• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Unemployment

The max in alabama is $250/week.
Same for Florida....Got laid off once and my ass was looking for a job pronto.........On another note it does piss me off when I see people taking advantage of unemployment, free phones,housing aid, food stamps, health care, heating assistance,....etc...I could go on but am starting to get to aggressive with my computer now....:shooter:
 
Same for Florida....Got laid off once and my ass was looking for a job pronto.........On another note it does piss me off when I see people taking advantage of unemployment, free phones,housing aid, food stamps, health care, heating assistance,....etc...I could go on but am starting to get to aggressive with my computer now....:shooter:

there are no free phones, that's bullshit ring wing media rumors and that phone plan actually started under the Bush admin by a low cost provider it had nothing at all to do with government.

and all of those things you stated are for single mothers. and if you knew anybody that collected those benefits you wouldn't believe the hoops they have to jump through to get them. I know girls that get them and every single one of them did so as a last resort because they are all up in your business, bank accounts, your house, etc.

whatever you read about in the papers, etc. the truth is pretty much 180 degrees from that...

per the 1996 Welfare Reform Act cash benefits are limited to the lifetime maximum of 60 months at $400 a month and SNAP benefits until the last child turns 18 and of course you have to be making poverty wages. those are the last people you should be jealous of as they have no financial freedom.
 
He will get penalized if he is working a job and they find out he is getting paid a salary. They will deduct the charge him for back payment and make him pay it back so its not that easy. Each week he has to certify how much money he has made for that week so if he doesn't report it they will find out and charge him. Unemployment depends on the state though it really is different for everyone.
 
Many jobs going unfilled for over 3 months - CBS News

Despite the fact that the unemployment rate is hovering around 7.5 percent, more than a third of companies have positions that have gone unfilled for at least three months, according to a new study.

This is just one more indicator that there is a growing mismatch between the skills job seekers have and the ones companies are looking for.

CareerBuilder.com, an online jobs site, asked more than 2,000 hiring managers and human resources professionals to identify the hardest-to-fill positions within their organizations -- those that stay open 12 weeks or longer. It then paired the list of occupations with job growth data provided by Economic Modeling Specialists to find out the number of new positions created in those occupations in the past three years.

While many jobs on the list require very specialized skills and extensive education, there are also a surprising number -- like sales representatives and truck drivers -- that don't call for years of training.

"Although the recession created an abundant pool of readily-available, unemployed talent that still exists today, employers are struggling to find new employees for technology-related occupations, sales, healthcare and a variety of other areas," CareerBuilder's Brent Rasmussen said in a release. "Two in five employers (41 percent) reported that they continuously recruit throughout the year so that they have candidates in their pipeline in case a position opens up down the road. The skills gap that exists for high-growth, specialized occupations will become even more pronounced in the years to come, prompting the need to place a greater emphasis on reskilling workers through formal education and on-the-job training."

Here are the number of jobs created in the past three years where positions are going unfilled for at least 12 weeks:
Sales representative: 584,792
Machine operator/Assembler/Production worker: 135,363
Nurse: 135,325
Truck driver: 113,517
Software developer: 103,708
Engineer: 73,995
Marketing professional: 57,045
Accountant: 55,670
Mechanic: 53,002
IT Manager/Network administrator: 48,709


According to the Labor Department, 36.7 percent of all those looking for work have been unemployed for at least 27 weeks. For those people and others, this list may provide a guide if they are considering changing careers or retraining.

20130718043636_610x448.jpg
 
employers need to fill positions but many firms are not desperate to do so. they are no longer willing to train people, so if you don't have the specific qualifications or skill sets they need, the position goes unfilled.
 
Scarred by Financial Crisis, U.S. Companies Continue to Hoard Cash - WSJ.com

Scarred by Financial Crisis, U.S. Companies Continue to Hoard Cash

One thousand of the largest companies in the U.S. are sitting on a growing pile of cash?some $981 billion as of last year, up 1% from 2011 and 61% over five years, according to REL Consulting, a division of Hackett Group.

What should they be doing with it?

Their options include, among other things, returning it to shareholders via dividends and stock repurchases, using it to build factories and hire workers or hoarding it until the economic outlook gets clearer.

We asked a panel of corporate-finance experts to weigh in on the issue. They are Donna M. Hitscherich, a member of the finance and economics faculty at Columbia Business School; Wayne Guay, the Yageo professor of accounting at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School; and Ira S. Weiss, a clinical professor of accounting and entrepreneurship at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

Here are edited excerpts of their email discussion.


WSJ: What should companies do with their cash in this environment?

Prof. Weiss: I'm not surprised that cash on hand has been rising for U.S. companies. The economy is doing well, and corporations are profitable. And because of the almost catastrophic global financial crisis of 2007-08, corporate treasurers might have a bit of "postrecession stress disorder" and want to hold higher levels of cash than they did previously.

During the financial crisis, a lot of companies had problems accessing the capital markets, even companies that never had problems accessing capital in their history. Because of that, companies are more likely to take their sweet time before increasing their dividends and announcing share repurchases.

Apple Inc., AAPL +0.32%Google Inc. GOOG +1.57% and a few other technology companies are in a position of holding huge cash piles, but those cash piles are overseas, and repatriation would cause a significant tax burden. In light of that, Apple's recent decision to borrow in order to pay out some cash [in dividends and stock buybacks] is a wise one.

Prof. Guay: We've seen a marked shift in uncertainty and risk in general. The dynamic and risky nature of doing business around the globe has changed a lot in the last 20 years.

To know whether a firm has too much cash, you need to know their tax situation, where all that cash is and what the tax would be if they brought it back. You need to know what the firm is planning for the next five years in terms of research and development, expenditures and other items. It is a tricky thing for shareholders to figure out when a firm has too much cash.

WSJ: What needs to happen for companies to feel more secure?

Prof. Weiss: As the world economy continues to remain stable and Europe recovers, companies will start feeling more secure. I'm not sure how long that might take, but my guess is a minimum of two more years, but possibly five.

However, if there are further interruptions in growth?say a war in Iran or another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil?I'd expect them to continue to hoard cash for the foreseeable future.

Prof. Hitscherich: Should the "reasons" for the rise in cash balances reverse, I am not sure that companies would spend the cash.

There are two issues here. First, why spend the cash on the balance sheet in such a low-interest-rate environment, [assuming the company is a good credit in the first instance]? Second, what will it take for companies to have visibility and therefore to have confidence in the state of the world (regulatory/fiscal/security) going forward?

Once we have the answers to each of these questions, private investment should increase.

Ms. Schoenberger is a writer in New York. She can be reached at reports@wsj.com.
 
I knew this about my last boss. It was as though he couldn't help himself even when he did things that some partners would call him out for.

