Sunday, October 24, 2021

The geography of the Great Resignation: First-time data shows where Americans are quitting the most [feedly]

The geography of the Great Resignation: First-time data shows where Americans are quitting the most
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/22/states-labor-quitting-turnvoer-jolts/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_business

text only -- check out the map via thelink

By Alyssa Fowers and Eli Rosenberg
October 22, 2021|Updated October 22, 2021 at 3:51 p.m. EDT

Kentucky, Idaho, South Dakota and Iowa reported the highest increases in the rates of workers who quit their jobs in August, according to a new glimpse of quit rates in the labor market released Friday.

The largest increase in the number of quitters happened in Georgia, with 35,000 more people leaving their jobs. Overall, the states with the highest rates of workers quitting their jobs were Georgia, Kentucky and Idaho.

The report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics builds out a portrait of August's labor market, with historic levels of people leaving jobs and a near-record number of job openings showing the leverage workers have in the new economy. It offers the first detailed insight into the state-by-state geography of this year's Great Resignation.

"It is a sign of health that there are many companies that are looking for work — that's a great sign," said Ben Ayers, senior economist at Nationwide. "The downside is there are many workers that won't come back in. And long term you can't sustain a labor market that's as tight as it is right now."

Nick Bunker, an economist at the online jobs platform Indeed, said it was notable that more-rural states had the highest quit rates.

"Service-sector jobs tend to be concentrated in more dense, urban parts of the country, so to see the quits rate pick up in other places was interesting," he said. That "may be a sign there's more competition in those parts of the country than other parts."

A record number of people are quitting their jobs. Here's what's driving the 'Great Resignation.'
4.3 million people left their jobs in August. National video reporter Hannah Jewell explains why so many people are calling it quits. (Casey Silvestri/The Washington Post)

As the Delta wave grew in August, the states with the most new infections also saw hotter job markets than the country as a whole. Employees quit or were hired at rates matching or exceeding the national average in the ten states with the highest rates of new infections that month: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee.

The data comes on top of another government snapshot showing that 4.3 million people quit jobs in August — about 2.9 percent of the workforce, a pandemic-era record.

The phenomenon is being driven in part by workers who are less willing to endure inconvenient hours and poor compensation, and are quitting to find better opportunities. There were 10.4 million job openings in the country at the end of August — down slightly from July's record high, which was adjusted up to 11.1 million, but still a tremendously high number. This gives workers enormous leverage as they look for a better fit.

Yes, the office is back. It just might never be the same.

Mary Kaylor is part of that groundswell.

She left her job in early July after her employer began calling workers back to the office, saying they'd have to be at their desks at least four days a week.

But her old commute — 90 minutes each way, or worse with traffic, from where she lives north of Baltimore to her office in Alexandria, Va. — was no longer acceptable to her.

"It was affecting my health, and I couldn't get my work done," she said. "I decided, 'Why am I doing this?'"

So Kaylor resigned, even though she did not have another job lined up. It didn't take long for her to land on her feet, however.

Just a few weeks after she quit, a recruiter reached out to her on LinkedIn about a position at Robert Half, a San Ramon, Calif.-based consulting company. The job allowed her to work remotely, and she said she felt that the company had a very employee-centric culture that made the switch easy from afar. She started the new position in August.

"Everything that I had read about the jobs market being hot and opportunities being out there was absolutely 100 percent correct," she said.

Now she says she has a job she likes, but with more balance at home and time to take care of herself with no commute.

"I've been able to get back to a regular workout and exercise routine — time to run in the morning and do yoga," she said. "All the time I used to spend sitting on the Beltway I can spend outside, so I'm excited about that."

Ramon Soto, 28, took advantage of the hot jobs market to look for a new position over the summer. He had been working in person at a law firm and said he got tired of the commute and constant negotiation about sick time amid persistent covid-19 risks.

By the end of August, he had dueling job offers — one at a company in Texas and another as an intake specialist at another law firm, near his home in Long Branch, N.J., that would allow him to work remotely.

He started the intake specialist job the next month, and it came with a raise to boot.

"Working from home removes a lot of the stress of regular day-to-day office work," Soto said. "You prioritize what the most essential part of your job is and get stuff done quicker so you can take full advantage of your day."

