November 21, 2024

You’re the Boss Blog: What’s in the Obama Jobs Plan for Small Businesses

The Agenda

How small-business issues are shaping politics and policy.

In his speech to the joint session of Congress on Thursday night, President Obama proposed a jobs bill, the American Jobs Act, with several specific, if not yet particularly detailed, tax initiatives that would benefit small businesses — though most in fact would bring the same relief to all companies, large or small. The initiatives can be sorted into two flavors, incentives to promote investment broadly and incentives to promote hiring in particular.

The following investment incentives would be in place for 2012.

Payroll tax cut for employers. The plan would halve the employer share of payroll taxes, to 3.1 percent, on the first $5 million in wages in 2012. While this tax cut would be available to all businesses, the White House said it would most benefit the 98 percent of companies with wages below $5 million. A company with a $5 million payroll would see a tax cut of $155,000.

Extending bonus depreciation through 2012. The plan would extend through 2012 a provision that permits companies to fully depreciate in the first year certain purchases that would normally be amortized over as much as 20 years. The provision was included in last year’s compromise legislation to extend the Bush tax cuts and unemployment insurance. Without any action, bonus depreciation in most cases would be limited to 50 percent in 2012 and then expire altogether.

The following hiring incentives would take effect in October 2011. It is unclear when, or if, they would expire.

Tax credits for hiring the long-term unemployed. Mr. Obama proposed a tax credit of up to $4,000 beginning in October 2011 for hiring a person who has been unemployed for at least six months. If the prospective employee is a veteran, the credit would increase to as much as $5,600. If the veteran became disabled in the course of serving, the credit would rise to as much as $9,600. According to a White House spokesperson, the amount of the credit would depend on the employee’s wages and the number of hours worked.

Employer payroll tax holiday on payroll growth. The president would eliminate the entire 6.2 percent payroll tax on any increase in payroll up to $50 million above the prior year. The growth in wages can be spent on either new hires or raises for existing employees.

All of these initiatives would require approval by Congress. In his speech, the president also mentioned other changes that the administration could undertake on its own. He promised that the government will pay its contractors more quickly, without specifying how quickly. (Federal law requires that the government pay contractors within 30 days of receiving an invoice. “Historically, agencies have been generally encouraged to pay contractors at or right before the 30-day deadline,” said Moira Mack, a spokeswoman for the White House Office of Management and Budget.)

Additionally, the White House said the president would ask the Securities and Exchange Commission to “to reduce the regulatory burdens on small-business capital formation in ways that are consistent with investor protection, including expanding ‘crowdfunding’ opportunities and increasing mini-offerings.”

Before the president had finished delivering his speech, the National Federation of Independent Business, the conservative-leaning small-business lobbying group, panned it as “more of the same” in an e-mailed statement. “Small businesses need the government out of their way,” said Dan Danner, the group’s president and chief executive, in the statement. “Tax breaks are always a welcome help to small businesses, especially in these tough economic times. But those outlined tonight by the president are temporary, and avoid the question of meaningful business tax reform.”

The president’s proposals did cheer at least one group of small-business executives — those invited by the president to witness the speech. Albert Green, chief executive of Kent Displays, a manufacturer of liquid crystal displays in Kent, Ohio, said that while he didn’t have time to study the proposals in detail, “the takeaway is that money for businesses always helps — it helps them grow.”

But even these business owners expressed reservations. David Catalano, who helped found Modea, a digital advertising agency in Blacksburg, Va., said that he was wary of the president’s pledge to pay for the package by having the “wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share.” Mr. Catalano said that because his company was organized as an S Corporation, in which profits are passed through to shareholders, he would then face higher taxes. But, he said, “my partner and I have reinvested 100 percent of the profits that our agency has made over the last five years back into the company. If the government takes a bigger share of that from me, it directly impedes my ability to grow the agency.”

Darlene Miller, who owns and runs Permac Industries,a precision machining company in Burnsville, Minn., said she also worried about the president’s call for higher taxes but added that even with her company’s profits, “I’m not the wealthiest, so it does not affect me directly.” She said the president could have done more to address regulatory burdens. “There’s still a lot of work in that area to be done,” she said. “There are a lot of regulations that really just aren’t necessary.”

Both Ms. Miller and Mr. Catalano said they were looking for employees right now and acknowledged that President Obama’s proposed hiring incentives would not influence their decisions, reinforcing a concern among economists that such inducements don’t encourage new hiring but reward actions that would be taken anyway. But both echoed Mr. Green’s view that every little bit helps. “You don’t hire somebody because you’re getting a tax credit,” said Mr. Catalano. “This just eases the burden, to invest in their education, or do more things for them.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=29c64824013e85280268e0d85641ba23

Letters: Letters: Honest Wages

Opinion »

The Thread: Pre-Emptive Moves

A cross-party squabble over the scheduling of the president’s next speech turned out to be no small matter.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=7de687952eee3744a22b8b17734b8990

Workers Reject Union at Target Store

A spokeswoman for Target said early Saturday morning that 137 workers had voted against joining the union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, while 85 workers voted for it.

