underscores the innate common sense of a recent educational study.
Some of the emphasis on remedial math at the community college level is misplaced, according to a study by the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). I am in full agreement with the findings and have felt that way for quite some time. According to a story in the May 8 Fresno Bee, "researchers found that students were expected to be proficient in higher-level algebra and geometry even though most of the topics from those classes aren't needed to succeed in many of the programs that community colleges offer."
It is important to understand that approximately 50% of what community colleges do is prepare students for job-related certificates. The article mentions aspiring "auto mechanics and police officers" who may attain high proficiency in the skills of their hoped-for career, but then be prevented from progressing due to deficiencies in mathematics skills such as Algebra II that no mechanic or cop will ever be called upon to use on the job.
The issue is critical, because findings have repeatedly shown that "if students can't complete community college training programs for jobs...or transfer to four-year degrees they'll have a hard time supporting a family above the poverty line." The range of vocational training available at our community college is extensive. To get an idea, follow this link to our Industry and Technology Division programs.
The NCEE found that the deficiencies arise from the abysmal state of math preparedness in lower grades. "The center recommended that the United States improve high school education first, then raise the bar at community colleges." While that would certainly seem to make sense, it's still only half the issue. The other ought to be to stop requiring people to have training in subjects irrelevant to their intended profession in order to become certified for it.
Some of the emphasis on remedial math at the community college level is misplaced, according to a study by the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). I am in full agreement with the findings and have felt that way for quite some time. According to a story in the May 8 Fresno Bee, "researchers found that students were expected to be proficient in higher-level algebra and geometry even though most of the topics from those classes aren't needed to succeed in many of the programs that community colleges offer."
It is important to understand that approximately 50% of what community colleges do is prepare students for job-related certificates. The article mentions aspiring "auto mechanics and police officers" who may attain high proficiency in the skills of their hoped-for career, but then be prevented from progressing due to deficiencies in mathematics skills such as Algebra II that no mechanic or cop will ever be called upon to use on the job.
The issue is critical, because findings have repeatedly shown that "if students can't complete community college training programs for jobs...or transfer to four-year degrees they'll have a hard time supporting a family above the poverty line." The range of vocational training available at our community college is extensive. To get an idea, follow this link to our Industry and Technology Division programs.
The NCEE found that the deficiencies arise from the abysmal state of math preparedness in lower grades. "The center recommended that the United States improve high school education first, then raise the bar at community colleges." While that would certainly seem to make sense, it's still only half the issue. The other ought to be to stop requiring people to have training in subjects irrelevant to their intended profession in order to become certified for it.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Senate Action Exposes Real GOP Jobs Position
Last Thursday July 19, Republicans in the Senate used a filibuster to stop a jobs bill that would have given companies tax incentives to return outsourced jobs back to this country. In so doing they once again made perfectly clear not only their intent to oppose any worthwhile legislation that might improve the economy (and President Obama's re-election prospects) before the election, but also their utter indifference to the plight of the American worker.
The "Bring Jobs Home Act" was introduced by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan.) Under current law companies can deduct as a business expense all costs associated with outsourcing jobs to foreign countries. In effect, American taxpayers are subsidizing the shipping of their own jobs overseas. The bill would have removed this tax incentive to move U.S. jobs to foreign countries. It would have kept the tax deduction for all costs associated with bringing outsourced jobs back to the United States and additionally have granted a 20% tax credit on top of those costs as an extra incentive.
The bill was actually approved by a solid majority, 56-42, but under the arcane rules of the Senate it requires 60 votes to "end debate" and move legislation to the floor for a vote. Stabenow's Act received unanimous support from Democratic Senators. It makes so much sense it even induced four Republicans to defy their leaders and vote for it. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine were joined by Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Dean Heller of Nevada in voting to give companies a federal incentive to create jobs in America rather than send them to foreigners. The rest of their GOP colleagues felt that election year politics and subservience to business interests rather than the average worker were greater priorities.
Earlier in the week Republican Senators also blocked the Disclose Act, which would have required transparency and the disclosure of any contribution over $10,000 to a campaign or a PAC. For the remaining 100 days of this campaign we will hear a lot of rhetoric from the Republican side about their commitment to jobs. Their actions, however, belie such talk. Rather than voting to protect American jobs, they vote to offshore them. They do this in the service of corporate interests who want taxpayer money to pay them to do so. And they don't want the American people to know that's where the bulk of their money is coming from.
The "Bring Jobs Home Act" was introduced by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan.) Under current law companies can deduct as a business expense all costs associated with outsourcing jobs to foreign countries. In effect, American taxpayers are subsidizing the shipping of their own jobs overseas. The bill would have removed this tax incentive to move U.S. jobs to foreign countries. It would have kept the tax deduction for all costs associated with bringing outsourced jobs back to the United States and additionally have granted a 20% tax credit on top of those costs as an extra incentive.
The bill was actually approved by a solid majority, 56-42, but under the arcane rules of the Senate it requires 60 votes to "end debate" and move legislation to the floor for a vote. Stabenow's Act received unanimous support from Democratic Senators. It makes so much sense it even induced four Republicans to defy their leaders and vote for it. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine were joined by Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Dean Heller of Nevada in voting to give companies a federal incentive to create jobs in America rather than send them to foreigners. The rest of their GOP colleagues felt that election year politics and subservience to business interests rather than the average worker were greater priorities.
Earlier in the week Republican Senators also blocked the Disclose Act, which would have required transparency and the disclosure of any contribution over $10,000 to a campaign or a PAC. For the remaining 100 days of this campaign we will hear a lot of rhetoric from the Republican side about their commitment to jobs. Their actions, however, belie such talk. Rather than voting to protect American jobs, they vote to offshore them. They do this in the service of corporate interests who want taxpayer money to pay them to do so. And they don't want the American people to know that's where the bulk of their money is coming from.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Time for a Big Jobs Program
President Obama announced he will be coming out with a jobs bill after Labor Day. Here's hoping it will be something really big, because that's what the country needs. Incidentally, it would also be good politics for him too.
