Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Mid October unemployment back to 10%

  1. #1
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Mid October unemployment back to 10%

    And they haven't even begun the December layoffs yet.

    Sadly worse news:

    The decline in part-time workers wanting full-time work has led to a situation in which underemployment is declining even as unemployment is increasing.

    They are even getting rid of the part time jobs... or they all went on that good sweet gubermint money I keep hearing about.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,037
    Thanks
    1,891
    Thanked 5,124 Times in 3,086 Posts

    Default Re: Mid October unemployment back to 10%

    I am seeing a disturbing trend about unemployment. First, places are hiring more part time workers for the holiday season but just try getting full time. Second, and more scarier is the salaries being paid. I've been interviewing for jobs paying less than I made at my last job, sometimes as much as $20,000 less. I'm not seeing many jobs paying well, and some of the jobs requiring college degrees are paying little above minimum wage. Not to mention more companies plan to outsource jobs like Walgreens plans to send accounting jobs to India.

  3. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Mid October unemployment back to 10%

    In regard to the latest GALLUP unemployment numbers, it's pretty clear that any 'improvements' over the past few months have not been sustainable ...



    some other details from the GALLUP link are also rather telling ...

    (snip)"Certain groups continue to fare worse than the national average. For example, 14.2% of Americans aged 18 to 29 and 13.8% of those with no college education were unemployed in mid-October."(snip)

    While I will undoubtedly be accused of quoting 'ideologically' compatible information, consider the following facts and interpretations.

    A - a significant number of (short term) construction jobs were created as a result of the 2009 stimulus package. Now that construction season is over, those gov't funded jobs are disappearing with no private sector work to follow.

    B - a significant percentage of the 2009 stimulus package was allocated to states and cities. Those state and city gov'ts then elected to use a portion of their stimulus grant funds to continue or expand employment for gov't workers, teachers, cops, contractors etc. With no follow-up stimulus package being passed in Washington, as these states and cities entered their new fiscal years ( typically September ), with state / city deficits climbing and state / city tax increases already raising loud objections, and as state / city budgets must be balanced, they had no choice but to start sending pink slips to gov't employees which are now taking effect.

    C - The CEO's of most US companies have been wary in regard to the degree of REAL improvement taking place in the US economy. Thus they have been making use of larger numbers of temporary employees for the summer 'recovery' ( which many argue was simply an inventory rebuild ) as opposed to hiring full time workers. However, now that the summer 'recovery' has been demonstrated to be a US taxpayer funded myth for the most part ( and now that inventory levels are climbing ), these employers are beginning to cut loose those temporary employees.

    I would also add that by official gov't statistics, there is now a steadily growing contingent of long term unemployed Americans who are beginning to exhaust their 99 weeks worth of 'emergency' unemployment checks with each passing week. By official gov't statistics, these people are no longer considered to be unemployed ( even though most still don't have a job ).

    As to available US jobs, and the going pay rates for those available US jobs, the same CEO's who have been covering the 'summer' recovery with temporary workers are also actively seeking to outsource / subcontract as much work as is practical in order to avoid the high ( and soon to get even higher ) employer payroll taxes and mandated employee benefit costs that go along with hiring / continuing to employ every US employee. Thus the nature of remaining US job openings tends to be service oriented and non-transportable. Unfortunately, these sort of remaining US job openings also tend to pay comparatively low wages.

    As I posted in the Lounge in regard to the 'food stamp nation' thread, there is arguably a permanent change occurring in the US employer / work force paradigm. One out of every seven Americans is now 'dependent' on gov't benefits. The remaining six out of seven Americans, and the US companies that employ them, face higher taxes / fees / prices in order to cover the cost of providing said gov't benefits. This serves as a strong dis-incentive toward expanding business operations and/or hiring additional employees, in the US at least ! This in turn results in continuing 'export' of US manufacturing and transportable services, a continuing trend toward increased automation of US operations, etc. in an effort to minimize exposure to US employer taxes and US gov't mandated employee benefit costs.

    In the final analysis, this arguably means that low skill level Americans are finding fewer and fewer available jobs at ANY pay rate, and also means that higher skill level Americans are being forced to accept jobs at the lower pay rates that formerly applied to low skill level workers. And as long as Americans are being forced to actually PAY FOR the items they consume ( as opposed to credit purchases followed by delinquency / bankruptcy, as opposed to US taxpayer money paying for a significant percentage of the actual purchase price etc. ), there will simply not be enough REAL US consumer demand to reverse this trend. In fact, FED policies to devalue the US dollar and the resulting increase in US dollar prices of world market commodities are arguably forcing US consumers to allocate a growing percentage of their stagnant incomes towards necessities i.e. food and energy ... which in turn reduces real US consumer demand for non-essential goods and services ( like lap dances ! ).

    Also keep in mind that, in anticipation of higher US corporate / employer / individual / cap gains tax rates going into effect on the first of January, US businesses have been attempting to 'beat' the tax increase by accelerating the booking of profits into 2010. By definition, this is 'drawing forward' business from 2011 in exactly the same way that 'cash for clunkers' and 'first time homebuyer' incentives drew forward business from 2011. As such, most CEO's expect the 2011 US economy to take a significant double dip, at least for the first half of the year. The increased unemployment numbers are now beginning to show that US employers ( sitting on rising inventories ) may already be 'slowing down' operations in anticipation of that significant double dip in 2011.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 10-19-2010 at 10:45 AM.

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Mid October unemployment back to 10%

    by coincidence, GALLUP just released this data on consumer spending ...