In a statement, the union’s president, Bruce W. Both, said that the workers at the Valley Stream store endured a “campaign of threats, intimidation and illegal acts by Target management,” and that the union would contest the results.

“Target did everything they could to deny these workers a chance at the American dream,” he said. “However, the workers’ pursuit of a better life and the ability to house and feed their families is proving more powerful. These workers are not backing down from this fight. They are demanding another election. They are demanding a fair election. They are demanding justice and they are prepared to fight for it.” 

In the days before the vote, union officials said a victory would be a coup that would create momentum for organizing drives at retail stores not just in New York, but in other states. Target executives repeatedly told the store’s 250 hourly employees that no union was needed and that the union would make work rules more rigid and make it harder for Target to compete.

During the organizing drive, pro-union workers said the main issues included low wages and work assignments that often totaled just 10 or 20 hours a week — not enough, they said, to support themselves or their children.

In meetings and fliers, Target officials told employees that a union could not guarantee better pay or benefits and only wanted their dues. In a move that worried numerous workers, the company said there were no guarantees that the store would remain open if the workers unionized.

The union filed a complaint with the labor board last month asserting that Target had unlawfully prohibited employees from wearing pro-union buttons and from discussing working conditions on online sites. It also said Target had unlawfully threatened employees with dismissal if they spoke about the union and had threatened to close the store if it unionized.

Target officials said that they carefully complied with labor laws during their campaign against the union.

Anahad O’Connor contributed reporting.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a7dfb53adc71fbb73e6b7483a4ceb4fe

G.M. to Spend $2 Billion in Hiring and to Upgrade U.S. Plants

The company said its plans to upgrade 17 plants in eight states would create or save more than 4,000 jobs.

G.M.’s chief executive, Daniel F. Akerson, made the announcement at a transmission plant in this northern Ohio city, where the company will spend $204 million and retain 250 jobs.

“We are doing this because we are confident about demand for our vehicles and the economy,” Mr. Akerson said.

G.M. did not specify where and when it would make all the investments, preferring to announce positive news periodically to underscore its recovery from its 2009 bankruptcy.

“There’s always going to be naysayers and there’s always going to be people who buy a G.M. product no matter what,” said Rebecca Lindland, an analyst with the research firm IHS Automotive. “It’s about influencing those people who are in the middle.”

About 1,350 of the jobs cited will be filled by current G.M. employees who are on layoff. Once those workers are recalled, the remaining positions will go to new hires at a lower wage rate.

The company’s contract with the United Auto Workers union allows it to hire new workers at wages of $14 an hour — half what it pays existing hourly employees.

The two-tier wage scale is expected to be a major topic at the bargaining table this summer, when G.M., Ford and Chrysler all negotiate new contracts with the U.A.W. The current four-year agreements expire in mid-September.

The U.A.W. vice president in charge of the G.M. division, Joe Ashton, said he expected all the laid-off workers to be recalled before the contract expired.

Mr. Ashton declined to say what changes the union might seek in the two-tier system during the negotiations.

“They will be discussed at the table,” he said.

The union’s president, Bob King, has said the U.A.W. hopes to get back some of the concessions it made during the last round of negotiations, in 2007, when Detroit’s Big Three were in dire financial condition.

Since then, both G.M. and Chrysler were bailed out by the American taxpayers and drastically restructured in bankruptcy court. Ford recovered on its own without federal assistance and has reported healthy profits over the last two years.

G.M.’s announcement of new jobs and investments came after the company’s announcement last week that it earned $3.2 billion in the first quarter of this year.

The company has been steadily revamping its product lineup since emerging from bankruptcy in the summer of 2009, adding more fuel-efficient small cars and crossover vehicles.

The transformation is starting to produce better sales and greater market share against rivals. G.M. reported domestic market share of 19.6 percent in the first four months of this year, compared to 18.7 percent for the same period a year ago.

“For the first time in a generation, in the last year we took market share,” said Mr. Akerson.

G.M. has 49,000 hourly workers in the United States — less than half the number it had five years ago.

Since emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in July 2009, G.M. had committed to investing $3.4 billion in its plants and to creating or preserving an estimated 9,000 jobs.

