CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research


En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs CEPR Blog

Labor Market Policy Research Reports, July 28 - August 5, 2011 Print
Written by Matthew Sedlar   
Friday, 05 August 2011 15:20

This week's roundup of labor-market policy reports includes findings from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, National Employment Law Project and Roosevelt Institute.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Policy Basics: How Many Weeks of Unemployment Compensation Are Available?

National Employment Law Project

Unraveling the Unemployment Insurance Lifeline: Responding to Insolvency, States Enact Cuts in 2011
Claire McKenna and George Wentworth

The Roosevelt Institute

Women Laid Off, Workers Sped Up: Support Staff Hold a Clue to the Gendered Recovery

Bryce Covert and Michael Konczal

Tax Holiday for Offshore Profits Rewards Bad Behavior Print
Written by Eileen Appelbaum   
Friday, 05 August 2011 14:20

Matt Taibbi reports that the push for a tax holiday for profits parked in offshore tax havens is alive and well. According to Taibbi, lobbying has been intense for a bill sponsored by Texas Republican Kevin Brady (and co-sponsored by Utah Democrat Jim Matheson) called the Freedom to Invest Act. As with the “one-time” tax holiday in 2004, companies that offshored their profits would be rewarded with an effective corporate tax rate of 5.25 percent on the profits they repatriate.

As I wrote in June, hundreds of companies that license intellectual property – especially IT and pharmaceutical companies – can dramatically reduce their taxes and significantly increase earnings and share price through nefarious, but legal, ploys to park profits in offshore subsidiaries. Google, for example, uses the "Double-Irish-and-Dutch-Sandwich" to transfer the rights to intellectual property developed in the US – with early research funded by US taxpayers – to a subsidiary in low-tax Bermuda. Companies continue to owe taxes to the U.S. government on these overseas earnings - technically, the taxes have only been deferred. But the taxes don't come due until the profits are brought back to the U.S. - that is, repatriated. And companies do want to repatriate a good part of the roughly $1.43 trillion in profits they hold overseas.

The 2004 tax holiday – advertised as a one-time tax break – encouraged U.S. companies to increase the offshoring of profits earned on technologies developed in the U.S. in the hopes of just such another "one-time" break. This bad behavior should not be rewarded. The corporations would like us to think that bringing these profits home will lead to job creation. A better formula for good jobs at home is removing tax incentives to offshore these activities in the first place.

With No Strong Growth, Employment Rate Remains Low Print
Written by Dean Baker   
Friday, 05 August 2011 10:25

The economy created 117,000 jobs in July, knocking the unemployment rate back down to 9.1 percent, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics employment report. While this may sound like good news, the decrease in unemployment was entirely attributable to people leaving the labor force, with the employment-to-population ratio falling slightly to 58.1 percent. Also in the latest report, the Labor Department revised growth in prior months up to an average of 72,000 jobs a month in the last three months, which is still below the level needed to keep pace with the growth of the labor force.

Overall the latest report presents a bleak picture of the labor market. There is no sector showing especially strong growth right now, and with the government shedding 30,000 jobs a month, we will be fortunate if the unemployment rate doesn’t rise over the rest of the year.

For more information, check out our latest Jobs Byte.

Going Down With the Dow Print
Written by Dean Baker   
Thursday, 04 August 2011 17:17

It’s panic time on Wall Street, with the market dropping 4 percent on Thursday and almost 8 percent over the last week. Apparently they were not too impressed by the deal on the debt.

Of course the most obvious explanation for the plunge is the prospect of a collapse of the euro. The debt problems hitting Ireland and Greece have spread to two of the four euro zone giants, Italy and Spain. The prudes at the European Central Bank are going have to relearn economics very quickly. Their cult of 2 percent inflation is bringing down the house. They have come to the point where they have to choose between abandoning the cult or ending the euro.  Naturally the prospect of the dissolution of one of the world two main currencies is going to unnerve the markets.

The other big factor depressing stock markets is a set of weak economic reports that indicate the U.S. economy is barely growing. The most important of these reports was the second quarter GDP numbers that showed the economy growing at just a 1.3 percent rate. This was coupled with a sharp revision to first quarter data that showed growth of just 0.3 percent. This growth is far too slow to keep pace with the growth of labor force, meaning that the unemployment rate could continue to rise.

The big debt ceiling agreement promised to depress this growth even further. The proposed cuts to government spending effectively amounts to taking away water in the middle of a jobs drought. Good job Washington!