Sometimes, the boss really is a psycho

Sometimes, the boss really is a psycho

The bully, the narcissist, the know-it-all, even the psychopath.


We may not like them, or want our children to be like them. But chances are, almost everyone who has worked long enough has a horror story about a superior who generally behaved like Homer Simpson's boss, Mr. Charles Montgomery "Monty" Burns.

A growing number of researchers are looking into what makes a real-life Mr. Burns, and what they are finding isn't always pretty.

"There are whole climates and cultures of abuse in the workplace," said Darren Treadway, an associate professor at the University at Buffalo School of Management. His recent research looks at why bullies are able to persist, and sometimes even thrive, at work.

He said many people have either seen or experienced bullying at work because some bullies are skilled enough to figure out who they can abuse to get ahead, and who they can charm to get away with it.

"The successful ones are very, very socially skilled," he said. "They're capable of disguising their behavior."

Both popular culture and real life are rife with examples of alleged bullying. Just this week, San Diego Mayor Bob Filner was accused by his communications director, Irene McCormack Jackson, of harassment including dragging her around in a headlock and whispering sexual advances. Filner has rejected the claims.

2 in 10 workers: Boss hurt my career

Experts say a good boss can really help your career, but a bad boss can be devastating. A survey of 2,000 adults released earlier this year by Glassdoor found that about 2 in 10 workers say a manager has hurt their career.


Smart bad bosses can be hard to spot, some experts say, because they are extremely good at manipulating and charming some people, while abusing others.

Industrial organizational psychologist Paul Babiak first grew interested in studying psychopaths at work after he was called in to consult for a dysfunctional team. He found an abusive, lying boss?and a team that was staunchly divided into two camps.

"(There was) a subset of the team that really loved this guy? idolized him?and then there was another group of people who thought he was a snake," Babiak said.


Very few companies will admit that they want a bad boss in their corporate ranks. But experts say that bad bosses do have some aspects of American corporate culture working in their favor.

That includes the results-at-all-costs mentality that pervades many publicly held companies and the stereotype that a good boss should be aggressive and bold.

When Babiak presents the first part of his research on corporate professionals who are psychopaths, he said he often hears from senior leaders who wonder why psychopaths are so bad. That's because they would actually like to have a manager who comes across as strong, decisive and aggressive.

The allure is often short-lived.

OK, they're not actual psychopathic patients

"Usually by lunchtime they realize ? that you can't pick and choose the traits that you want," he said. "If you are hiring a psychopath you will get pathological lying. You will get grandiose sense of self."


By contrast, he said the initial response he usually gets from lower level workers is, "Oh my God, you're describing my boss."

Of course, most bosses aren't horrendous enough to deserve an actual diagnosis of psychopathy.

"At first, the tendency is to see (a bad) boss as a psychopath," said Sigrid Gustafson, an industrial organizational psychologist who runs the consulting firm Success Exceleration. "There are a lot of ways to be a jerk, and there are a lot of ways to be a bad boss."

Babiak said about 4 percent of the 203 executives he studied were diagnosable psychopaths, compared to about 1 percent of the broader population. A person is considered a psychopath if they score very high on an evaluation that looks at four factors and finds that they are particularly manipulative, without remorse or empathy, live a deviant lifestyle and are antisocial.

It's more likely that the boss you dislike is just not very good at supervising employees. Babiak said the most common type of boss is what he calls the unskilled boss.

"The not-so-nice name is the abusive boss," he said. "They tend to be offensive because they're not polished."

These are the bosses who scold people in public, don't handle stress well and aren't always fair. That's in contrast to the two other types of bosses he's identified: The good, predictable, tough-but-fair boss and the really bad, psychopathic boss.

Nice people are less likely to emerge as leaders

In general, Timothy Judge, a management professor at the University of Notre Dame, said his research has shown that agreeable people?those who are cooperative, nice and gentle?are less likely to emerge as leaders than disagreeable people. That's even though agreeable leaders tend to do just as good a job as disagreeable people, he said.


More generally, Judge's data also has shown that being agreeable can harm many aspects of career success, including salary negotiations, occupational prestige and career attainment.

"We have this quality that we say we really want in people, and yet if you look at the labor market it really punishes that," Judge said.

The extremely bad bosses, such as the "aberrant self-promoters" Gustafson has identified, aren't necessarily more prevalent in the upper ranks than any other type of personality, she said. However, these truly bad bosses are more memorable because they wreak so much havoc.

"They have more influence and they're more likely to bully and intimidate and ruin other people," she said.


Taking credit for others' work

That kind of charming, risk-loving personality can sometimes help a company achieve great things?although Gustafson said that's usually by getting their loyal workers to do the work, rather than doing it themselves. But Gustafson said their weaknesses often mean that companies find the success is short-lived.


"In the end, they will find that something has gone really badly amiss," she said.

She was recently called in to consult for a company that was lulled into hiring a destructive boss, and asked her to evaluate the person that had replaced the bad boss, to make sure they didn't make the same mistake twice.

Many experts say it can be hard, at first, to distinguish the gifted leader from the narcissist or the bully. That's partly because some of the attributes we admire in leaders?such as the boldness and attention to detail so coveted by the likes of the late Apple executive Steve Jobs?can also turn darker.

Bill Wales, professor of management at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., said his research has shown that narcissistic chief executives tend to lead more entrepreneurial companies.

That doesn't mean that they are more successful, he notes. It just means that they are much more likely to take big risks or make bold moves, which may end up being major coups or miserable failures.

"You're getting both bigger wins and bigger losses," Wales said.
 
Unemployment disparity: African-American jobless rate is twice that of whites. Blacks likely to be unemployed longer. | Face the Facts USA

The color of unemployment

In an interview published Saturday in the New York Times, President Obama talked about unemployment and the income gap as key factors in ongoing racial tension in America. Obama predicted that with continuing unemployment and inequality, "Racial tensions won?t get better; they may get worse, because people will feel as if they?ve got to compete with some other group to get scraps from a shrinking pot." It's a fact that the recession has not affected all Americans equally. While overall unemployment hovers around 8 percent, the reality was much different depending on your racial and ethnic background. African-Americans had an unemployment rate of 14.1 percent, nearly double the rate of whites at 7.2 percent. Hispanics had the second highest unemployment rate at 10.2 percent. And Asians fared best, with 5.9 percent unemployment. But Asians do not fare so well when it comes to long-term unemployment, those out of work for six months or longer. Unemployed Asians and African-Americans tend to stay unemployed for longer stretches of time. Check out our infographic for more on unemployment?s racial disparities. See ?What Do Others Say?? on the demographics, then add to the discussion below. What do these disparities say about the U.S.? How much is prejudice at play? Are President Obama's statements on the ties between race relations and unemployment accurate?