Tuesday’s announcement of an additional $2 billion in investment is another step in the rebuilding process. In addition to the improvements in Toledo, the company said last week that it would spend $131 million at an assembly plant in Kentucky.

The United States government still owns a 26 percent stake in the automaker as part of the $50 billion taxpayer bailout. The Treasury Department could begin selling some of its remaining shares as soon as May 22, the first day it will be permitted to sell them under terms of G.M.’s initial public stock offering.

G.M. has ample cash reserves of more than $36 billion to upgrade and expand manufacturing facilities such as the Toledo plant.

“They’re spending money so they can make money,” said Ms. Lindland. “And the more profitable they are, the better chance they have of decreasing the ownership of the government.”

Nick Bunkley contributed reporting from Detroit.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=778ca28b10b3afc58ffa29506edb5236

Fed Minutes Show No Haste to End Stimulus

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve shows few signs of easing its aggressive efforts to stimulate growth before the middle of the year, according to the minutes of the most recent meeting of the central bank’s policy-making committee, released on Tuesday.

While some members of that committee have suggested in recent speeches that the Fed might reconsider its plans to buy $600 billion in Treasury securities by the end of June, the minutes show little evidence that the idea has gained traction among a majority of the 10 officials who sit on the committee.

Indeed, the Fed increasingly seems locked into its current plan — neither less nor more — in part because the economic recovery remains tentative and in part because of a stalemate between advocates of less and more.

The minutes portrayed skeptics of the program as increasingly resigned.

“A few members remained uncertain about the benefits of the asset purchase program,” the minutes said, “but judged that making changes to the program at this time was not appropriate.”

The Federal Open Market Committee, which meets eight times a year to set monetary policy, has been on a war footing since 2007, authorizing a series of extraordinary efforts to contain the financial crisis and restart growth. The next major decision confronting the committee is when to begin the return to normal.

The minutes make clear that a majority of the committee — comprising members of the Fed’s board of governors and selected presidents of the regional reserve banks — continues to believe that the economy needs help. Moreover, that majority is portrayed as relatively sanguine about the chances of unleashed inflation.

With so many people out of work, those with jobs have little leverage to demand higher wages. They lack the means to drive up prices. As a result, the Fed regards the recent increases in food and gas prices as unsustainable.

The chairman of the Fed, Ben S. Bernanke, on Monday described the price increases as “transitory.”

The prospects for the economy, which appeared to be growing strongly at the beginning of the year, also seem increasingly murky. The minutes said the committee viewed the chances of faster growth, and the risk of a slowdown, as “roughly balanced.”

Evidence of growth is accumulating, including reports of factories planning to hire workers and increase production, and consumers spending more on cars and other goods.

But home prices keep falling and governments at every level are cutting spending. In addition, Europe is ailing, there is a risk that oil prices will continue to rise and the effect of the disaster in Japan is “not yet clear,” the minutes said.

The committee next meets April 26.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=12fb052d343cdc9098f9ae628594701d

Economix: 5 Answers From Today’s Jobs Report

The latest jobs report was a solid one, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Job growth is picking up speed, reaching 216,000 in March. Rising oil prices don’t seem to be spooking companies, at least not by the week of March 12, when the Labor Department conducted its survey. All that is very good news. Unlike last year’s recovery — which petered out in the spring — this year’s remains alive.

But today’s report was not great, either. Wages did not grow at all in March and have trailed inflation over the last year. The workweek didn’t get any longer; it typically does get longer before a big boom in hiring. And an employment increase of 216,000 is not exactly blistering. At that pace, the unemployment rate would not return to 5 percent for about five more years.

The economy is making progress, but the progress is slow and uncertain.

Last night, I posed five questions to ask about today’s report. I offer some answers below.

1. Has the latest turmoil — oil prices, Europe’s debt troubles, state and local cutbacks — spooked employers?

Again, no. Job growth over the last three months has averaged 159,000, the highest such number (excluding temporary Census jobs) since the recession began, in late 2007.

2. Is there reason to believe the Labor Department might be undercounting job growth?

Yes. The numbers above refer to the government’s estimate of job growth based on its survey of employers. But the government also surveys households each month. At turning points, the household survey can be more accurate, because the employer survey often fails to capture the creation of new companies.

According to the household survey, the economy added 291,000 jobs last month and an average of 219,000 over the last three months.

3. What’s happening to wages?

Absolutely nothing. The average hourly wage of all employees remained $22.87, unchanged from February and up only 1.7 percent over the last year. The wage trends are a reason to be sober about future consumer spending and highly skeptical of claims that the economy is on the verge of an inflationary spiral.

4. Are existing employees working more hours?

Not in March, which is not a wonderful sign. But the Labor Department did revise its estimate of the February workweek upward, to 34.3 hours, from 33.2 hours.

