Category Archives: Employment

After 1 Year, Obama Vs. Reagan

Posted on by

As we approach the end of the year, we are also approaching the end of President Obamas first year in office. You might be wondering how he is doing, based on actual numbers (rather than political spin).

Obama clearly inherited a difficult situation economically. Only two others in the modern era came even remotely close. One, of course, was FDR, but unfortunately the data from then is rather sparse, and mostly available on just an annual basis, or at best quarterly (good economic data was one of the by-products of the New Deal).

The other who inherited a difficult economic situation was President Reagan. Granted, the type of difficulty was very different under Reagan, and presidents — like quarterbacks — get too much of both the praise for a good economy and the blame for a bad economy.

Still, I think comparing the numbers for the two during their first “year in office could be instructive. The data I used for the comparison are all available monthly (at least, and if more frequently, I used the monthly data). The source of all data is the St. Louis Fed (except for the S&P 500).

The two presidents offered very different prescriptions for the economy. Reagan was all about cutting taxes and less government involvement in the economy. While most of the really big moves of government into the economy in response to the recent economic crisis actually took place under President George W. Bush, Candidate Obama saw them as needed. The Bush Administration was the one that bought the stakes in American International Group (AIG – Snapshot Report), Fannie Mae (FNM – Snapshot Report), Freddie Mac (FRE – Analyst Report) and the banks, while Obamas support for a prepackaged bankruptcy resulted in large government stakes in the Auto industry.

There were no comparable big investments by the government into the private sector late in the Carter Administration, and certainly Reagan did not initiate any. Reagan did not have to deal with a financial meltdown when he took office, but on the other hand, Obama did not have to deal with runaway inflation. Both are serious diseases, but think of it this way: both cancer and heart disease can kill you, but you would not want to give chemotherapy drugs to a heart attack patient. Thus, perhaps it is appropriate that the prescriptions be different.

If one only looks at the unemployment rate (U-3), both did a poor job in their first year, and Obama was significantly worse. The unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.6% and by November it had climbed to 10.0%. In January 1981, when Reagan took office, the unemployment rate was almost identical at 7.5%, and by November of 1981 it had climbed to only 8.3%.

Private employment actually rose during the first 11 months of 1981 by 0.55%, from 74.671 million to 75.084 million. Under Obamas tenure so far, private payrolls have dropped by 2.95% to 108.495 million from 111.793 million.

So on the employment front, Reagan is the clear winner so far. However, over the course of 1982 and 1983 the employment situation deteriorated significantly. We do not know what unemployment will do in 2010 and 2011, and thus can only judge based on what we have seen so far and in the comparable period under Reagan.

Advantage: Reagan

Reagan also wins when it comes to real disposable personal income, which expanded by 2.3% in the first 11 months Reagan was in office, while it has only increased by 1.0% so far under Obama.

Advantage: Reagan

The dollar was also much stronger during the first 11 months of Reagan, although I am not sure if that is a positive or a negative. During the first 11 months of Reagan, the dollar relative to an index of major currencies gained 9.88%, while under Obama, the dollar has lost 9.70% relative to the same index.

Given that we are running chronic trade deficits now, but really were not back then, I would argue that today a weak dollar is good for the economy today since it will help out on the net export side of things. Inflation is not a big problem today, but was the number one problem with the economy when Reagan took office. The downside of a weak dollar is that it contributes to inflation, so back then having the dollar strengthening was a good thing.

No Advantage to Either

On the inflation front, however, things are far better under Obama. On a headline basis, prices have gone up by 2.39% so far under Obama, while they rose 7.57% during the first 11 months that Reagan was in office. On a core basis (ex-food and energy) the difference is even more stark, rising 8.31% under Reagan and up just 1.51% under Obama so far. Later in the Reagan Administration, inflation fell much more, but even when he left office in 1989 inflation was far higher than it is today.

Advantage: Obama

Industrial production fell slightly more during the first 11 months of Reagan (1.07%) than it has under the first 11 months of Obama (0.68%). Capacity Utilization started out at a much lower level when Obama took the oath than the Reagan did, at 71.1% (an all-time record low at the time) vs. 80.7% when Reagan took office. However, by November of 1981, the total capacity utilization rate had fallen to 77.9%. Under Obama, capacity utilization has actually risen to 71.3%, although it remains at a historically low level.