FTFin-unemployment-race.jpg
 
States Where It Is Hardest To Find Full-Time Work - 24/7 Wall St.

States Where It Is Hardest To Find Full-Time Work

As the nation continues to recover from the recession, not only is the unemployment rate down, but the underemployment rate ? an important measure of the health of the job market ? has been slowly declining as well.

In 2012, 14.7% of all people in the workforce either had no job, were too discouraged to go looking, or were not working as much as they wanted. Through the 12 months ending mid-2013, this figure had fallen slightly to 14.3%. But in many states, underemployment remains persistently high. These are the states where it is hardest to find full-time work.

BLS chief regional economist Martin Kohli told 24/7 Wall St. ?In these states, the statistics are showing some positive and some negative developments.? In high underemployment states like Mississippi and New Jersey, he noted, the rate of people involuntarily underemployed increased over the last year, even as the national rate declined.

For those high underemployment states where the rate has declined, however, such as California, Nevada, and Michigan, the declines in underemployment rates in some of these states is a sign of job market growth. In these states, Kohli noted, there have been ?increases in their labor forces, as well as significant over the year increases in payroll jobs, so the changes in the [underemployment] rates are additional confirmation of improvements in their labor markets.?

For many states with high underemployment, a strong year for job growth in 2012 still has not been enough to help all workers find jobs. High underemployment states like Washington, Arizona, and California had some of the fastest job growth in the country in 2012, but still have not recovered all of the jobs they lost prior to the recession. In Arizona, there were about 2.5 million jobs in July. In late 2007, there were nearly 2.7 million nonfarm jobs. In California, where the number of jobs rose 3.3% in 2012, the third-fastest growth in the country, there were 14.6 million jobs in July, just under half a million less than in late 2007.

Many of the states where people cannot find full-time, consistent work were especially hurt by the housing market collapse in the previous decade. At the end of 2012, according to the CoreLogic Case-Shiller Indexes, home prices in the majority of the states with high underemployment were still at least 20% lower than they were at the end of 2007. In Arizona and Nevada ? both high underemployment states ? home prices declined by one-third and almost half, respectively.

To determine the states with the least full-time work, 24/7 Wall St. used figures published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization, covering four quarters ending with the second quarter of 2013. We focused on two measures: U-3, the conventional measure of the unemployment rate, and U-6, the underemployment rate. The underemployment rate adds ?marginally attached? workers, which includes those who have become too discouraged to look for a job, and people working part time because their hours were cut or they cannot find full-time work. We also reviewed figures published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis on personal income and changes by state for 2012.

These are the states where it is hardest to find full-time work.

10. New Jersey
> Underemployment rate: 15.7% (tied-8th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 9.1% (tied-6th highest)
> Gross domestic product: 1.3% (15th lowest)
> Income per capita: $53,628 (3rd highest)

New Jersey has suffered from the recession, as well as the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. Home prices are down by 21% between 2007 and the end of 2012, a decline topped by only nine states. Average weekly wages in the state are among the highest in the country, at $1,172. However, wage growth was slow in 2012. The state has also had a slow job recovery, and the 12-month average unemployment rate midway through this year remained above 9%.

Also Read: Nine Cities Running Out of Water

9. Arizona
> Underemployment rate: 15.7% (tied-8th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 8.1% (tied-15th highest)
> Gross domestic product: 2.6% (13th highest)
> Income per capita: $35,979 (10th lowest)

Like neighboring Nevada, Arizona?s housing market was hit hard by the recession. Home prices were down 33.3% between the end of 2007 and the end of last year. However, there are some signs of a healthy recovery ? Arizona?s home prices rose the most in the U.S. last year. But the housing market still has a long way to go. More than a third of homes with mortgages have negative equity, higher than all but three other states. The state?s job market has been slow to recover. Unemployment is down from a 12-month average of 8.2% of the labor force to 8.1% through the first half of 2013. Construction jobs are up by nearly 10% between June 2012 and June 2013, but are still down by close to 50% compared to June 2006.

8. Washington
> Underemployment rate: 15.7% (tied-8th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 7.5% (tied-22nd highest)
> Gross domestic product: 3.6% (4th highest)
> Income per capita: $45,413 (12th highest)

Washington has improved its unemployment measurably in the last two quarters, from a 12-month average of 8.3% at the end of 2012, to an average of 7.5% at the end of the second quarter of 2013 ? below the U.S. 12-month rate of 7.8%. The state?s underemployment rate has also fallen more than all but three other states, but the rate remains one of the highest in the country. One barrier to higher full-time employment may be the state?s minimum wage, although policy makers disagree on the effect such minimums have on job growth. Washington has the nation?s highest minimum wage, at $9.19 per hour.

7. Mississippi
> Underemployment rate: 15.8%
> Unemployment rate: 9.3% (4th highest)
> Gross domestic product: 2.4% (17th highest)
> Income per capita: $33,073 (the lowest)

In the wake of the recession the economic prospects in this state are still grim, especially when business earnings decline and jobs are cut as a result. Last month, for example, Entergy Corporation, which employs 1,900 Mississippi workers, said it will cut 800 jobs to make up for plummeting net income. In 2012, jobs grew by just 1.1% in the state, below the U.S. growth rate of 1.9%. Wages also grew less than average. As of the end of 2012, workers in the state earn just $720 per week, less than those in any other state.

6. Rhode Island
> Underemployment rate: 15.9%
> Unemployment rate: 9.5% (tied-3rd highest)
> Gross domestic product: 1.4% (17th lowest)
> Income per capita: $44,990 (14th highest)

The Rhode Island economy was among the weakest in the nation during 2012, when it had far-slower growth in both employment and wages than the U.S. overall, and home prices barely inched upwards. According to the Associated Press, Rhode Island recently received a $1.9 million federal grant to help boost its economy and infrastructure. The first half of this year has been more promising, however. Rhode Island?s annual average unemployment rate was 10.5% in 2012, higher than any other state except Nevada. But by the second quarter of 2013, the state?s 12-month average unemployment rate had fallen substantially to 9.5%. Similarly, the state?s underemployment rate also declined in that time, from 17.6% to 15.9%, a larger percentage point decline than any other state.
 
5. Illinois
> Underemployment rate: 16.1% (tied-4th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 9.0% (7th highest)
> Gross domestic product: 1.9% (25th lowest)
> Income per capita: $44,815 (16th highest)

Illinois? housing market reveals the poor state of economic health in the state: over a quarter of homes with mortgages have negative equity. Between 2007 and 2012, home prices saw a 28.6% decline, worse than only three other states. Jobs in Illinois are faring no better. The unemployment rate is one of the highest in the country. Employment growth was also slower than two thirds of states in 2012. This month, the Chicago Tribune reported filings with the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, which said about 400 workers were told in July they might be laid off.

