Tag Archives: Hiring

News

How Obama’s bold experimentation with the economy costs jobs

Leave a comment

Consider this column by George Will. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

At any time, some economic conditions would be better than others, but the more certainty about conditions the better. Today, investors and employers are certain that uncertainties are multiplying.

They are uncertain about when interest rates will rise, and by how much.

They do not know how badly the economy will be burdened by the expiration, approximately 200 days from now, of the Bush tax cuts on high earners — aka investors and employers. They know the costs of Obamacare will be higher than was advertised, but not how much higher. They do not know the potential costs of cap-and-trade and other energy policies.

They do not know if “card check” — abolition of the right of secret ballot elections in unionization decisions — will pass, or how much the economy will be injured by making unions more muscular. They do not know how the functioning of the financial sector will be altered and impeded by the many new regulatory rules and agencies created by the financial reform legislation.

The economy has become dependent on government stimulation of demand, and no one knows what will happen as the stimulus spending wanes.

Investors and employers are watching all of Obama’s bold experimentation with the economy patiently, and keeping their money in their wallets. Who can afford to hire more workers when the costs of running a business or making a profit on an investment goes up and up and up? When Obama is kicked out of office in 2012, and the economy settles down, then employers and investors will breathe a sigh of relief and hiring can resume.

News

Why American employers are not hiring any more workers

1 Comment

Here is a Wall Street Journal article from a New Jersey business owner who knows.

Excerpt:

With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it’s going to be later—much later. Here’s why.

Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She’s been with us for over 15 years. She’s a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.

[…]My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay.

[…]Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers’ comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally’s Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally’s pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally’s job each year.

[…]In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare.

Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums—for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%.

[…]As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company’s vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment.

This is why the unemployment rate is continuing to rise as the Democrats continue to pay off their special interests and raise taxes on US businesses. The more money they transfer away from private businesses to non-producing public sector workers, the more American companies will stop hiring, or just shift their hiring overseas. Some will just move their entire companies overseas. If depends on how far the Democrats go in implementing their left-wing agenda.

News

Canadian federal government reviewing affirmative action policies

1 Comment

Story from the National Post.

Excerpt:

The Conservatives have ordered a review of federal government affirmative action policies, saying the public service should hire based on merit, not race or ethnicity.

Cabinet ministers Stockwell Day and Jason Kenney announced the review of the Public Service Employment Act, along with any related practices and policies, on Thursday. “While we support diversity in the public service, we want to ensure that no Canadian is barred from opportunities in the public service based on race or ethnicity,” Mr. Day, the Treasury Board President, said in a statement.

Mr. Kenney, meanwhile, was more blunt in his calls for a meritocracy.

“I strongly agree with the objective of creating a public service that reflects the diversity of Canada, and with fair measures designed to reach that goal. But we must ensure that all Canadians have an equal opportunity to work for their government based on merit, regardless of race or ethnicity,” said the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

Under the current policy, the federal government targets four “employment equity groups” identified in the Employment Equity Act as being reflective of Canada’s wider diversity: visible minorities, aboriginals, people with disabilities and women.

And consider this editorial about the review.

Excerpt:

A cursory review of the federal public service job website reveals that all positions contain the following statement on their application:

The Public Service of Canada is committed to building a skilled, diverse workforce reflective of Canadian society. As a result, it promotes employment equity and encourages candidates to indicate voluntarily on their application if they are a woman, an Aboriginal person, a person with a disability or a member of a visible minority group.

This statement appears whether you are applying for work as a cabin inspector, a financial officer, a telephone interviewer, or an administrative assistant.  While it is intended to promote the hiring of “disadvantaged groups”, it has the effect of discriminating against other groups, even when those groups are, ironically, underrepresented in the positions that are being filled.

Indeed, for certain jobs, and even overall, it appears that affirmative action would need to be applied in the opposite direction, at least where the sexes are concerned.   In the federal civil service, 54.7% of employees are female, as were 57% of employees hired in 2008/09. But only 51% of the population is female.  It would thus appear that men need help, not women.

The opposition parties (the socialist Liberals and the communist New Democrat Party) oppose the review because they’re racists. They judge people based on the color of their skin, not on the content of their character.