Those still believing in the virtues of government austerity also got a big kick in the face last week. The UK had its third consecutive quarter of near zero growth – the apparent fruits of the austerity path put in place by the new Conservative government.

It’s worth putting in a couple of calming notes. First, the stock market is not the economy. As Paul Samuelson famously quipped, the market has predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions. The people who invest in the market are the same geniuses who thought Countrywide and Pets.com had great business models. There is no reason to think that the markets are any wiser today than they were when they thought everything was just great in 2007.

Second, the double-dip recession folks seem to have forgotten how we usually get recessions. The standard recession is associated with a collapse in house and car sales. The good news is that both sectors are still so badly depressed that they don’t have too far down to go. In other words, it is unlikely that we will see the negative growth associated with a recession.

On the other hand, many quarters of very slow positive growth is really no better. This is most likely what the economy faces barring some serious change in policy in Washington. So the double-dippers might be too pessimistic, but not by much.

This post originally appeared in The Nation.

Tales of Failed Stimulus Print
Written by Dean Baker   
Saturday, 30 July 2011 08:07

One result of the the revisions to GDP published by the Commerce Department yesterday is that the data now show a much steeper drop in GDP in the post-Lehman panic. At first glance, the new data would appear to make the stimulus look more effective. The chart below shows quarterly growth rates beginning with the 4th quarter of 2008 and the Congressional Budget Office's predicted effect of the stimulus (the average of the high and low numbers).

Click to Enlarge


Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis and Congressional Budget Office.

This is not a perfect fit, but no one expects the stimulus to be the only factor moving the economy. In any case, the pattern of growth does seem to fit the predicted impact of the stimulus. When we saw big boost to growth in 2009, the growth rate went from a large negative to a moderate positive. When the impact of the stimulus turned negative in 2010, growth began to slow. If the pattern continues, we should see more weak growth in the second half of the year.

There have been far more careful analyses of the impact of the stimulus, but this general picture sure supports the case that it had a real effect in turning the economy around. The problem is that it was not large enough or long enough. 

CEPR News July 2011 Print
Written by Dawn Lobell   
Friday, 29 July 2011 15:10

The following newsletter highlights CEPR's latest research, publications, events and much more.

CEPR on Debt Ceiling Deals and Deficits

CEPR has followed the debt ceiling talks closely. CEPR Co-director Dean Baker has commented on the impact of several of the potential deals, including this statement on using the Chained Consumer Price Index to determine Social Security Cost of Living Adjustments, arguing that “while it is often claimed that this switch will make the COLA more accurate, this is not clear. What is certain is that the switch would lower benefits.”

Dean restated his explanation in his Guardian column and in this op-ed on Al Jazeera English. He also discussed the debt ceiling debate on NPR’s Morning Edition, CNBC’s Kudlow Report,  the Nightly Business Report (PBS) and MSNBC’s The Ed Schultz Show. He was quoted in this article in the Los Angeles Times, and he sent this letter to Speaker John Boehner, countering Boehner’s assertion that entitlements are the biggest “drivers of the debt and deficits” and reminding Boehner that “ Social Security and other social insurance programs have no place whatsoever in the debt ceiling debate”. CEPR Co-director Mark Weisbrot weighed in on the debt ceiling negotiations in this piece on To the Point with Warren Olney.

Dean also participated in several related events on the hill. On July 27th Dean joined Congresswoman Barbara Lee and the co-chairs of the Congressional Out of Poverty Caucus in a press conference on the debt reduction plans and their possible impact on social safety net programs for people facing or living in poverty. And on the 28th, he took part in a panel discussion, along with Representative Xavier Becerra and speakers from the Aspen Institute on a soon-to-be-released brief, "Social Security: The House that Roosevelt Built."



The Real Crisis: Long-Term Unemployment Print
Written by Janelle Jones   
Friday, 29 July 2011 13:20

As the manufactured debt ceiling debate rages on, it looks like a real crisis in this country is getting some, albeit brief, attention in the national media. Within the last week, both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have released articles about the unfortunate state of the long-term unemployed. With unemployment at 9.2 percent and nearly five jobseekers for each new job opening, you would think employers would be more forgiving of long employment gaps on resumes. Well, you would be wrong.

WSJ has a very cool interactive graph that shows the share of long-term unemployed in each state. Nationally, about 25 percent of the unemployed have been jobless for at least 52 weeks, but it gets scarier. Nearly a dozen states have over 30 percent of their unemployed searching for work for at least a year. The New York Times piece from this week builds on a briefing paper by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) on hiring discrimination against the unemployed. The NELP report reviewed top online job listing sites over a four-week period and found over 150 ads had language excluding jobseekers based on their current employment status.