He said it was clear to him looking through job listings online that he had a lot of options to work remotely, as companies have increasingly begun offering the option to attract talent and widen applicant pools.He said that he felt he had some leverage in his job search but that the process was still extremely competitive — he interviewed three to four times at each of the companies that eventually made offers and had applied to many others.

"I knew I had an advantage," he said. "People are realizing their worth. Many of the jobs you look at now, especially in Jersey — people can't afford the cost of living working 40 hours. So you have people working two jobs, possibly three. But the pandemic actually flipped the coin, and employees have more power when it comes it to their pay now."

Chris Blanton, 34, who does clinical-trial work for companies that work with pharmaceutical firms, said he was bombarded with messages from recruiters on LinkedIn over the summer.

He finally started responding to them in early August, to see if there were better opportunities out there.

Within six weeks, he had a job offer from another company, one that would allow him to continue working remotely from his home in Orlando. It came with a raise and a substantial hiring bonus — the first bonus he had ever received, he said. Another company was interested in him, too, but was operating on a longer time frame.

So he quit the position he had and started the new job in late September.

"Usually I will ignore them all," he said of recruiters. "But I figured it was a time to see what's out there. That's when I found out there are other jobs that might be a better fit for me."

A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to a San Ramon, Calif., consulting company as Robert Hath. It is Robert Half. This version has been corrected.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Saturday, October 23, 2021

Enlighten Radio:Talkin Socialism: STRIKETOBER!!

The Red Caboose has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Enlighten Radio
Post: Talkin Socialism: STRIKETOBER!!
Link: https://www.enlightenradio.org/2021/10/talkin-socialism-striketober.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/

Friday, October 22, 2021

Re: Amazon Staten Island Warehouse Workers in Push to Unionize [feedly]

NYT and WaPo have more relevant details in their stories. The NYTimes article about it is unsurprisingly full of good detail. Most interesting bit from it for me is that they intend to file with precisely 30% of signed cards, the bare minimum necessary to trigger an election but also that they don't yet have that 30%, they just expect to have it by next week. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/technology/amazon-workers-union-staten-island.html The Washington Post also has a good article with some choice quotes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/21/amazon-union-vote-staten-island/

Our understanding is that Chris Smalls was being advised early on by United For Respect which, during their OUR Walmart campaign, focused heavily on media narratives using individual workers as spokespeople and then using their frequent tragic firing to generate even more outraged media coverage. Since then he has found other allies and advice and I can't speak to their current theory of power aside from what has been publicly reported.

-Howard

Capitalismus delendus est.


On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:11 AM Eda diBiccari <ekdib@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
They filed with just 30% ("more than 2000"/7K), why?  To get an voter list? Or do they think they can gain that much in the middle of Amazon's ramped up union busting campaign?

On Thursday, October 21, 2021, 06:55:50 AM EDT, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:


Amazon Staten Island Warehouse Workers in Push to Unionize
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-21/amazon-warehouse-workers-in-staten-island-push-to-unionize

text only:

More than two thousand workers at four Amazon.com Inc. facilities in Staten Island have signed a petition asking federal labor officials to greenlight an election to form a new union, the latest spasm of labor strife between the e-commerce giant and its large blue-collar workforce.

The newly formed Amazon Labor Union must submit signatures from 30% of the workers to meet federal requirements. The facilities on Staten Island employ approximately 7,000 people. The National Labor Relations Board will determine whether the organizers have met the threshold to hold an election.

"We intend to fight for higher wages, job security, safer working conditions, more paid time off, better medical leave options and longer breaks," the Amazon Labor Union said Thursday in a statement.

The group's president, Christian Smalls, worked for Amazon for 4 1/2 years and was fired in 2020 after participating in demonstrations protesting the company's Covid-19 policies. Smalls alleged his firing was retaliatory, but Amazon said he violated safety guidelines.

The ALU has been organizing for the past six months, hosting barbeques and handing out water near Amazon warehouses in the New York borough. Organizers say Amazon has already been employing "union-busting" tactics to create doubt in workers' minds about the benefits of membership.



Amazon workers at a fulfillment center in Bessemer, Alabama, voted not to join a union in April. But the results were challenged, and a federal official recommended that the labor board hold a fresh election. The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which led that campaign, alleged Amazon influenced the election by intimidating workers and pressuring them to cast votes in a mailbox the company had installed on its property in view of security cameras. Amazon denied any wrongdoing.