Also Read: Famous Restaurant Chains That Are Hard to Find

4. Michigan
> Underemployment rate: 16.1% (tied-4th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 8.9% (8th highest)
> Gross domestic product: 2.3% (18th highest)
> Income per capita: $37,497 (16th lowest)

Like many states with high underemployment, Michigan home prices fell significantly during the recession, but showed some signs of improvement in 2012. Average weekly wages grew by only 2.3% in 2012, the fifth-slowest growth among states. Reflecting the desperate state of employment in the state, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation announced last month its approval of incentives to companies planning expansions in Michigan. CBS reports the projects may generate nearly $86 million in investments, and add 600 new jobs.

3. Oregon
> Underemployment rate: 16.9%
> Unemployment rate: 8.7% (10th highest)
> Gross domestic product: 4.0% (3rd highest)
> Income per capita: $38,786 (18th lowest)

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Oregon?s 12-month average unemployment rate of 8.7 was the 10th-worst in the country. It?s underemployment rate was even worse, with 16.9% of workers either unemployed or involuntarily employed less than full-time. While jobs grew more than most states in 2012, the state is still short by roughly 70,000 jobs compared to its pre-recession levels. Average weekly wage in Oregon is not far below the national average. However wage growth has been slower than most of the country, growing just 2.5% in 2012.

2. California
> Underemployment rate: 18.3%
> Unemployment rate: 9.5% (tied-3rd highest)
> Gross domestic product: 3.5% (6th highest)
> Income per capita: $44,980 (15th highest)

California was one of the fastest growing states in the nation in 2012. Jobs grew by 3.3% last year, more than all but two other states. Home prices began to rebound as well, rising by 12.9% from the fourth quarter of 2011 to the fourth quarter of 2012, more than all but two other states. But over the 12 months ending with the second quarter of 2013, the state had among the highest unemployment and underemployment rates in the country. Also, while the state has done well in adding jobs so far through 2013, it still has yet to replace about half a million jobs lost during the recession.

Also Read: States Sending the Most People to Prison

1. Nevada
> Underemployment rate: 19.0%
> Unemployment rate: 10.4% (the highest)
> Gross domestic product: 1.5% (20th lowest)
> Income per capita: $37,361 (14th lowest)

Home prices in Nevada fell by 46.6% between 2007 and 2012, the worst decline in the nation, according to CoreLogic. In 2012, employment in Nevada saw a 1.9% growth, which was 14th in the country. Jobs have been created in Nevada in some of the largest industries, particularly leisure and hospitality, which reported a 2.3% increase this June, according to Nevada?s Research and Analysis Bureau. But the state is still down more than 100,000 jobs compared to pre-recession levels. Some are skeptical of the job growth in the state, noting that while jobs are being created, over half are for low-wage positions. Wage growth in 2012 was 16th lowest in the country.


Alexander E.M. Hess and Thomas C. Frohlich
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
New Jersey is having a solar boom right now, anyone with a construction or electrical background should be able to land an installer job, when our solar boom started I saw a lot of real estate agents transition into solar salesperson positions, also quite a few stock brokers....
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57598411/what-it-costs-to-raise-a-kid-$241080/

What it costs to raise a kid: $241,080

Children will cost you roughly one-quarter of a million dollars before they turn age 18. If you send them to college, you could spend twice as much, according to a new report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Offspring are also far more costly, even on an inflation-adjusted basis, than they used to be, the agency found. In 1960, children in the baby boom generation cost their parents 23 percent less to raise than kids do today. That amounts to a total of $195,690 in inflation-adjusted dollars, versus today's average of $241,080.


The biggest factor behind the rising cost of child-rearing is out-of-pocket health payments and child care expenses, which have both more than doubled. The USDA partly attributes the spiraling cost of child care to the fact that there are far more two-income families in 2013 than there were in 1960. That means more families are reporting day-care expenses.

Music producer David Bruner, for example, told CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano he quit his job to be an at-home dad because childcare in New York City cost too much - even though his wife is an attorney with a six-figure salary.

"It's an expensive blessing," he said, but he's "more than okay" with that.

Of course, if a couple opts to have one spouse stay home to raise the kids, that's a cost, too. But the USDA didn't account for the so-called opportunity cost of wages that went unearned by a stay-at-home spouse in 1960. Even today it ignores the half of U.S. households that say they have no day care or education expenses.

Theoretically, if the researchers had used the same formula used in 1960, the disparity would be less severe. Still, where child care and education accounted for just 2 percent of the cost of having children in 1960 -- a total of $3,914, or roughly $301 annually (through age 13) -- it now commands 18 percent of the cost, an average annual expense of $3,338.


No matter how you slice it, in short, the cost or raising children is far higher in 2013 than half a century ago.



Meanwhile, even at $241,080, this estimate of the cost of having kids is likely to be conservative. The government's exhaustive explanation of how it figures the numbers notes that the cost of housing your child is figured based on the incremental cost of buying a house with an additional bedroom. It doesn't account for those who might move to a more costly neighborhood to get the benefit of better schools or a safer environment.


The estimates also assume some economies of scale that come with having more than one child, such as being able to use hand-me-down clothing and shared babysitters. If you have just one child, you'll spend comparatively more.


But the USDA rightly notes that the amount you spend on a child - like the amount you spend on yourself -- will vary based on household income. The lowest-income group studied -- those earning less than $60,640 -- will spend an average of $216,910 on their youngest child by the time he or she reaches the age of 18. Those earning the most -- $105,000 or more -- will spend upwards of $500,000.

Child-rearing-costs-then-and-now_620.jpg
 
and it's exactly that cost which is causing the low birth rates in the wealthy country's in the OECD, they use immigration to keep the population up and the profits in the US since all the wealth flows to the top.

other country's with far more stable economy's don't follow the US labor or immigration models for the obvious reasons.
 
Back in 2009 I was laid off from a job I worked at for 10 years with no warning or a heads up. I was a supervisor and made good money. It was damn near impossible to find a job that payed close to what I was making. I hate to admit it, because its embarrassing to me, but I had to collect unemployment for a few months until I was able to find a job.
 
Gap in employment rates between rich, poor at widest levels in records dating back a decade | Star Tribune

Gap in employment rates between rich, poor at widest levels in records dating back a decade

WASHINGTON ? The gap in employment rates between America's highest- and lowest-income families has stretched to its widest levels since officials began tracking the data a decade ago, according to an analysis of government data conducted for The Associated Press.

Rates of unemployment for the lowest-income families ? those earning less than $20,000 ? have topped 21 percent, nearly matching the rate for all workers during the 1930s Great Depression.