However, there is some light in this jobless tunnel, and it’s coming from New Jersey. A recently passed state law is aimed at this exact problem. Employers with job advertisements that discriminate against the unemployed face fines of $1,000 for a first offense, and up to $5,000 for future offenses. Michigan and New York have also introduced legislation to tackle this problem. This state-level movement has spurred action at the federal level in the form of the Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011 introduced in the House earlier this month. This action cannot come a moment too soon. A 2010 paper by Slyvia Allegretto and Devon Lynch shows that of those unemployed, the share in long-term joblessness, increased 75.8 percent between 1983 and 2009, or twice the rate of increase of the entire labor force.

GDP Growth Slows as Economy Stagnates Print
Written by Dean Baker   
Friday, 29 July 2011 11:00

Weak consumption growth and shrinking government spending held GDP growth to 1.3 percent in the last quarter, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis' latest report on the Gross Domestic Product. Consumption grew at just a 0.1 percent annual rate in the second quarter, while government spending shrank at a 1.1 percent rate. The report also revised first-quarter GDP growth down to just 0.4 percent from a previously reported 1.9 percent. All these numbers indicate that the economy is growing far below the 2.5 percent rate needed just to keep the unemployment rate from rising.

The overall picture in the latest report is that the economy is stagnating, with revisions suggesting the stimulus worked exactly as predicted. The economy shrank at a 7.8 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009 compared with a previously reported 5.9 percent annual rate. The decline in the second quarter was just 0.7 percent, followed by growth in the third quarter of 1.7 percent, suggesting that the stimulus was effective in turning the quarter around. The downward revision to the first-quarter data coupled with the revision of the fourth-quarter growth to 2.3 percent from 3.1 percent suggests that the winding down of the stimulus has seriously dampened growth.

For more, read our latest GDP Byte.

There’s Zero Accountability in Economics Print
Written by Dean Baker   
Thursday, 28 July 2011 12:00
Reuters invited leading economists to reply to Mark Thoma's Op-Ed on the "great divide" in economics. Below is Dean Baker's reply.

This is a very nice piece and Mark's points are well-taken. However, as someone largely on the outside, I would go a step further. I see zero accountability for bad performance within economics either among those who write about it as academics or for those who practice it in business and government.

This is very clear as we seem doomed to spend a decade or more digging out of the wreckage of the housing bubble. Instead of trying to hold people at the Fed, in the Bush Administration, at the regulatory agencies, at Fannie and Freddie accountable, the refrain "who could have known" is used as a collective alibi. Holding economists accountable for this policy failure of monumental proportions is seen as just plain vindictive.

Of course this is not the only policy failure for which economists have used the "who could have known" alibi. The collapse of the stock bubble gave us almost four full years of zero job growth. Still no one in policy circles saw their career suffer in any way for failing to see this bubble and the implications of its collapse.

There are many other examples where the economists in charge completely missed it (e.g. the East Asian financial crisis and the IMF response, Argentina's crisis and the IMF response, the Mexican peso crisis). The reality is that the main policy institutions are controlled and populated by "yes" men (and women) who know that getting ahead means repeating what the person ahead of you in the hierarchy wants to hear. There is never any penalty as long as you are wrong with everyone else.

Economics tells us what to expect when workers need not fear sanctions or dismissal even when they don't do they job, as long as they please their boss. We get dull, unimaginative workers who don't do their jobs. Welcome to the world of modern economics.

Do They Understand Inflation at Cato? Print
Written by David Rosnick   
Wednesday, 27 July 2011 15:31

Chris Edwards complains that John Boehner’s plan for spending cuts "doesn’t actually cut spending at all."  So says his chart.


Unfortunately Edwards chooses to report budget authority rather than outlays—the actual cash flow.  Under Boehner’s plan, outlays (still net of spending “in Afghanistan and Iraq”) rise only from $1.262 trillion to $1.278 trillion.  Rather than an apparent 18 percent increase, the rise in outlays is less than 1.3 percent.

More importantly, however, these numbers are not adjusted for inflation.  According to projections by the Congressional Budget Office, inflation will rise at least 18 percent from 2012-21.  Thus, Boehner’s plan has real outlays falling by more than 14 percent by 2021.


Chris Edwards is repeating himself. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But he is still wrong.