The Teamsters, whose members include delivery drivers for United Parcel Service Inc., are trying to organize Amazon warehouse workers in Canada.

The organizers of the union effort on Staten Island are bracing for pushback from the company. The first battle could come over which employees qualify for union representation, a classic tactic by employers looking to quash union elections.  


The pandemic put a spotlight on the plight of so-called essential workers, including those in Amazon's logistics and delivery operations, whose labor helped many people reduce their exposure by having goods delivered to their homes. Growing public support for such workers has helped revive the hopes of U.S. laborSome Amazon warehouse workers in Europe belong to unions, but the company's vast logistics workforce in the U.S. isn't unionized. Amazon says its warehouse workers earn at least $15 hour -- a point it repeatedly hammered in Bessemer, where such wages go a lot further than they do in New York. However, union members working in transportation and warehousing earned 34% more than non-union workers in 2020, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Thursday, October 21, 2021

Re: Amazon Staten Island Warehouse Workers in Push to Unionize [feedly]

They filed with just 30% ("more than 2000"/7K), why?  To get an voter list? Or do they think they can gain that much in the middle of Amazon's ramped up union busting campaign?

On Thursday, October 21, 2021, 06:55:50 AM EDT, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:


Amazon Staten Island Warehouse Workers in Push to Unionize
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-21/amazon-warehouse-workers-in-staten-island-push-to-unionize

text only:

More than two thousand workers at four Amazon.com Inc. facilities in Staten Island have signed a petition asking federal labor officials to greenlight an election to form a new union, the latest spasm of labor strife between the e-commerce giant and its large blue-collar workforce.

The newly formed Amazon Labor Union must submit signatures from 30% of the workers to meet federal requirements. The facilities on Staten Island employ approximately 7,000 people. The National Labor Relations Board will determine whether the organizers have met the threshold to hold an election.

"We intend to fight for higher wages, job security, safer working conditions, more paid time off, better medical leave options and longer breaks," the Amazon Labor Union said Thursday in a statement.

The group's president, Christian Smalls, worked for Amazon for 4 1/2 years and was fired in 2020 after participating in demonstrations protesting the company's Covid-19 policies. Smalls alleged his firing was retaliatory, but Amazon said he violated safety guidelines.

The ALU has been organizing for the past six months, hosting barbeques and handing out water near Amazon warehouses in the New York borough. Organizers say Amazon has already been employing "union-busting" tactics to create doubt in workers' minds about the benefits of membership.



Amazon workers at a fulfillment center in Bessemer, Alabama, voted not to join a union in April. But the results were challenged, and a federal official recommended that the labor board hold a fresh election. The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which led that campaign, alleged Amazon influenced the election by intimidating workers and pressuring them to cast votes in a mailbox the company had installed on its property in view of security cameras. Amazon denied any wrongdoing.

The Teamsters, whose members include delivery drivers for United Parcel Service Inc., are trying to organize Amazon warehouse workers in Canada.

The organizers of the union effort on Staten Island are bracing for pushback from the company. The first battle could come over which employees qualify for union representation, a classic tactic by employers looking to quash union elections.  


The pandemic put a spotlight on the plight of so-called essential workers, including those in Amazon's logistics and delivery operations, whose labor helped many people reduce their exposure by having goods delivered to their homes. Growing public support for such workers has helped revive the hopes of U.S. laborSome Amazon warehouse workers in Europe belong to unions, but the company's vast logistics workforce in the U.S. isn't unionized. Amazon says its warehouse workers earn at least $15 hour -- a point it repeatedly hammered in Bessemer, where such wages go a lot further than they do in New York. However, union members working in transportation and warehousing earned 34% more than non-union workers in 2020, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Amazon Staten Island Warehouse Workers in Push to Unionize [feedly]

Amazon Staten Island Warehouse Workers in Push to Unionize
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-21/amazon-warehouse-workers-in-staten-island-push-to-unionize

text only:

More than two thousand workers at four Amazon.com Inc. facilities in Staten Island have signed a petition asking federal labor officials to greenlight an election to form a new union, the latest spasm of labor strife between the e-commerce giant and its large blue-collar workforce.