U.S. households with income of more than $150,000 a year have an unemployment rate of 3.2 percent, a level traditionally defined as full employment. At the same time, middle-income workers are increasingly pushed into lower-wage jobs. Many of them in turn are displacing lower-skilled, low-income workers, who become unemployed or are forced to work fewer hours, the analysis shows.

"This was no 'equal opportunity' recession or an 'equal opportunity' recovery," said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. "One part of America is in depression, while another part is in full employment."

The findings follow the government's tepid jobs report this month that showed a steep decline in the share of Americans working or looking for work. On Monday, President Barack Obama stressed the need to address widening inequality after decades of a "winner-take-all economy, where a few do better and better and better, while everybody else just treads water or loses ground."

"We have to make the investments necessary to attract good jobs that pay good wages and offer high standards of living," he said.

While the link between income and joblessness may seem apparent, the data are the first to establish how this factor has contributed to the erosion of the middle class, a traditional strength of the U.S. economy.

Based on employment-to-population ratios, which are seen as a reliable gauge of the labor market, the employment disparity between rich and poor households remains at the highest levels in more than a decade, the period for which comparable data are available.

In the first seven months of 2013, the employment rate was 73.5 percent for households with income of more than $150,000 a year, compared with 33.8 percent for households making less than $20,000 ? a gap of 39.7 percentage points, similar to the ratio in the most recent years after the recession. In contrast, the employment gap was 36.4 percentage points in 2005, at the height of the housing bubble.

"It's pretty frustrating," says Annette Guerra, 33, of San Antonio, who has been looking for a full-time job since she finished nursing school more than a year ago. During her search, she found that employers had become increasingly picky about an applicant's qualifications in the tight job market, often turning her away because she lacked previous nursing experience or because she wasn't certified in more areas.

Guerra says she now gets by doing "odds and ends" jobs such as a pastry chef, bringing in $500 to $1,000 a month, but she says daily living can be challenging as she cares for her mother, who has end-stage kidney disease.

"For those trying to get ahead, there should be some help from government or companies to boost the economy and provide people with the necessary job training," says Guerra, who hasn't ruled out returning to college to get a business degree once her financial situation is more stable. "I'm optimistic that things will start to look up, but it's hard."

Last year the average length of unemployment for U.S. workers reached 39.5 weeks, the highest level since World War II. The duration of unemployment has since edged lower to 36.5 weeks based on data from January to July, still relatively high historically.

Economists call this a "bumping down" or "crowding out" in the labor market, a domino effect that pushes out lower-income workers, pushes median income downward and contributes to income inequality. Because many mid-skill jobs are being lost to globalization and automation, recent U.S. growth in low-wage jobs has not come fast enough to absorb displaced workers at the bottom.

Low-wage workers are now older and better educated than ever, with especially large jumps in those with at least some college-level training.

"The people at the bottom are going to be continually squeezed, and I don't see this ending anytime soon," said Harvard economist Richard Freeman. "If the economy were growing enough or unions were stronger, it would be possible for the less educated to do better and for the lower income to improve. But in our current world, where we are still adjusting to globalization, that is not very likely to happen."

The figures are based on an analysis of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sum and Northeastern University economist Ishwar Khatiwada. They are supplemented with material from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's David Autor, an economics professor known for his research on the disappearance of mid-skill positions, as well as John Schmitt, a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington think tank. Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, analyzed data on poverty.

The overall rise in both the unemployment rate and low-wage jobs due to the recent recession accounts for the record number of people who were stuck in poverty in 2011: 46.2 million, or 15 percent of the population. When the Census Bureau releases new 2012 poverty figures on Tuesday, most experts believe the numbers will show only slight improvement, if any, due to the slow pace of the recovery.

Overall, more than 16 percent of adults ages 16 and older are now "underutilized" in the labor market ? that is, they are unemployed, "underemployed" in part-time jobs when full-time work is desired or among the "hidden unemployed" who are not actively job hunting but express a desire for immediate work.

Among households making less than $20,000 a year, the share of underutilized workers jumps to about 40 percent. For those in the $20,000-to-$39,999 category, it's just over 21 percent and about 15 percent for those earning $40,000 to $59,999. At the top of the scale, underutilization affects just 7.2 percent of those in households earning more than $150,000.

By race and ethnicity, black workers in households earning less than $20,000 were the most likely to be underutilized, at 48.4 percent. Low-income Hispanics and whites were almost equally as likely to be underutilized, at 38 percent and 36.8 percent, respectively, compared to 31.8 percent for low-income Asian-Americans.

Loss of jobs in the recent recession has hit younger, less-educated workers especially hard. Fewer teenagers are taking on low-wage jobs as older adults pushed out of disappearing mid-skill jobs, such as bank teller or administrative assistant, move down the ladder.

Recent analysis by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that whites and older workers are more pessimistic about their opportunities to advance compared to other groups in the lower-wage workforce.

Eric Reichert, 45, of West Milford, N.J. Reichert, who holds a master's degree in library science, is among the longer-term job seekers. He had hoped to find work as a legal librarian or in a similar research position after he was laid off from a title insurance company in 2008. Reichert now works in a lower-wage administrative records position, also helping to care for his 8-year-old son while his wife works full-time at a pharmaceutical company.

"I'm still looking, and I wish I could say that I will find a better job, but I can no longer say that with confidence," he said. "At this point, I'm reconsidering what I'm going do, but it's not like I'm 24 years old anymore."
 
Back in 2009 I was laid off from a job I worked at for 10 years with no warning or a heads up. I was a supervisor and made good money. It was damn near impossible to find a job that payed close to what I was making. I hate to admit it, because its embarrassing to me, but I had to collect unemployment for a few months until I was able to find a job.

No reason to be embarrassed.

That's what unemployment benefits are for. You paid into it.

There is no security in the American workforce.

This is one reason I am debt free and will remain so until death.
 
How to make sure your new employees fail from day one | SmartBlogs SmartBlogs

Recently. I read that 20% of new employees either quit or are terminally disenchanted after only 45 days on the job.

Personally, I think it?s wonderful that so many companies are doing so well that they can afford to throw away that much money on hiring people who immediately learn to hate the jobs they get hired for. I?ve always said that the recession was simply a figment of our imagination, and now we finally have proof.

But I want to take this one step farther. I think some of these companies are accidentally rubbing their employees the wrong way. I think sometimes it just happens. And I don?t want my readers to have to rely on random chance when it comes to driving their new employees into the ground. So let?s look at some of the things you can do to actively oppress and demoralize your workforce. Sadness, engage!