Boehner’s amended proposal was scored by CBO as saving an additional $46 billion over the first two years, and guess what? As a result of those deeper cuts, spending goes up even faster than before! Rather than an increase in outlays of 1.3 percent (not adjusted for inflation) outlays now increase 3.0 percent.

Maybe, just maybe, Edwards has a ridiculous way of thinking about spending cuts.


What?  Did you say that stuff costs more today than it did a couple years ago?  Maybe somebody really ought to tell Chris Edwards over at Cato.  For the third time in only a few days, Edwards showed a chart of Speaker Boehner’s proposed discretionary budget authority and forgot to adjust for inflation.

At last check, Boehner proposed that by 2021 the government spend 14.9 less on discretionary outlays when adjusted for consumer prices.

If you fail to take prices into account, you might wind up saying ridiculous things like private spending was 10.1 percent higher in April through June than it was when Barack Obama took office.  Or you might say that despite the loss of millions of jobs, Americans managed to “produce” 8.0 percent more.

If you fail to account for inflation, then the economy grew 57 percent under Jimmy Carter—a whopping 12 percent per year!  By Edwards’ measure, national income grew more rapidly under Carter’s presidency than in any four-year period since the end of World War II.

Heritage Fails to Check Source, Blows Another Call Print
Written by David Rosnick   
Wednesday, 27 July 2011 09:15

Over at the Heritage blog, David Weinberger attempted a fact-check.  He wrote, “But both Professor Krugman and President Obama have their history entirely incorrect. Total government spending never decreased in the 30s, certainly not after 1937. Rather, total government spending went up”

Sure enough, the graph presented shows no fall in government spending between 1936 and 1937.


Weinberger should have taken a closer look at his own source material.  Ignoring for the moment that the spending is in current dollars, not adjusted for inflation (even though usgovernmentspending.com allows the option) let us look at the table at Weinberger’s source.



Will Work For Health Insurance Print
Written by David Rosnick   
Tuesday, 26 July 2011 13:00

An interesting story was posted last week over at the website of the National Education Association.  A Massachusetts special-education teacher — Kathy Meltsakos — was laid off and then rehired by another school district.  At lower base wages, and bearing a greater share of her health-insurance costs, her take-home pay was reduced to zero.

This story may sound crazy at first, but is far from implausible.  According to the pay stub in the accompanying photograph, Meltsakos earned $622.92 in 58 hours of work.  Over nine months, this would total $12,146.94.  An indicated Medicare tax withholding and an 8 percent pension contribution would reduce pre-tax income to $564.78 every two weeks.

If she must pay 60 percent of the price of a full year’s medical and dental insurance over the course of nine months of employment, then $564.78 in deductions every other week implies total premiums of $18,255 per year—or $1,530 per month.  This may be on the high side even for low-deductible plans, but the article does not specify if the insurance covers anyone in addition to her.

That is, it is plausible that this teacher is working nine months out of the year for nothing more than health insurance and a small pension — with nothing left for living expenses.  Because Medicare seems to have been withheld, but not Social Security, it is safe to assume that Meltsakos is exempt from the program and will not receive a retirement benefit in addition to her pension.

Case-Shiller Index Shows Housing Price Increases for Second Month Print
Written by Dean Baker   
Tuesday, 26 July 2011 10:45

The 20-City Case-Shiller Index rose 1.0 percent in May, the second consecutive increase after eight consecutive months of decline. Seventeen of the 20 cities in the index experienced increases in housing prices, with the biggest increases in Washington, D.C., Minneapolis and Boston. The only cities that saw declines were Tampa Bay, Las Vegas and Detroit.

The 2.4 percent price increase in D.C. continued a pattern, as prices have now risen at a 10.7 percent annual rate over the last three months and are up 1.3 percent over the last year. The 2.6 percent price jump in Minneapolis, however, is the most surprising since prices had been falling sharply in the city. But this also raises the possibility that the increase is simply a result of quirks in measurement.

The Census Department will release data on vacancy rates later this week, which will give us more information on the overall state of supply and demand in the housing market. The recent movement in rents provides no reason for believing that there is any underlying tightening of the market. Owners' equivalent rent is rising at just over a 1.0 percent annual rate.

For more, read the latest Housing Market Monitor.

College Print
Written by John Schmitt   
Tuesday, 26 July 2011 08:33

Catherine Rampell had a post last week declaring that “College is (Still) Worth It“. The piece is the latest in a series that she and her Economix blog colleague, David Leonhardt, have written on the financial benefits of college.