The newly formed Amazon Labor Union must submit signatures from 30% of the workers to meet federal requirements. The facilities on Staten Island employ approximately 7,000 people. The National Labor Relations Board will determine whether the organizers have met the threshold to hold an election.

"We intend to fight for higher wages, job security, safer working conditions, more paid time off, better medical leave options and longer breaks," the Amazon Labor Union said Thursday in a statement.

The group's president, Christian Smalls, worked for Amazon for 4 1/2 years and was fired in 2020 after participating in demonstrations protesting the company's Covid-19 policies. Smalls alleged his firing was retaliatory, but Amazon said he violated safety guidelines.

The ALU has been organizing for the past six months, hosting barbeques and handing out water near Amazon warehouses in the New York borough. Organizers say Amazon has already been employing "union-busting" tactics to create doubt in workers' minds about the benefits of membership.



Amazon workers at a fulfillment center in Bessemer, Alabama, voted not to join a union in April. But the results were challenged, and a federal official recommended that the labor board hold a fresh election. The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which led that campaign, alleged Amazon influenced the election by intimidating workers and pressuring them to cast votes in a mailbox the company had installed on its property in view of security cameras. Amazon denied any wrongdoing.

The Teamsters, whose members include delivery drivers for United Parcel Service Inc., are trying to organize Amazon warehouse workers in Canada.

The organizers of the union effort on Staten Island are bracing for pushback from the company. The first battle could come over which employees qualify for union representation, a classic tactic by employers looking to quash union elections.  


The pandemic put a spotlight on the plight of so-called essential workers, including those in Amazon's logistics and delivery operations, whose labor helped many people reduce their exposure by having goods delivered to their homes. Growing public support for such workers has helped revive the hopes of U.S. laborSome Amazon warehouse workers in Europe belong to unions, but the company's vast logistics workforce in the U.S. isn't unionized. Amazon says its warehouse workers earn at least $15 hour -- a point it repeatedly hammered in Bessemer, where such wages go a lot further than they do in New York. However, union members working in transportation and warehousing earned 34% more than non-union workers in 2020, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Monday, October 11, 2021

Cutting the reconciliation bill to $1.5 trillion would support nearly 2 million fewer jobs per year [feedly]

Cutting the reconciliation bill to $1.5 trillion would support nearly 2 million fewer jobs per year
https://www.epi.org/blog/cutting-the-reconciliation-bill-to-1-5-trillion-would-support-nearly-2-million-fewer-jobs-per-year/

Congress may have bought itself another month to negotiate over the Biden-Harris administration's Build Back Better (BBB) agenda, but one thing is clear: Further reducing the scale and scope of the budget reconciliation package unequivocally means the legislation will support far fewer jobs and deliver fewer benefits to lift up working families and boost the economy as a whole.

How much will such compromise cost the U.S. economy? We crunched the numbers to find out what compromising on the BBB plan will mean for every state and congressional district in the United States. If the budget reconciliation package is cut from $3.5 trillion to $1.5 trillion—as Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has called for—nearly 2 million fewer jobs per year would be supported.

In a previous analysis, we showed that the BBB agenda—combining the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework and the proposed $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package—would support more than 4 million jobs annually. It would also make critical investments that would deliver relief to financially strained households, raise productivity, and dampen inflation pressures to enhance America's long-term economic growth prospects. David Brooks, the center-right New York Times columnist, recently captured the significance of these initiatives when he wrote that these are "economic packages that serve moral and cultural purposes. They should be measured by their cultural impact, not merely by some wonky analysis. In real, tangible ways, they would redistribute dignity back downward."

Senators Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) are intent on scaling back Build Back Better's purpose. While Sen. Sinema has not publicly staked a position outlining her objections, Sen. Manchin has telegraphed a top-line spending figure of $1.5 trillion as the maximum he would support.

The $2 trillion gap left by Manchin's proposal cuts far deeper than any of the policy specifics he proposes eliminating. Even if he succeeded in eliminating all climate-related funding in the BBB agenda budget resolution, for example, Manchin's plan would still fall nearly $1.8 trillion short. Thus, for the purpose of our analysis, it makes most sense to assume that hewing to Sen. Manchin's demands would mean a proportional cut across all of the BBB agenda's individual initiatives (more on the methodologies used here and here).