Advantage: Obama

Interest rates can tell a lot about the state of the economy. For example, the spread between the rate that gilt-edged companies have to pay on their bonds and what normal companies have to pay on their bonds tells a lot about how much bond investors fear companies going belly up. The former is measured by the Moodys (MCO – Analyst Report) Aaa rate and the later by the Baa rate (not to be confused with “junk bond” rates; Baa is still investment grade).

In January of 1981, the best credits in America had to pay 12.81% on their bonds, while normal companies had to pay 15.03%, for a spread of 2.22% (or as a ratio, normal companies had to pay 17.3% more than the gilt-edged ones). By November of 1981, both the best and the ordinary had to pay more — the Aaa rate had surged to 14.22% while the Baa rate had risen to 16.39%, so the spread had fallen ever-so-slightly to 2.17. The ratio had come down a bit more, and the ordinary firms were paying 15.3% more than the best firms.

When Obama took office, the Baa rate was 8.14% while the Aaa rate was 5.05%, for a spread of 3.09. In other words, ordinary firms had to pay 61.2% more for money than the best firms did. Investors were very afraid that companies would go bankrupt, and so demanded a higher rate from normal companies than from firms that seemed to have very little risk of writing a new chapter (the eleventh) in their corporate histories.

Since then, the rate the highest-rated firms have to pay has actually increased slightly to 5.19% while the rate that normal firms have to pay has plunged to 6.32%, bringing the spread down to 1.13% and the ratio down to the point where normal companies are paying 21.8% more for their money than the Aaa firms.

(Given the huge difference in the overall level of interest rates between the two eras, it is important to look at both the spreads and the ratios. Clearly a spread of 2% has a very different meaning and significance if it is between 1% and 3% than if it is between 13% and 15%).

Advantage: Obama

Another important signal that comes from interest rates is the yield curve, or the difference between long-term and short-term interest rates. The curve is measured using Treasury notes or bills, since you only want to be looking at the differences due to maturity, not due to quality (the opposite of the Aaa-Baa spread, which is only looking at quality differences, not maturity differences).

While there are many different measures of the curve, the one that is used the most is the difference between the 2-year note and the 10-year note. Generally speaking, the steeper the yield curve, the better. An inverted yield curve is very bad news, and is probably the best single indicator that the economy is about to go into a recession.

When Reagan entered office, the 10-2 curve was inverted, with the yield on a 2-year note at 13.26% and the yield on the 10-year at 12.57%, for a spread of -0.69. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was providing only 0.95 of the 2-year. By the time November of 1981 rolled around, the curve had returned to normal but was still pretty flat. The yield on the 2-year had fallen to 12.88%, while the yield on the 10-year had increased to 13.39, resulting in a positive curve of 0.51. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was 1.08 of the 2-year.

When Obama entered office, the 2-year was at a very low 0.81% while the 10-year was 2.52%, for a positive spread of 1.71%. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was yielding over three times as much as the 2-year (3.11x to be exact). By the end of November, the curve had expanded even further, with the 2-year virtually unchanged at 0.80%, while the yield on the 10-year had risen to 3.40%, for a spread of 2.60% and a ratio of 4.25x. Again, given the vastly different overall levels of rates, it is important to consider both the spreads and the ratios when making the comparisons.

Advantage: Obama

Mortgage rates were both far higher and moving in the wrong direction early in the Reagan presidency. When he took office they were at 14.90%, and by November they had risen to 17.83%. When Obama took office, the rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage was 5.06% and has since fallen to 4.88%.

Not surprisingly, then, the housing market was far worse under Reagan than it has been under Obama (at least if measured by direction, not levels). In January of 1981, housing starts were running at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.547 million, and by November of that year they had plunged to 837,000, a decline of 45.9%. Since January of 2009, housing starts have risen from an annualized rate of 488,000 to a rate of 574,000 in November, an increase of 17.6%.

Advantage: Obama

Similarly, single family new home sales plunged by 25.2% early in the Reagan years to a rate of 382,000. Since Obama came into office, new single family home sales have risen by 22.2% to an annualized rate of 402,000. Existing home sales are not particularly important to the economy (just like used car sales are not very important).

Auto sales also fared worse under the early part of the Reagan Administration than they have so far under Obama (at least as measured point-to-point). When Reagan took office, auto and light truck sales were running at an annualized rate of 11.03 million and had fallen to 9.21 million, a decline of 16.5%. Under Obama, auto and light truck sales have risen from an annualized rate of 9.59 million in January to a rate of 10.89 million in November, an increase of 13.6%.