To start with, it's long past time we had a big jobs push. The fight over the debt ceiling that lasted most of the summer was a distraction from what most of the American public was interested in and what the economy really needs. The original stimulus from 2009 stabilized the free-fall but now has largely run out. This latest round of Republican-pushed budget cuts, to take effect sometime in late November, will do nothing for jobs. Spending cuts do not produce jobs; to the contrary, in order to institute them jobs will have to be cut. That's been the problem as job creation has stalled the past few months: modest gains in the private sector have been offset by downsizing in the public sector.
No doubt there will be some tax credits for companies that fill new positions in Obama's plan, but he needs to go farther. The principal reason hiring is slow is because consumer demand is weak. Consumer spending is 70% of the U.S. economy. Corporate America has been enjoying strong profits of late by cutting jobs and boosting productivity. Indeed, 96% of the top 500 companies were profitable over the past 12 months. They are sitting on an estimated 2 to 2 and a half trillion dollars in cash. American companies produced 1.0 million jobs in America in the pat year but 1.4 million overseas. The reason is that with high unemployment, skittish lending and hesitant buying patterns, demand is picking up faster overseas than here. Source for this paragraph. The solution? We need more jobs here, more money in the pockets of American consumers.
Since private business is not doing it, not only incentives but direct government hiring ought to take place. Many have called for a big push on infrastructure construction for part of this program. You can expect an "infrastructure bank" to be part of the Obama proposal in September. That is a good idea and ought to be done, but I feel his proposal ought to go farther. We have 8 million people out of work. Consider that directly funding 1 million jobs at $35,000 a year would cost $35 billion. When you consider a year of the war in Afghanistan costs three times that much or that the yearly deficit is expected to be over $1.2 trillion (thirty times that much) that amount is a relative bargain. If Obama were to propose opening up 2 million jobs right now for $70 billion it would have an electrifying effect on the unemployed and the economy. And for you fiscal hawks, it would only add 6% to the yearly deficit. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has a ten-point plan for jump starting employment that makes a lot of sense. It includes a mix of tax and regulatory changes and direct government actions. Take a look at it here.
There is certainly plenty for 2 million people to do. Everything from classroom aides to neighborhood cleanup to weatherizing buildings to transportation maintenance to the huge backlog of postponed work at National and State Parks to care for the elderly--there are a host of productive things that need doing, would help the country, would restore a sense of purpose and hope in the lives of the unemployed and would return $70 billion of buying power to the economy.
It would be good for the President politically too. Would the Republican-controlled House of Representatives refuse to go along? Almost certainly yes. Their preference is Hooversim; do nothing and hope for the best. The contrast between a strong program to directly provide millions of jobs juxtaposed with further excuses for more inaction could only work to Obama's advantage in next year's elections.
To start with, it's long past time we had a big jobs push. The fight over the debt ceiling that lasted most of the summer was a distraction from what most of the American public was interested in and what the economy really needs. The original stimulus from 2009 stabilized the free-fall but now has largely run out. This latest round of Republican-pushed budget cuts, to take effect sometime in late November, will do nothing for jobs. Spending cuts do not produce jobs; to the contrary, in order to institute them jobs will have to be cut. That's been the problem as job creation has stalled the past few months: modest gains in the private sector have been offset by downsizing in the public sector.
No doubt there will be some tax credits for companies that fill new positions in Obama's plan, but he needs to go farther. The principal reason hiring is slow is because consumer demand is weak. Consumer spending is 70% of the U.S. economy. Corporate America has been enjoying strong profits of late by cutting jobs and boosting productivity. Indeed, 96% of the top 500 companies were profitable over the past 12 months. They are sitting on an estimated 2 to 2 and a half trillion dollars in cash. American companies produced 1.0 million jobs in America in the pat year but 1.4 million overseas. The reason is that with high unemployment, skittish lending and hesitant buying patterns, demand is picking up faster overseas than here. Source for this paragraph. The solution? We need more jobs here, more money in the pockets of American consumers.
Since private business is not doing it, not only incentives but direct government hiring ought to take place. Many have called for a big push on infrastructure construction for part of this program. You can expect an "infrastructure bank" to be part of the Obama proposal in September. That is a good idea and ought to be done, but I feel his proposal ought to go farther. We have 8 million people out of work. Consider that directly funding 1 million jobs at $35,000 a year would cost $35 billion. When you consider a year of the war in Afghanistan costs three times that much or that the yearly deficit is expected to be over $1.2 trillion (thirty times that much) that amount is a relative bargain. If Obama were to propose opening up 2 million jobs right now for $70 billion it would have an electrifying effect on the unemployed and the economy. And for you fiscal hawks, it would only add 6% to the yearly deficit. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has a ten-point plan for jump starting employment that makes a lot of sense. It includes a mix of tax and regulatory changes and direct government actions. Take a look at it here.
There is certainly plenty for 2 million people to do. Everything from classroom aides to neighborhood cleanup to weatherizing buildings to transportation maintenance to the huge backlog of postponed work at National and State Parks to care for the elderly--there are a host of productive things that need doing, would help the country, would restore a sense of purpose and hope in the lives of the unemployed and would return $70 billion of buying power to the economy.
It would be good for the President politically too. Would the Republican-controlled House of Representatives refuse to go along? Almost certainly yes. Their preference is Hooversim; do nothing and hope for the best. The contrast between a strong program to directly provide millions of jobs juxtaposed with further excuses for more inaction could only work to Obama's advantage in next year's elections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)