Besides delivering fewer tangible benefits to typical families, scaling back Build Back Better also severely compromises the package's value as macroeconomic insurance against recovery waning in the coming years.

Absent the Build Back Better package, there is no guarantee of robust growth once the provisions of the American Rescue Plan—enacted in March of this year—begin fading out in earnest in mid-2022. The U.S. economy is not out of the woods yet. In past instances, policymakers have too often erred on the side of withdrawing fiscal support too early, resulting in protracted recoveries and prolonged spells of elevated unemployment, which ultimately undercut America's future economic potential. The BBB package would counter a potential slump and effectively support millions of jobs, especially if a host of plausible scenarios occur, including:

  • if private spending fails to sustain growth after the American Rescue Plan fades;
  • if the pandemic evolves and continues weighing on economic activity;
  • or if other unforeseen shocks to the economy emerge and threaten a robust recovery.

Scaling back the plan now, as Sens. Manchin and Sinema would like, will support millions fewer than the original package. In total, Sen. Manchin's proposal would support nearly 1.9 million fewer jobs per year than the Build Back Better agenda. Full results for each state and congressional district can be downloaded here and in the figures and table below.

  • Every state and Washington, D.C. would see fewer jobs supported under Sen. Manchin's proposal than the BBB agenda. The largest states would experience the largest absolute losses in jobs potential. California would see 211,853 fewer jobs per year, while Texas, New York, and Florida would see 149,050, 116,584, and 106,205 fewer jobs per year, respectively.
  • West Virginia would see 9,880 fewer jobs annually under Manchin's plan, equivalent to 1.33% of the state's overall employment. West Virginia would be no better off in terms of jobs in fossil fuel industries, but would see 900 fewer manufacturing jobs, 400 fewer construction jobs, and 3,800 fewer health care and social assistance jobs.
  • Arizona would see 35,564 fewer jobs per year, equal to 1.17% of state employment, including 2,500 fewer manufacturing jobs, 1,600 fewer construction jobs, and 11,400 fewer health care and social assistance jobs.
  • Alaska would be most impacted by fewer jobs under Manchin's proposal relative to the size of its economy, losing out on jobs equivalent to 1.39% of its total employment, but all states and DC would forego more than 1% of total employment.
  • All congressional districts will see fewer jobs supported under Manchin's proposal than under the BBB plan, ranging from 0.9 to 1.5% fewer jobs supported as a share of overall district-level employment.
  • Districts represented by so-called moderate House Democrats would take material hits to jobs under Manchin's plan relative to the BBB reconciliation plan. Rep. Josh Gottheimer's (D-NJ 5th) would see support for 7,700 fewer jobs per year in his district under Manchin's proposal and Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL 7th) would see 7,600 fewer jobs. Altogether, the bloc of 10 moderate Democratic members would see 70,700 fewer jobs supported across their districts relative to the BBB plan.
  • Manchin and Sinema have become linchpins in this legislative negotiation to a large extent because of an ideological hollowing out of the "center" of Republican party officials. Supposedly moderate Senate Republicans would not even entertain engagement over the broader Biden-Harris economic agenda, but their constituencies, too, would be worse off under Sen. Manchin's proposal to cut the BBB agenda.
    • Maine would see 8,300 fewer jobs supported per year, or 1.3% of state employment.
    • Utah would see 16,600 fewer jobs per year.
    • Ohio would miss out on economic support for an additional 71,900 jobs annually.
Figure A
Figure A
Figure B
Figure B
Table 1
Table 1


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Sunday, October 10, 2021

Dean Baker Deep dive on the Jobs Report and Supply chain issues

Building Back Better and the September Jobs Report

If President Biden was designing a jobs report to advance his Build Back Better agenda, he could not have done better than the September jobs report. (No, he didn't manipulate the data.) It shows the need for improving our caring infrastructure to make it possible for more women to work. It also shows the need to improve our infrastructure to limit supply chain disruptions.

But before getting to these issues, it's first important to dispel the idea that this was a bad jobs report. The September data showed a 0.4 percentage point drop in the unemployment rate, bringing it to 4.8 percent. Most analysts had predicted a drop of just 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points. We didn't get the unemployment rate down to 4.8 percent following the Great Recession until January of 2016. And, this decline was due to workers getting jobs, not the unemployed dropping out of the labor market. The number of employed in the household survey increased by 526,000.

