The U.S.-China Economic Security Review Commission, created by Congress to report on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, has released a new report on the implications of China's growing influence on such international organizations as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, APEC, the United Nations, and the Group of 20.
Trends explored in the report include China’s growing role as a source of aid to the developing world, its increased clout within international organizations, and growing effectiveness in directing agendas toward China's national interests.
Sphere: Related Content
Showing posts with label Economic Policy Institute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economic Policy Institute. Show all posts
Monday, March 21, 2011
Friday, May 22, 2009
Ratio of Job Openings to Displaced Workers Casts Stark Light on Unemployment Picture
In an analysis released last week of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute presented figures that cast a stark light on the condition of the U.S. job market from a seldom-reported perspective.
The analysis was based on data from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) report from the BLS.
By comparing the number of job openings reported for March of 2.7 million to the 13.2 million workers reported as unemployed for the same month, Shierholz calculated a ratio of nearly five unemployed workers for every available job.
As if that number weren’t staggering enough on its own, Shierholz added further perspective by comparing that figure to the ratio of 1.7 unemployed workers for each job opening as of the start of the current recession, or 1.1 per opening in December 2000, the date that the BLS first released JOLTS data.
Anticipating the release of April figures in the context of already-reported jobless figures for April, Shierholz projects that the April ratio will remain at five or higher. This creates a sobering view an unemployment picture that, in spite of increasing reports of “green shoots” in the economy, remains at crisis levels and is showing, at best, signs of improvement at only a very slow pace.
“There are still millions of jobless workers with little hope of finding employment in this dramatically weakened labor market,” Shierholz wrote in the close of her analysis, which I believe adds further weight to the proposition that the Obama administration’s economic interventions, as I have argued previously, may not yet be sufficient to truly address the human costs of an unemployment crisis of this magnitude. Sphere: Related Content
The analysis was based on data from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) report from the BLS.
By comparing the number of job openings reported for March of 2.7 million to the 13.2 million workers reported as unemployed for the same month, Shierholz calculated a ratio of nearly five unemployed workers for every available job.
As if that number weren’t staggering enough on its own, Shierholz added further perspective by comparing that figure to the ratio of 1.7 unemployed workers for each job opening as of the start of the current recession, or 1.1 per opening in December 2000, the date that the BLS first released JOLTS data.
Anticipating the release of April figures in the context of already-reported jobless figures for April, Shierholz projects that the April ratio will remain at five or higher. This creates a sobering view an unemployment picture that, in spite of increasing reports of “green shoots” in the economy, remains at crisis levels and is showing, at best, signs of improvement at only a very slow pace.
“There are still millions of jobless workers with little hope of finding employment in this dramatically weakened labor market,” Shierholz wrote in the close of her analysis, which I believe adds further weight to the proposition that the Obama administration’s economic interventions, as I have argued previously, may not yet be sufficient to truly address the human costs of an unemployment crisis of this magnitude. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, May 15, 2009
Economic Policy Institute Says Workers Over 45 Hit Hardest
A news brief issued today by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) argues that the current recession has taken an unusually high toll on workers over age 45, many of whom “say their job search is fruitless.” As one of the organizations co-sponsoring the Retirement USA initiative, EPI is particularly focused on concerns of older workers.
In an April 28 post, I argue as well for the need to re-think the retirement system in the U.S., based on the big question marks, raised by that the performance of equities markets over the past 10 years, over whether we can still think of the 401(k) model as a viable retirement solution for the average worker. My post also suggests that increasing the expected retirement age may also need to be a factor in an overhauled system, with the caveat that allowances may need to be made for the fact that, in spite of longer life expectancies, the health profile of Americans past age 60 remains highly variable.
Today’s brief from the EPI, however, references a briefing paper by economist Monique Morrissey that raises valid counterpoints on the retirement age issue, at least in the context of the existing Social Security system, favoring instead an increase to the rate cap on income subject to the Social Security tax.
According to a press release announcing Morrissey’s paper, “Most of the increase in life expectancy in recent decades has been among higher-income workers. Raising the Social Security retirement age would be especially hard on lower-income and minority workers, given large and growing disparities in life expectancy and poor health and/or job prospects.”
The point is well taken and, along with the issue of the current recession impacting older workers disproportionately, makes me recall a comment I heard a few weeks ago from a guest on Bob Brinker’s Moneytalk radio program that the administration should even consider allowing displaced workers as young as 55 to begin collecting Social Security benefits, based on how poor their job prospects may be in the current economy.
However, if we buy into the concept that the 401(k) model is not delivering on its early promises as a viable model, we can’t afford to lose site of the likelihood that tweaking Social Security will not be the long-term answer. Sphere: Related Content
In an April 28 post, I argue as well for the need to re-think the retirement system in the U.S., based on the big question marks, raised by that the performance of equities markets over the past 10 years, over whether we can still think of the 401(k) model as a viable retirement solution for the average worker. My post also suggests that increasing the expected retirement age may also need to be a factor in an overhauled system, with the caveat that allowances may need to be made for the fact that, in spite of longer life expectancies, the health profile of Americans past age 60 remains highly variable.
Today’s brief from the EPI, however, references a briefing paper by economist Monique Morrissey that raises valid counterpoints on the retirement age issue, at least in the context of the existing Social Security system, favoring instead an increase to the rate cap on income subject to the Social Security tax.
According to a press release announcing Morrissey’s paper, “Most of the increase in life expectancy in recent decades has been among higher-income workers. Raising the Social Security retirement age would be especially hard on lower-income and minority workers, given large and growing disparities in life expectancy and poor health and/or job prospects.”
The point is well taken and, along with the issue of the current recession impacting older workers disproportionately, makes me recall a comment I heard a few weeks ago from a guest on Bob Brinker’s Moneytalk radio program that the administration should even consider allowing displaced workers as young as 55 to begin collecting Social Security benefits, based on how poor their job prospects may be in the current economy.
However, if we buy into the concept that the 401(k) model is not delivering on its early promises as a viable model, we can’t afford to lose site of the likelihood that tweaking Social Security will not be the long-term answer. Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