Advantage: Obama

Finally, while people sometimes make too much of the day-to-day fluctuations in the stock market, it is a good reflection of the overall health of the economy when you look at longer time periods — and almost a year is long enough to qualify there. On that metric, there is simply no contest. Between inauguration day and Christmas Eve in 1981, the S&P 500 lost 7.65%. Since Obama took office, the S&P 500 has gained 39.9%.

Advantage: Obama

Weighing these different economic indicators is inherently subjective, and thus I am not sure that one can come to a clear-cut case that one has done a better job than the other — at least so far. This is also far from a complete list of economic indicators and I focused on only those that were available at least monthly, and many of the most important economic numbers come out quarterly.

Arguably, the economic mess that Obama inherited was worse than the one that Reagan inherited, although both were pretty nasty — yet very different. The U.S. economy is more of an oil tanker than a speedboat, and does not turn around on a dime, so it really is too early to tell how Obama is doing.

However, the indicators that are most forward-looking and leading for the economy (stock market, yield curve and quality spreads, housing starts) are the ones that favor Obama over Reagan. Overall, 11 months in, one must conclude that Obama is doing at least as good a job on the economy as Reagan did in his first 11 months.

Google Adsense Self Employed Taxes Helping You Know Your Responsibilities

Posted on by

Estimated Tax Payments: If you are a sole proprietor, a partnership, or a shareholder in a Sub-chapter S corporation, you are considered self-employed. Since you don’t have an employer deducting taxes from your pay throughout the year, you are responsible for making advance payments of your estimated federal income tax. Estimated tax payments are due quarterly – on April 15, June 15, September 15, and January 15 – and are filed on a Form 1040-ES. At the end of the tax year, you will file a final Form 1040 with a Schedule C, which itemizes your business expenses for the whole year.

To avoid underpayment penalties – which are substantial – individuals whose adjusted gross incomes were under $150,000 need to have paid at least 100 percent of their prior year’s tax bill. People whose incomes were over $150,000 need to have paid 110 percent of the amount they owed in the prior year.

It’s in your interest to make your estimated tax payments during the year. This system also keeps you from owing a large sum of money all at once, which can be overwhelming. If your state of residence has income taxes, as most do, you will have to make estimated tax payments throughout the year for state taxes as well.

2. Self-Employment Tax: Your estimated tax payments will also include the federal self-employment tax – Social Security and Medicare. If you were employed by someone else, your employer would pay half of your Social Security and Medicare and the other half would come out of your paycheck. Self-employed people must pay the full amount themselves; however, 50 percent of the self employment tax is deductible on the 1040 form.

What if you are a salaried employee and you operate a home-based business as a sideline? In this case, you’ll be filing both the usual Form 1040 and a Schedule C for your home business deductions; you may also have to pay additional self-employment tax. No matter how little your sideline income is, you should be aware that it is subject to tax – although by taking advantage of the home-office deduction, you may find you owe little or no taxes.

3. Employment Taxes: Home-based workers who employ others must comply with many additional tax requirements. IRS Circular E, Employer’s Tax Guide, covers the federal regulations, and your state tax agency can inform you of state requirements for employers with regard to income, state unemployment, and workers’ compensation taxes.

If you employ your children or grandchildren, their earnings are deductible. Family businesses do not need to pay Social Security or unemployment taxes on minor children, and the children pay no income taxes on the first $3,000 of earned income. To substantiate this claim, keep time records of their work (the records will be more believable to the IRS if a non-relative keeps them), note the work done, and pay family at the rate you would pay a non-family member for the same work.

4. State and Local Taxes: Depending on where you live, you will face a variety of state and local tax requirements. All but nine states (Alaska, Wyoming, Nevada, Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Texas, and Washington) have state personal-income taxes. But even those may have taxes on business. For example, Florida levies an income tax on corporations. Some cities, like Kansas City, have earnings taxes apart from the state income tax; others have unusual taxes on business. New York, for example, taxes unincorporated busines

employment attorney Orange County California Whistleblowers

Posted on by

Many California employees contact us to find out if they are entitled to “whistleblower” protection. Both state and federal laws protect persons who report illegal activity by their employers says employment attorney Orange County. To be protected, an employee usually only has to have a “reasonable but mistaken belief” that illegal activity is afoot. In California, whistleblowers are protected by Labor Code 1102.5 which prohibits retaliation against an employee who complains about illegal activity. This is a very tough law for employers to prevail on, since the very next code section (1102.6) provides that the burden of proof is on the employer to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the whistleblowing about illegal activities had nothing to do with the adverse employment action.