The negative view of the September report is based on the weaker than expected job growth reported in the establishment survey. The increase of 194,000 in payroll jobs was well below the 400,000 to 500,000 job gain most analysts had expected. While that seems like a bad story, a closer look shows otherwise.

The biggest contributor to the weak job growth story was the loss of 161,000 jobs in state and local government education. There is not an obvious explanation for this job loss (I'll come to back to this issue), but suppose that we didn't see this sort of job loss in public sector education. Suppose that we instead regained more of the education jobs lost in the pandemic.

The private sector added a healthy 317,000 jobs in September. If the public sector had added 100,000 jobs for the month, as many had expected, the Bureau of Labor Statistics would have reported job growth of 417,000 in September, well within the generally expected range.

So, the big question is why are we losing jobs in education instead of adding them? It's hard to come up with a good story here. Some analysts have suggested the problem is with the seasonal adjustment. On an unadjusted basis, state and local education added 1,033,000 jobs in September. The argument is that the seasonal adjustment is inappropriate for this year, since the pandemic has altered the normal timing of the school year and employment patterns.

But this argument really doesn't fit. If we just look at the non-seasonally adjusted data, employment in public education is down 431,000 from the levels of September of 2019, a decline of 4.8 percent. Schools are back to in-class instruction pretty much everywhere. Unless we have seen a sharp rise in student-to- teacher ratios, or a large decline in support staff, this drop in employment from before the pandemic doesn't make sense.

Anyhow, we will need to sort out what is going on with employment in public schools, but if we set that issue aside for the moment, the jobs picture in the establishment survey looks pretty good. As noted earlier, the 317,000 private sector jobs added in the month was very much consistent with expectations. But an element of the picture that has not gotten nearly attention it deserves is the increase in the length of the average workweek.

The average workweek rose by 0.2 hours. This rise in average weekly hours, coupled with the rise in employment, led to a rise of 0.9 in the index of aggregate hours. This is the largest increase since March.

A story that is consistent with a rise in hours, coupled with a limited increase in payroll employment, is that employers are having trouble getting the workers they need to meet the demand they are seeing. They adjust to this situation by working their existing workforce more hours.

The continued rapid growth in wages, especially for lower paid workers, fits with this supply-side story. The average hourly for production and non-supervisory workers increased at a 6.7 percent annual rate comparing last 3 months (July August, September) with the prior 3 months (April, May, June).  In the leisure and hospitality sector (primarily restaurants) the annual rate of wage growth over this period has been 18.1 percent.

The implication of this view is that the limitation on employment growth at this point is largely a supply story, not a lack of demand. Workers are not returning to low-paying jobs, at least not without getting considerably higher pay and/or an improvement in working conditions.

The sectors showing the largest percentage drop in employment from pre-pandemic levels are overwhelmingly low-paying. Employment in nursing homes is down 15.2 percent.Employment in child care is down by 10.4 percent from its pre-pandemic level. Employment in the temporary help sector is down 8.7 percent. Restaurant employment is down by 7.6 percent from its pre-pandemic level. By comparison, overall employment in the private sector is down by just 3.0 percent.

It is worth noting here that the $300 weekly unemployment insurance supplements, and the special pandemic unemployment insurance programs, are not likely a big factor in discouraging people from working. Most states ended the supplements and pandemic programs in June and July. The national program ended in early September. If these benefits were discouraging people from working, we should have seen most of the effect from ending them by September.

Increasing Labor Force Participation

While we are going to see some reshuffling of the workforce, which will take time to work through, we can easily identify the reason some people, specifically women, are not working or looking for work. The BLS reported that 1.6 million people, 960,000 of them women, were not working or looking for work because of the pandemic.

This is presumably because they either fear getting Covid themselves or transmitting it to a family member who may have a health condition, or may be caring for a family member who is already ill. If these 1.6 million people were in the labor force, it would reduce by more than one third the falloff in labor force participation since the start of the pandemic. This again shows the economic importance of Biden's efforts to control the pandemic.

Of course, the issue of women's labor force participation long predates the pandemic. While the United States was near the top among wealthy countries in women's labor force participation four decades ago, it is now a laggard. It not only ranks below the Nordic countries, it has also been passed by France, Germany and even Japan in women's labor force participation.