Give your new employees only the most thankless assignments

We all know that new employees are hired specifically to do the things we don?t want to do anymore. It?s the same reason older children get so excited when they find out they?re going to have a new baby brother or sister, because they know they?ll get to pawn the vacuuming off on their little, weaker sibling. So make sure the work you assign to your new employees is menial, monotonous, and as unpleasant as possible.

I?ve actually heard one story (totally, completely not making this up) of a new employee who was asked to fire an older employee on his manager?s behalf. Seriously. And what an opening-day message! ?Welcome to the team, son! Now go make the team smaller. Oh, and by the way, you probably shouldn?t worry too much about the next time I hire someone. I?m like 75% sure I won?t ask that person to fire you. Glad you?re here!?

Provide little or no training

Learning takes time, and time is money. Which means you need to remind your new employees how much money they?re wasting by learning things. I?m pretty sure they offer degrees in payroll processing and oil drilling and product consulting and every other job you could possibly be hiring people for, so there?s no reason these people should need any extra education. And don?t even think about sending them to a conference. You know all they?re going to do is sleep in and watch HBO anyway.

Give them opportunities to showcase their ignorance

You?ve burdened them with all the menial tasks you can think of, and you?ve given them no opportunity to learn the ropes. Which means now is the perfect time to expect them to perform at the same level as everyone else!

One innovative solution I?ve heard to make new employees feel confident and excited is to provide them an opportunity to present on a topic they know a lot about; it shows your older employees that your new hires actually do know something useful, and it shows your new hires that you appreciate their knowledge and experience. But I?m pretty sure ?innovative? is a synonym for ?dumb.? They?re pretty close to each other in the dictionary. So instead of coaching them and scaffolding off of their existing skills, drop them into the deep end and watch them flail! Assign them to lead important projects that you haven?t had time to get to yourself, then berate them loudly when they inevitably find themselves in way over their heads!

I hope this helps. At least one study suggests that each new employee you hire actually costs twice as much as the salary you pay them. And what?s the point of all that money if you can?t spend it on something extravagant and unnecessary? There are literally millions of luxury items you could buy if you wanted to, and there?s no reason that ?endless stream of new, soon-to-be-unhappy employees? can?t be one of them.
 
Want to move abroad? This map shows the best and worst countries to be an expatriate.!

Want to move abroad? This map shows the best and worst countries to be an expatriate.

China and Thailand are the two best countries to be an expatriate, according to a recent study by British bank HSBC that looked at economic opportunities and quality of life for expats in 34 countries. They're followed by small, rich countries known for their globalized business classes. In descending order, they are: Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Bahrain and Singapore.

The worst of these 34 countries to be an expat is Egypt, which has seen xenophobia rise considerably since this summer's military coup and wave of populist nationalism. Also at the bottom of the list is much of Western Europe, which the report says is often too expensive for expats. In descending order: France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy and second-to-last is Ireland.

For 24 of those countries, the study also looked at metrics gauging the suitability of raising children as expats. If you incorporate the data on child rearing abroad along with the economic and quality-of-life measurements, China ranks first overall, following by Germany and Singapore. The study concludes that Germany is the best of these countries to raise expat children, that Thailand provides the best work-life experience for expats, and that Switzerland has the most favorable economy for expatriates.

This map shows how the 34 countries compare on economic opportunities and quality-of-life for expats. It does not include the metrics on child rearing. Bluer countries are better for expats and redder countries are worse:

expats.jpg


You can see right away that the data are very favorable for expat life in Asia's developing economies. Companies in these countries prize expat workers and tend to pay them 15 percent more, the report explains. This, combined with lower costs of living, can give expats much higher spending power than they'd enjoy elsewhere. Expats in East and Southeast Asia also tend to report that their social lives become much more active on moving there, due perhaps to the boost in disposable incomes as well as better weather and proximity to beaches.

Still, I was surprised to see mainland China rank so high. The country's worsening air quality (here is the most shocking photo of Chinese air pollution I've ever seen) and food safety issues (watch this video on Chinese "gutter oil" if you dare), particularly severe in the major cities likely to host expats, have sent a number of expats packing as China once again becomes a "hardship" posting. Perhaps the economics really are that favorable to outweigh these costs.

Germany and Switzerland also scored well for expats, as both economies improve despite the larger European woes. Salaries for expats are unusually high in the German-speaking countries and expenses are lower than in the rest of the Europe, owing to export-driven economic growth. Strong social programs and high standards of living also tend to make the experience pleasant, even if expats do not live as a class-above as they do in many developing economies.

Middle Eastern countries tend be worse places for expats, owing to legislation that makes it tougher for foreigners to own property and because of formal and informal social restrictions that can cut back on quality of life. The exceptions are Bahrain and Qatar, two very wealthy and very small Persian Gulf states whose governments work to attract the wealthy expats they see as crucial to building businesses there. It should go without saying that HSBC's study does not consider "guest workers" in its measurements. Gulf states, particularly Qatar, have notorious reputations for mistreating migrant laborers from South and Southeast Asia, who work in difficult conditions and with few protections.

A big surprise here may be the countries of Western Europe, which despite their wealth and high standards of living are considered among the worst countries to be an expat, according to the study. The report cites high taxes and costly services; expenses that might make sense if you're a citizen who plans to one day employ your country's substantial social services, but less so if you're an expat who pays into those services but doesn't fully benefit. The European Union's ongoing financial problems also mean that salaries are less competitive, particularly compared to the higher cost of living. Part of this may be that Western European companies, as well as foreign companies with offices in Western Europe, are not as willing to invest in growth with all the economic uncertainty. Otherwise, though, Western Europe ranks highly for child rearing, with high-quality education and child services relatively affordable.

Based just on this report, if you're thinking about flying off for the life of an expat and you don't want to have kids there, then you should consider China, Thailand or someplace else in Asia. And if you want to have kids abroad, then Germany should also be near the top of your list.
 
Explainer: How to tell if the job market is improving - CBS News

The government's latest jobs report shows unemployment increasing from 7.2 percent in September to 7.3 percent last month. In many ways, however, the employment-to-population ratio is a better indicator of labor market conditions. And even as the economy was adding many more jobs than forecasters had predicted, that key metric fell to 58.3 percent, down 0.3 percentage points from the previous month.

The problem with using changes in the unemployment rate as the most important measure of the job picture is that it can fall even when labor market conditions get worse. When the unemployment rate declines because more jobless people find work, that reduction reflects a positive development in the labor market. But the unemployment rate also falls when people get discouraged about their prospects for finding a job and drop out of the labor force.

Thus, to properly interpret a change in the unemployment rate, it's important to know whether the change is due to a change in the proportion of people finding jobs or from a change in the labor force participation rate.