According to employment lawyer Orange County, an employee can claim retaliation under the federal qui tam laws, where it is shown that the whistleblower was discharged, demoted, or discriminated against because of lawful acts done in furtherance of a false claims investigation. If the relator basically violates confidentiality and removes tens of thousands of documents indiscriminately, in order to later prove a qui tam case, there will probably be a finding of non-protected activity and the loss of the right to bring a retaliation action under the federal law.

When a whistleblower actually sues his or her former employer on behalf of the government for monies lost by the government, it must be shown that the government was actually defrauded and lost money says employment attorney Oakland. The federal false claim act is found at 31 United State Code 3729. A recent case illustrates some of the differences in “reasonable but mistaken” (sufficient to support a wrongful termination claim) and actual false billings. In this case the plaintiff contended that her employer withheld disclosure of new inventions from the government, stating that the contract with the company provided that the government owned the inventions. As the government would have had the right to license and sell these new inventions, the theory of the employee went, the United States was defrauded by not having that right of sale. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, she was unable to allege that the employer ever sought payment from the government and had not submitted a “false claim”.

Employment attorney San Diego says that false claims take many forms such as fraudulent use of a receipt; unauthorized purchase of government property or use of a “false record or statement” to avoid payment to the government. Another recent case held that a request for reimbursement that falsely implied compliance with federal rules might constitute a false claim. “Reverse false claims” are also actionable. In one such case, the defendant company falsely represented the value of some aircraft metals as “scrap”, whereas in fact it was worth several million dollars. A false claim was properly stated. Finally, it’s important to determine if the false claim was in a “condition of participation” or a “condition of payment”. No false claim is usually stated if the defendant accused of defrauding the govenment is simply falsely certifying compliance (such as non-discrimination) with a federal program or is actually billing falsely.

Financial rewards for whistleblowers can be huge! Under California state laws, up to 30% can be awarded to the whistleblower. Routinely, about 15-20% is awarded in federal false claims actions.

As always, this blog is educational in nature and legal advise can only be given by an experienced attorney in your jurisdiction.

Employment Rises For London Business School Mim Graduates

Posted on by

A London Business School degree will give you the edge in today’s competitive world. Located in the heart of London, London Business School offers access to the world’s top recruiters and provides a head-start in forging a successful career in business. Strong relationships have been developed with major recruiters. London Business School’s Career Services team works in partnership with potential employers to identify candidates who are the best match for their job opportunities.

A dedicated team is on hand to support all Masters in Management students to enhance career prospects. The Masters in Management programme is taught by a range of the London Business School faculty, all of whom work at the forefront of global business and produce high-quality research that impacts positively on business all over the world. While a rate of 95% was recorded among last year’s class of 100, the 2011 class of 140 has achieved a rate of 96% – these figures are based on the full-time employment status of students three months after they originally graduate from the course.

Compared to the median salary among graduates in the UK as a whole, the wages of London Business School graduates of this year’s MiM course are around 9,500 higher at 35,000. Breaking down the statistics further, there was a total of 36 corporate sector recruiters, perhaps giving the strongest indication yet of the value of the MiM course across sectors outside of the normal consulting and finance fields. In addition, a grand sum of 22 different recruiters have hired from the programme consistently (i.e. at least one student from each of the last two years).

The release of the 2011 MiM job statistics follows the publication of the School’s MBA employment report last week. It found that within three months of leaving this course, 93% of MBA graduates had found a job. London Business School is consistently ranked as one of the world’s top business schools, and is currently ranked as number one in the world in the Financial Times (Global MBA rankings, 2011). Over 34,000 alumni lead big organisations, run governments, transform communities and start new businesses in over 120 countries. The Masters in Management is a one year programme for recent graduates who are looking to embark on a management-oriented career, but who have limited business knowledge and less than one year of full time, relevant work experience. This programme has been designed following extensive consultation with top graduate recruiters, and provides students with the skills and knowledge to perform in all areas of management across a number of core courses in both academic study and professional development.