According to the OECD, in 1980 the labor force participation rate (LFPR) for prime age women (ages 25 to 54) was 64.0 percent in the United States. That was slightly lower than the 64.7 percent rate for France, but well above the 56.7 percent rate for Japan and 56.6 percent rate for Germany. In 2020, the LFPR for prime age women in the United States had increased to 75.1 percent, but it had risen to 82.6 percent in France, 84.5 percent in Germany, and 80.0 percent in Japan.

The reason the U.S. is a laggard is not a secret. We lag in providing access to child care and family leave. Since woman continue to disproportionately have caregiving responsibilities for children and family members in need of assistance, our failure in these areas makes it difficult for many women to work.

This is a problem that has gotten worse in the pandemic. As noted earlier, employment in child care in September was 10.4 percent below its pre-pandemic level. Since there has not likely been a boom in productivity in this sector, this drop in employment means that the number of child care slots is likely close to 10.0 percent lower than before the pandemic. That means that finding quality child care is even more difficult today than it was a year and a half ago.

Getting more child care workers means raising the pay and improving conditions for child care workers. This is one of the key provisions of Building Back Better plan. Improved access to child care, along with paid parental leave (another provision) will give millions of women the option of working.

These provisions are also likely to lead to better outcomes for children in terms of education and employment, which is both good for them and good for the economy in the long-run. But, by increasing access to child care and providing parental leave, we can see a near-term boost to the economy from more people working. If getting more people working is a goal of our economic policy, this is an important route for getting there.

Supply Chain Problems

The September jobs report also gave us a reminder about the country's supply chain problems. The number of people employed in automobile manufacturing fell by 6,100. This is undoubtedly due to the widely publicized shortage of semiconductors, which is result of a fire at a major manufacturing facility in Japan. There surely are other industries where supply disruptions limited employment, although the link may be less clear than in the auto industry.

There are several points worth making here. First, in the context of a worldwide pandemic, our supply chains have actually held up remarkably well. At least in the United States, we have not had problems of people not getting food, medicine, and other necessities. Given the size of the shock, having to wait an extra month or two for a car, or paying five percent more, hardly sees like a great tragedy. Still, we don't want to see these delays and the resulting economic slowdown if it can be avoided.

It is important to note that the takeaway from the shortages is that we need diverse sources of supply, which does not necessarily mean domestic sources. If we rely on a manufacturer in Malaysia for a product, which then become unavailable for whatever reason, if we can get the product from Korea or Mexico, that is fine. There is no special virtue on this issue in getting it from the United States.

This matters because we can see shutdowns by U.S. producers as well. Marketplace radio had a piecelast month about a shortage of paint across the country. According to the piece, one of the main culprits was a shutdown by resin manufacturers (an ingredient in paint) in Texas last winter due to the unusually cold weather. In this case, relying on domestic suppliers did not prevent a supply chain disruption.

Another key point is that much of the problem is not actually in producing the items, but in transporting them. The Washington Post had an excellent piecethat described the backlog in our ports and on railways that is preventing items from getting to their destination. This means that even if we are getting the goods from China, Thailand, or anywhere else, they are not getting to where they need to go because of inadequate infrastructure. Modernizing our ports and railways is another key part of Biden's Building Back Better plan.

Global Warming and Supply Chain Disruptions

The last area where the September job report is an advertisement for the Build Back Better plan is on climate change. Many of the supply chain disruptions we are seeing now, and will see in the future, are the result of global warming.

The cold Texas weather, that led to the shutdown of the resin manufacturers, which contributed to the paint shortage, was an extraordinary weather event that likely would not have occurred if we were not experiencing climate change. More frequent hurricanes and other extreme weather events, that lead to shutdowns in manufacturing or distribution facilities, will be more common as global warming advances. And, we will see more crop failures and higher prices for a wide range of agricultural products due to excessive heat and droughts.

If we don't begin to make serious efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as proposed in the Build Back Better plan, we will see many more climate related economic disruptions in future years, as well as higher prices for a wide range of products.

Conclusion: The September Jobs Report Was an Advertisement for Build Back Better

There are many aspects to the jobs report that gave ambiguous signals about the near-term future for the economy. However, the problems that are most apparent in this report indicate the urgency of many of the items in Biden's agenda. Our senators and congresspeople should give them serious thought.


--