This is especially important recently because there has been a large change in labor force participation, meaning the number of working-age people who are employed or who are looking for work. The civilian labor force participation rate has fallen from 66 percent at the start of the recession in December 2007 to 62.8 percent in October of this year.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 2.3 million people among those who have dropped out of the labor force who wanted and are available for work. These individuals are not counted as unemployed because they have not searched for work in the previous four weeks. If all of these workers had been counted as part of the labor force, the unemployment rate in October would have been 8.6 percent instead of 7.2 percent, a major difference.

One big unknown for the future is how many of these workers will return to the labor force once labor market conditions improve. If they return in substantial numbers, it would make it harder for the unemployment rate to fall.

The employment-to-population ratio does not have the discouraged worker problem. The civilian working-age population used to calculate this measure of labor market performance includes people both in and out of the labor force, so the movement between the two groups does not change the statistic.

This measure of labor market conditions tells a different story than the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate has fallen steadily from a peak of 10 percent in October 2009 to 7.3 percent as of last month. However, the employment-to-population ratio was 62.7 percent at the start of the recession in December 2007, fell to a low of 58.2 percent in November 2010 and has only increased to 58.3 percent in October of this year.


According to this measure of labor market performance, in other words, there hasn't been much improvement in the job market.


There are other factors besides the discouraged worker problem to watch out for when interpreting movements in either the unemployment rate or the employment-to-population ratio. If, for example, there is demographic change (such as the aging population we are seeing in the U.S.) and this causes a decline in the labor force participation rate as older workers drop out of the labor force, the employment-to-population ratio and unemployment rate calculations will be affected.

But there is an easy way around this problem for the employment-to-population ratio. The employment-to-population ratio for prime age workers aged 25-54 should be relatively independent of demographic change of the type we are currently experiencing because it excludes older workers. However, the story this measure tells is much the same. The ratio was 79.7 percent at the onset of the recession, fell to 74.8 percent in December of 2009 and has only increased to 75.4 percent since. It also has been flat for the last year or so.


So this measure also paints a somewhat gloomier picture of the labor market than the unemployment rate.

There are two other factors that are important to consider when interpreting movements in either the unemployment rate or the employment-to-population ratio. Both measures of labor market performance assume that anyone with a job is working as much as they want to and is in the job he or she is best suited for. But some workers who are counted as fully employed will only be able to find part-time work; they would rather work full-time if they could, and others end up in jobs they are overqualified for.


The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes an alternative measure of the unemployment rate that corrects for the discouraged worker and part-time worker problems, and when these corrections are made the unemployment rate increases from 7.2 to 13.8 percent in October.

Of course, no single measure of labor market conditions is perfect, so it's best to look at the full range of indicators rather than focusing on any one measure. But the employment-to-population ratio should be among the set of statistics that is more carefully scrutinized, especially when there are substantial changes in labor force participation of the kind we have seen in recent years.
 
Census ?faked? 2012 election jobs report



In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply ? raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline ? from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September ? might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.
And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.
Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.
And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee ? that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.
?He?s not the only one,? said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.
The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.
Ironically, it was Labor?s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.
Labor requires Census to achieve a 90 percent success rate on its interviews ? meaning it needed to reach 9 out of 10 households targeted and report back on their jobs status.
Census currently has six regions from which surveys are conducted. The New York and Philadelphia regions, I?m told, had been coming up short of the 90 percent.
Philadelphia filled the gap with fake interviews.
?It was a phone conversation ? I forget the exact words ? but it was, ?Go ahead and fabricate it? to make it what it was,? Buckmon told me.
Census, under contract from the Labor Department, conducts the household survey used to tabulate the unemployment rate.
Interviews with some 60,000 household go into each month?s jobless number, which currently stands at 7.3 percent. Since this is considered a scientific poll, each one of the households interviewed represents 5,000 homes in the US.
Buckmon, it turns out, was a very ambitious employee. He conducted three times as many household interviews as his peers, my source said.
By making up survey results ? and, essentially, creating people out of thin air and giving them jobs ? Buckmon?s actions could have lowered the jobless rate.
Buckmon said he filled out surveys for people he couldn?t reach by phone or who didn?t answer their doors.
But, Buckmon says, he was never told how to answer the questions about whether these nonexistent people were employed or not, looking for work, or have given up.
But people who know how the survey works say that simply by creating people and filling out surveys in their name would boost the number of folks reported as employed.
Census never publicly disclosed the falsification. Nor did it inform Labor that its data was tainted.
?Yes, absolutely they should have told us,? said a Labor spokesman. ?It would be normal procedure to notify us if there is a problem with data collection.?
Census appears to have looked into only a handful of instances of falsification by Buckmon, although more than a dozen instances were reported, according to internal documents.
In one document from the probe, Program Coordinator Joal Crosby was ask in 2010, ?Why was the suspected ? possible data falsification on all (underscored) other survey work for which data falsification was suspected not investigated by the region??
On one document seen by The Post, Crosby hand-wrote the answer: ?Unable to determine why an investigation was not done for CPS,? or the Current Population Survey ? the official name for the unemployment report.
With regard to the Consumer Expenditure survey, only four instances of falsification were looked into, while 14 were reported.
I?ve been suspicious of the Census Bureau for a long time.
During the 2010 Census report ? an enormous and costly survey of the entire country that goes on for a full year ? I suspected (and wrote in a number of columns) that Census was inexplicably hiring and firing temporary workers.
I suspected that this turnover of employees was being done purposely to boost the number of new jobs being report each month. (The Labor Department does not use the Census Bureau for its other monthly survey of new jobs ? commonly referred to as the Establishment Survey.)
Last week I offered to give all the information I have, including names, dates and charges to Labor?s inspector general.
I?m waiting to hear back from Labor.
I hope the next stop will be Congress, since manipulation of data like this not only gives voters the wrong impression of the economy but also leads lawmakers, the Federal Reserve and companies to make uninformed decisions.
To cite just one instance, the Fed is targeting the curtailment of its so-called quantitative easing money-printing/bond-buying fiasco to the unemployment rate for which Census provided the false information.
So falsifying this would, in essence, have dire consequences for the country.
Census ?faked? 2012 election jobs report | New York Post


all govt reports are questionable. They have no credibility anymore.
 
25 personal interview questions you

25 personal interview questions you?ll need to know the answer to

In the past year, we?ve published several lists of real-life interview questions asked by banks and other financial firms. Some were aimed at prospective investment bankers, others were more general, but all were quantitative in nature ? questions that would test a candidate?s technical aptitude. While it?s critical to have answers to these questions, it?s equally important to have good responses to some of the softball behavioral inquiries.

Frankly, these are the questions that give you the opportunity to differentiate yourself and show your true colors. The quantitative questions are just used to weed out those who don?t have the required skillset. Here are 25 questions that are frequently asked by banks, financial firms and even technology companies that are looking for MBA graduates. They were collected by students at NYU Stern School of Business. While clearly none of them are ?difficult? in nature, you should do the work upfront and have a good story to tell.