I agree with Rampell and Leonhardt that college is, on average, a good investment for the people who make it. But, Rampell and Leonhardt’s posts completely sidestep the key issue: why is it that when confronted with compelling evidence that college pays a big financial dividend, so many young people still don’t get a college degree?

Heather Boushey and I argue that the short answer  is that for a surprising share of college graduates, the large price tag may actually not pay off.

Rampell’s latest installment includes this nice graph of weekly earnings by worker characteristics, including educational attainment on the right-hand side:


Source: New York Times, Bureau of Labor Statistics



Labor Market Policy Research Reports, July 16-22, 2011 Print
Written by Jane Farrell   
Friday, 22 July 2011 13:15

The Center for Economic and Policy Research, Demos, Economic Policy Institute, Employment Policy Research Network, and National Employment Law Project released reports on labor-market policy over the past week.

Center for Economic and Policy Research

The Risk of Dismissal for Union Organizing and the Need to Modify the Process

Dean Baker


Under Attack: Washington’s Middle Class and the Jobs Crisis

Under Attack: Pennsylvania’s Middle Class and the Jobs Crisis



New Fed Survey: What Is It Telling Us? Print
Written by David Rosnick   
Monday, 18 July 2011 15:00

I wish I had caught this a few months ago when it came out, but the Federal Reserve went ahead and re-interviewed folks studied in the 2007 Survey of Consumer Finances.  The SCF does not usually follow specific people through time—the last panel SCF was in 1989—so this study offers an interesting opportunity to see what happened to family finances following the collapse of the housing bubble.

Of course, we have produced several papers based on SCF data in which we estimate the impact on various groups of people based on housing and stock prices.  But a follow-up study of the 2007-vintage respondents would in theory be a better approach.

According to the Fed study, median family net worth fell 23 percent from $125,400 in 2007 to only $96,000 in 2009.  Largely, this change reflected falling assets rather than increased debt.  In particular, the median value of primary residences fell 15 percent from $207,100 to $176,000.

However, the numbers reported by the Fed do show something surprising.  According to the panel results, the percent of families owning their primary residences in 2007 stood at 68.9 percent.  This figure is slightly higher than the quarterly numbers reported by Census over the survey period (67.8-68.2 percent.)  Over the same period two years later, Census reported homeownership rates had fallen to between 67.1-67.4 percent.  The Fed, on the other hand, estimates that in 2009 some 70.3 percent of the 2007 panel families owned their primary residence.



The Blame for Fannie and Freddie Print
Written by Dean Baker   
Sunday, 17 July 2011 08:40

It is entertaining to see all the folks who missed the housing bubble try to apportion blame after the fact. Tyler Cowan is the latest entrant, pronouncing Fannie and Freddie at least partially responsible. While his indictment is impressive, the real question should be, “what is the charge?”

Of course Fannie and Freddie are at least partially responsible, they purchased hundreds of billions of dollars of loans that were used to buy properties at what they should have recognized as bubble-inflated prices. If they had refused to buy such loans, it almost certainly would have brought the irrational exuberance of the housing bubble to a quick halt.

Fannie and Freddie could have adopted a policy of requiring appraisals of rent, and refused to purchase any loan for a purchase price that exceeded a 15 to 1 ratio to rent (adjusted by metro area). This policy would almost certainly have required many buyers and lenders to give more serious thought to their purchase price.

Since housing is all that Fannie and Freddie do, it is reasonable to expect that they would have recognized the bubble and taken steps to counter it and protect themselves. [I was beating them up on the bubble since 2002]. Instead, they continued to throw money into the housing market even as prices grew ever more out of line with fundamentals.

However, giving the primary blame to Fannie and Freddie and the government policy of promoting homeownership ignores the fact that the worst subprime loans were sold to Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and other private investment banks. These banks do not have any pretense of having a mission of promoting homeownership; they are there to make money. And, in the peak years of the housing bubble, they were booking huge profits on the loans that they repackaged into mortgage backed securities and more complex financial instruments.

If the moral of the story is supposed to be that financial institutions don’t make reckless and often fraudulent loans without the prodding of the government, no one can make this case with a straight face. Angelo Mozillo’s Countrywide and Robert Rubin’s Citigroup issued and securitized bad mortgages because it was profitable. No government bureaucrat forced them to do it to advance homeownership. In fact, the main motive of Fannie and Freddie in this period was also almost certainly profit, which allowed their top executives to pocket tens of millions in compensation that they still hold.