How Workplace Harassment Lawsuit Plaintiffs Can Get A Lawsuit Settlement Funding

Posted on by

No-Risk Lawsuit Settlement Funding for Employment Discrimination Lawsuit Plaintiffs.

Employment discrimination lawsuit cash loan or settlement advance funding is a non-recourse cash loan provided to a plaintiff involved in an employment discrimination or workplace harassment lawsuit even before his/her lawsuit is settled or resolved.

Most of plaintiffs involved in employment discrimination or workplace harassment litigation or lawsuit do not realize that they can get lawsuit cash advance loan or settlement funding before their case settles. It is a contingent transaction in which cash loan is advanced based solely on the merits of a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. Lawsuit loan is paid back only upon successful verdict or settlement of the lawsuit. If the employment discrimination or workplace harassment lawsuit plaintiff loses case, the loan is never paid back to the lawsuit loan funding company.

What is Employment Discrimination?

In our country U.S., employment discrimination occurs whenever an employer or its representatives adversely single out employees or applicants on the basis of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion and a variety of other reasons.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), employers can not discriminate against you in any aspect of employment, such as:

Hiring and firing Compensation, assignment, or classification of employees Transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall Job advertisements Recruitment Testing Use of company facilities Training and apprenticeship programs Fringe benefits Pay, retirement plans, and disability leave

The EEOC reported that it received 82,792 job-bias charges from private-sector employment in fiscal year 2007, the highest number since 2002 and the largest annual increase (9%) since the early 1990s. The most notable increases were for race (12%), retaliation (18%), age (15%) and disability (14%) discrimination.

If an employee experience employment discrimination or workplace harassment then he/she has the right to go for a legal resolve by means of employment discrimination lawsuit or claim. Depending on the kind of discrimination, the lawsuit will be called as followings:

1. Age Discrimination Lawsuit, 2. Racial Discrimination Lawsuit, 3. Sexual Harassment or Discrimination Lawsuit, 4. Gender or Sex Discrimination Lawsuit, 5. Sexual Orientation Discrimination Lawsuit, 6. Disability Discrimination Lawsuit, 7. Religious Discrimination Lawsuit, 8. Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit, 9. Workplace Harassment Lawsuit etc.

David vs. Goliath:

Mostly the legal battle between employment discrimination client plaintiffs and defendants is like a clash between David vs. Goliath. Workplace Harassment lawsuit cases are very complex to handle and to resolve and if it is against a major corporation their attorneys will be able to delay lawsuit judgment for years. Even if, law is on your side, deep-pocket defendants can buy time with legal ploys and delays, and maneuver to frustrate the plaintiffs. They exploit the cumbersome process of law.

You will agree that justice delayed is justice denied.

Most of the victims of employment discrimination may have lost their jobs. The plaintiff/victim has trouble paying his/her mortgage, rent, car payments, or other living expenses; while waiting for the settlement of the lawsuit. Many of them may be one or two payments away from foreclosures. They need cash money now.

How Employment Discrimination Lawsuit Loan or Settlement Advance Funding Helps?

Employment discrimination lawsuit settlement advance funding provides plaintiff, the cash loan so that their attorneys have more time to negotiate the best possible lawsuit settlement for their pending employment lawsuit or legal claim. By offering appropriate lawsuit cash funding or settlement loans, a reputed lawsuit funding company enable the plaintiffs to resist financial pressure to take the first low ball offer made by defendants attorneys.

Once the plaintiffs involved in employment discrimination litigation dispute get interim lawsuit funding or loan, it can be used to cover credit card debt, mortgage payments, medical bills and other living expenses. By helping plaintiff client through a difficult period, lawsuit loan funding company also give the extra time to negotiate a larger settlement.

The practical value of available cash money is at maximum, when you are in financial distress.

Employment discrimination litigation process usually causes intense financial stress and mental anxiety under the best of circumstances. It can cause lot of financial strain from lost or reduced salary or wages or tapping into cash reserves. But employment lawsuit settlement loan or funding will ease or alleviate the pressure and will make it a less tedious process. The cash advance available from a lawsuit loan will make it easier or less difficult and will contribute financial strength to reduce the economic anxiety and financial problems.

An employment discrimination or workplace harassment lawsuit cash loan or settlement advance funding allows you to leverage the expected settlement from your case to obtain the cash you need now. Lawsuit cash funding or loan eliminate the need to accept a minimal settlement amount due to personal financial pressures, and get the fair and just settlements the plaintiffs deserve.