1. Tell me a little about yourself.

2. Why did you leave your last job (or why are considering leaving)?

3. Who is the worst (best) boss/subordinate/colleague you have ever worked with?

4. In your present position, what problems have you identified that were previously overlooked?

5. What kinds of people do you find it difficult to work with?

6. Describe a situation where your judgment proved to be valuable.

7. What aspects of your previous jobs have you disliked?

8. Do you work better under pressure or with time to plan and organize?

9. What is more important ? completing a job on time or doing it right?

10. What are your strengths and weaknesses?

11. What are the three most important accomplishments in your career?

12. What kinds of decisions are most difficult for you?

13. What is it about your current company that you do not particularly like or agree with?

14. How would your boss describe you?

15. What three words would you choose to best describe yourself?

16. How do you go about criticizing others?

17. What type of tasks do you feel you cannot delegate?

18. Why do you consider this to be a good opportunity?

19. What kind of relationship and atmosphere do you prefer to maintain with colleagues and subordinates?

20. How do you try to develop the weaker members of your team?

21. Describe how you allocate your time and set your priorities on a typical day.

22. Could your team carry on without you? How?

23. How do you determine if a subordinate is doing a good job?

24. Are you a better planner or implementer?

25. Describe your impact on your present company.
 
http://news.dice.com/2014/01/06/pre-employment-credit-check-hits-tech-workers-hardest/?CMPID=EM_SV_UP_JS_AD_LC_AD_&utm_source=Cheetahmail&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=&utm_campaign=Advisory_Lifecycle&om_rid=AAGso-&om_mid=_BQI8$-B8tYqRPk&dadv&om_rid=AAgjM8&om_mid=_BSzrl$B83jm3In&dice

Pre-Employment Credit Check Hits Tech Workers Hard

Technology job candidates are among the most likely to be screened with pre-employment credit checks, so they may be particularly interested in a proposal in Congress that would bar employers from using such checks during the hiring process.

According to a random survey of 544 human resource professionals, 87 percent say job candidates with responsibility for technology, as well as fiduciary and financial responsibility, are subject to pre-employment credit screening. Oracle, for one, has previously come under fire for its use of credit checks.

Meantime, 25 percent say they are likely to screen IT workers who have responsibility for electronics equipment and other forms of property, according to the Society of Human Resource Management, which conducted the survey.

History of Good Credit

Employers overall tend to favor a six- to seven-year credit history when screening job applicants. According to the survey, 52 percent of high-tech job candidates who have fiduciary and financial responsibility are likely to have a history pulled. That credit report looks at timely payments, size of debt and other factors, and is different than a snapshot credit score, says Amy Traub, senior policy analyst for think tank Demos.

?A high salary is not a good predictor of creditworthiness,? Traub says, noting that pre-employment credit checks are unfair and serve no useful barometer on whether a potential employee is likely to steal money, property or information from their employer. She notes that even though engineers and other high-tech jobs pay well, a medical catastrophe or layoffs can suddenly put a good credit rating at risk.

States with Credit Check Restrictions

Although there is an effort afoot to impose a federal ban on pre-employment credit checks, some states already have restrictions in place. California is one. The other nine include Nevada, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, according to law firm Seyfarth Shaw.

According to the Washington Post, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced the ?Equal Employment for All? bill, which is meant to stop employers from disqualifying job applicants based on a poor credit history. Lawmakers argue that the use of credit checks in hiring adds to long-term unemployment and disproportionately impacts women and minorities who took a hit during the financial crisis.

?No one should be denied the chance to compete for a job because of a credit report that bears no relationship to job performance,? said Warren during a call with reporters. She is one of seven lawmakers sponsoring the Equal Employment for All Act.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act currently allows employers to check a job applicant?s credit history if the applicant gives their consent. According to a 2012 survey by SHRM, 47 percent of employers use credit checks when making hiring decisions.

There?s a long history of using credit reports to figure out if applicants who would be responsible for handling money can manage their own finances, says Elizabeth Milito, senior executive counsel at the National Federation of Independent Business. ?A credit check can serve an important function in certain jobs, especially in the financial services industry,? she contends. ?A blanket prohibition would disadvantage many businesses that use credit as one component of a background check.?

But the practice is now pretty common for any type of position, and advocates and lawmakers say there is little evidence that credit checks make sense across the board. A study from Demos revealed that credit checks were conducted for jobs such as telephone tech support and selling frozen yogurt. The think tank polled unemployed Americans and found that one in 10 had been told they would not be hired because of their credit history. Poor credit was often related to lack of health insurance, medical debt or job loss.

?The use of credit checks creates a Catch 22 for job seekers,? says Nancy Zirkin, executive vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. ?It traps unemployed workers who have fallen behind on their bills in a vicious cycle of debt.?

Techonomics-Pre-employment-credit-checks.jpg
 
all govt reports are questionable. They have no credibility anymore.

Speaking of no credibility that would also include anything that has to do with Rupert Murdoch like the New York Post..LOL
 
The Best Interview Secrets We've Never Heard | The Daily Muse

The Best Interview Secrets We?ve Never Heard

We spend the better part of our lives giving you advice for your job search, but we?ll tell you a little secret?we don?t know everything.

That?s why, this week, we took to the web to find some of the most interesting job interview advice and research that was new to us. From scheduling your interview on a Tuesday morning to avoiding the word ?sure,? you?re bound to learn something new that will help you shine in your next interview.
?Just as you set agendas for meetings, setting an agenda for your interview can help you stay on track. (Brazen Life)
?You might want to skip that pre-interview cup of coffee?it could be hurting your performance. (Come Recommended)
?The interview isn?t just about your conversation with the hiring manager. Be sure to make these critical observations during your time there. (U.S. News)
?You should definitely ask questions during your interview, but avoid these common questions that will make you look bad. (Doostang)
?In fact, there are certain words that should stay off-limits while you?re chatting with the interviewer. (boston.com)
?When you schedule your interview can make a big difference in whether you get the job or not. (Glassdoor Blog)
?Can you tell partway through that the interview?s not going so well? Use these tricks to get back on track. (Career Attraction)
?Getting ready for an internal interview? The game is a little bit different. (Harvard Business Review)
 
74,000 jobs added in December. lol

Obama 2016!!
 
You do realize that Obama is done after this term?
 
74,000 jobs added in December. lol

Obama 2016!!

You think that any government unemployment published numbers are accurate as to how many people are unemployed?
I will bet you that those numbers are revised upward next month.

Besides that, that 74k is an anomaly due to the weather that impacted construction.
 
Back
Top