The workweek was also 34.2 hours back in May 2010 and hasn’t fluctuated much since then. By contrast, between June 2009 and May 2010, before last year’s recovery stalled out, the news was much better, the workweek rose significantly — to 34.2 hours, from a low of 33.7 hours.

5. How are the underemployed and the hard-core unemployed faring?

The number of people working part-time because they couldn’t find full-time work had been falling in recent months, as had the number of people who have been unemployed for at least 27 weeks. But there was no progress in March. The number of involuntarily part-time workers actually rose a bit, to 8.4 million from 8.3 million. The number of long-term unemployed did too, to 6.1 million from 6 million.

One last point:
The Labor Department’s usual revisions to earlier data — January and February, in this case — was mildly positive. Job growth in each month was slightly higher than thought.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=26862ed7044157b732de8a52c190fba0

U.S. Economy Added 216,000 Jobs in March; Rate at 8.8%

Turmoil is found in many corners of the global economy, and oil prices have been rising, so economists waited to see if these storms would affect hiring. The answer, so far, appears to be no. The gain in jobs slightly exceeded economists’ expectations.

Manufacturing continued what a few years ago would have been considered an unlikely — if still modest — revival, adding 17,000 jobs. Health care added 37,000 jobs, and professional and business services added another 78,000, although about 37 percent of that came from increases in temporary help. It was the 13th straight month of private-sector job growth.

March’s numbers, however, also offered cautionary signs that the nation’s economic ills are not entirely behind it. The number of long-term unemployed — that is, those jobless for 27 weeks or more — remained painfully high, at more than six million. That is the highest number in a generation.

The small size of the national labor force remains a pressing concern, reflecting discouragement with the prospects for employment. It has shrunk steadily over the past few years, to a point that just 64.2 percent of adults are either in the work force or looking for a job. That is the lowest labor participation rate in a quarter-century. Many economists had forecast that as Americans grew emboldened by signs of new hiring, they would re-enter the work force in greater numbers. That did not happen in March, as the participation rate was unchanged.

The average workweek was also unchanged, at 34.3 hours, and average hourly earnings remained the same. Both are signs of an economy with much slack demand and little upward pressure on wages. In other words, it is the sign of an economy not yet firing on all cylinders. “With excess supply of labor at very high levels, it is unlikely that we are going to see any meaningful acceleration in wage rates anytime soon,” Joshua Shapiro, an economist at MFR Inc., said Friday morning.

State and local governments offer their own slough of despond. Local government has lost 416,000 jobs since an employment peak in September 2008, and shed another 15,000 jobs in March.

As well, the unemployment rate for blacks and Latinos remained high, at 15.5 percent and 11.3 percent, respectively.

Quite a few signs, of late, have pointed to a touch of momentum in the economic recovery. Weekly unemployment claims have declined steadily, from the mid-400,000s to the neighborhood of 388,000 last week. In most historical contexts, the latter would be a grim number so many months after the official end of the recession. But in this slowest and most sluggish of recoveries, it points to fewer layoffs, and more hiring.

Economists are looking for more Americans, like those who have given up looking or who have taken part-time jobs for lack of full-time employment, to find signs of hope.

“I suspect that the workers on the sideline will start coming back in,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute.

The larger question is what the medium-term future augurs, and this month’s report appears to offer less than a definitive answer. Will jobs continue to expand through the spring, and with enough vigor — 300,000 a month, say — to substantially reduce the unemployment rate?

As Ms. Shierholz notes, if the economy adds 200,000 jobs a month, it will be 2019 before it reaches the employment rate that preceded the Great Recession. (Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has shed more than seven million jobs).

For President Obama, any uptick in employment numbers will offer a welcome ray of sunshine. The Democrats’ big losses in last November’s election were in large part because of the weak economy, and as eyes now turn to 2012, the economy again figures to sit at center stage. And his economists are certain to lay claims to the green shoots spotted in the March report.

  Many economists speak optimistically of the spring, but the outlook grows uncertain after that. The international storm clouds are many — spectacular debt problems in Europe, uprisings sweeping the oil-rich Middle East, and Japan and its many maladies. And then there is the possibility of a government shutdown in Washington, as the Republican-controlled House challenges the White House.

Some of the problems arising from these storms, such as higher oil prices, could take a while to work through the economy and, possibly, to erode consumer confidence.

“The first half of this year will be the best job market that we’ll see in this whole expansion,” said David Levy of the Jerome Levy Forecasting Center. “We’re riding the crest of earnings. But after that, and looking toward 2012, the situation is very questionable.”

 

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/business/economy/02jobs.html?partner=rss&emc=rss