In the blame game there is plenty to go around. Certainly the economic policy wonks, regulators and business media who totally missed the largest asset bubble in the history of the world should all be wearing dunce caps for the rest of their career. The top executives of Fannie and Freddie also deserve to occupy one of the inner rings of hell. The fact these characters were able to pocket tens of millions from this disaster should have all right thinking people outraged. But no one acted worse than the issuers of subprime loans who often committed outright fraud by putting in false information to allow people to get loans for which they were not otherwise qualified. And the investment banks who securitized this garbage and the rating agencies who blessed it as investment grade come in a close second.

Unfortunately, the main lesson seems to be that crime pays. With few exceptions, the evils doers are doing just fine – in fact much better than almost anyone who doesn’t break the law for a living. And, we also seem to have learned nothing about pushing homeownership, as some community groups are now devoting their efforts to ensure nothing is done that could raise the interest rate on higher risk, low down payment loans.

If we were to ask George W. Bush’s famous question:

“Is our policy wonks learning?”  The answer would undoubtedly be no.

There is one final point that is worth noting on Tyler Cowan's scorekeeping between the banks and Fannie and Freddie. The banks got far more generous bailout terms than Fannie and Freddie, getting loans and loan guarantees at way below market rates. (In keeping to their deference to Wall Street, almost no economists are so rude as to point out that below market loans and guarantees involve massive subsidies. This allows people like Timothy Geithner to claim that we actually made money on the TARP, even though every card carrying economist knows this is nonsense.)

Also the policy of temporarily propping up the housing market with the first time homebuyers tax credit and Fed purchases of mortgage-backed securities allowed millions of mortgages, that would have otherwise soured, to be transferred from the banks to Fannie and Freddie through being sold or refinanced. So if Fannie and Freddie end up with the bulk of the bill it was not just the result of their bad judgment. It was a conscious goal of government policy.

Labor Market Policy Research Reports, July 8-15, 2011 Print
Written by Jane Farrell   
Friday, 15 July 2011 15:15

This week, Demos, Economic Policy Institute, and National Employment Law Project released LMPRR reports and briefs.


Under Attack: Florida’s Middle Class and the Jobs Crisis

Putting Massachusetts Money to Work for Massachusetts
Heather C. McGhee, Jason Judd, and Sarah Babbage

Economic Policy Institute

J visas: Minimal oversight despite significant implications for the U.S. labor market
Daniel Costa

National Employment Law Project

Hiring Discrimination Against the Unemployed: Federal Bill Outlaws Excluding the Unemployed

Labor Market Policy Research Reports, July 1 - July 7, 2011 Print
Written by Jane Farrell   
Friday, 08 July 2011 10:56

This week, the LMPRR features reports and briefs from Demos, Economic Policy Institute, and Institute for Women’s Policy Research.


Enduring Flaws: FTA Deal With Colombia Still Has Major Problems
David Callahan and Lauren Damme

Economic Policy Institute

Historically Deep Job Loss, but Not An Unusual Recovery
Josh Bivens and Isaac Shapiro

Institute for Women’s Policy Research

Paid Sick Days and Employer Penalties for Absence
Kevin Miller, Ph.D, Robert Drago, Ph.D., and Claudia Williams

Labor Market Policy Research Reports, June 25 - July 1, 2011 Print
Written by Jane Farrell   
Friday, 01 July 2011 11:31

This week, the LMPRR features reports from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Demos, Economic Policy Institute, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, and Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

New Fiscal Year Brings Further Budget Cuts to Most States, Slowing Economic Recovery
Michael Leachman, Erica Williams and Nicholas Johnson


Wisconsin’s Middle Class and the Jobs Crisis

New York’s Middle Class and the Jobs Crisis

Economic Policy Institute

The Need for Paid Sick Days
Elise Gould, Kai Filion and Andrew Green

Institute for Research on Labor and Employment

Do Frictions Matter in the Labor Market? Accessions, Separations, and Minimum Wage Effects
Arindrajit Dube, T. William Lester and Michael Reich

Institute for Women’s Policy Research

Pension Crediting for Caregivers: Policies in Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan
Elaine Fultz, Ph.D.

<< Start < Prev 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next > End >>

Page 37 of 56

Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613
budget economy education employment Haiti health care housing inequality jobs labor labor market minimum wage paid family leave poverty recession retirement Social Security taxes unemployment unions wages Wall Street women workers working class

+ All tags