    (snip)"Lower- and middle-income Americans' self-reported average daily spending in stores, restaurants, gas stations, and online averaged $48 per day during September -- down $6 from August and $16 from July. Consumer discretionary spending by these Americans making less than $90,000 a year is now at its lowest level since Gallup began daily tracking in January 2008, as the recession was just getting underway."(snip)

    (snip)"The decline in lower- and middle-income Americans' spending to new lows over the past two months may be a precursor of another significant drop in the overall economy. Gallup's self-reported spending data tend to measure consumers' discretionary or marginal expenditures, making these measures highly sensitive to shifting consumer spending patterns.

    Gallup modeling suggests that lower- and middle-income spending is significantly more sensitive to job market conditions than is upper-income spending. In this regard, the September decline in lower- and middle-income spending may reflect the sharp increase in unemployment over the same period and continued high underemployment levels. Further, the lagged effects of continuing high and increasing unemployment are probably yet to be fully felt."(snip)

    from

  5. #5
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,686
    Thanks
    419
    Thanked 989 Times in 437 Posts

    Default Re: Mid October unemployment back to 10%

    ugh that sucks! I hate hearing girls complain constantly at the club. "ugh I ONLY made 300 dollars tonight". last time I checked there are thousands of people who would do ANYTHING for 300 dollars a WEEK to support themselves.

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Mid October unemployment back to 10%

    ^^^ yes, but, of the $ 300 they made in 'gross' earnings, if the dancers pay all appropriate tipouts and taxes they'll be lucky to 'net' $150. Given that being an exotic dancer requires some fairly stringent 'qualifications' ( not many dancers weighing 250 pounds, not many dancers with 'pear shaped' body types, not many dancers over age 35 etc. ) and requires some fairly heavy personal sacrifice ( allowing physical contact bordering on 'sexual assault', being treated as a 'whore' by judgemental family and friends etc.), 'netting' $150 a night is actually fairly low compensation !

    Be that as it may, the larger issue is that a resumption in an uptrend of unemployment, and further reduction in 'discretionary' spending by 'middle class' and 'low income' Americans is likely to have a fairly immediate negative effect on typical dancing earnings. However, the GALLUP link also pointed out that 'discretionary' spending by the 'rich' is essentially unchanged. That's all well and good for dancers who have the 'qualifications' to be hired at upscale clubs in big cities with a significant share of 'rich' residents, but doesn't help the other 90+ percent of dancers a bit.

  7. #7
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,686
    Thanks
    419
    Thanked 989 Times in 437 Posts

    Default Re: Mid October unemployment back to 10%

    I don't think any of the dancers at my club file taxes... our club doesn't require it and a lot of girls don't know how to or just choose not to. I've met many dancers who have a day job on the books and dance so they can have some extra tax-free income.

    I wish I had the "qualifications" to work at an upscale club with rich clientele. I have the body for it, but until I get huge fake boobs, I'm stuck at my club

  8. #8
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Mid October unemployment back to 10%

    I don't think any of the dancers at my club file taxes... our club doesn't require it and a lot of girls don't know how to or just choose not to
    It remains to be seen how the new provisions of the National Health Care law will actually go down re strip clubs and dancers, but by the 'letter' of the law all businesses ( i.e. clubs ) who will pay more than $600 to another business ( i.e. independent contractor dancers ) in 2011 must report that payment to the IRS via form 1099 in early 2012. Once that 1099 arrives, dancers will no longer have the 'luxury' of avoiding paying income taxes on their dancing earnings with relative impunity.

  9. #9
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Mid October unemployment back to 10%

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    It remains to be seen how the new provisions of the National Health Care law will actually go down re strip clubs and dancers, but by the 'letter' of the law all businesses ( i.e. clubs ) who will pay more than $600 to another business ( i.e. independent contractor dancers ) in 2011 must report that payment to the IRS via form 1099 in early 2012. Once that 1099 arrives, dancers will no longer have the 'luxury' of avoiding paying income taxes on their dancing earnings with relative impunity.
    Especially with the trend of dancers suing clubs to become employees. Bigger changes are afoot than merely "mileage."

  10. #10
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Mid October unemployment back to 10%

    Especially with the trend of dancers suing clubs to become employees
    Such lawsuits aren't really all that new. However, in the past, lawsuits affected individual clubs ... with no legal precedent value toward other clubs in the same city, or toward other clubs in the same corporate chain. What appears to be different today is that state gov'ts are now taking a serious interest in trying to apply the 'statutory employee' treatment to large numbers of clubs. Such a ruling is already in place in California ( although CA clubs have been able to stymie actual implementation so far ). And a recent ruling in Mass carries the potential of quickly mandating the 'statutory employee' treatment to every club and dancer in the state. See the recent thread in the Industry Insight forum.

    Obviously, the motivating factor for such states is that, in an 'employer' club 'employee' dancer business model, the club will have to begin paying in state unemployment insurance premiums on behalf of dancers. The club will also have to begin paying in state comp / disability insurance premiums. In Mass, 'employer' clubs will already have to pay 'fines' to the state if the club does not provide health care coverage to dancers ( which is slated to expand under National Health Care ). And of course the clubs will have to implement a properly accounted 'official' payroll system with dancer tax withholding, with dancer income reporting to the IRS and state tax agency etc., which will decrease the number of dancer dollars that can remain 'unaccounted for' i.e. untaxed. The kicker, of course, is that all of these 'new' costs have to come out of the same pool of total club customer dollars ... which by definition will result in lower net earnings potential for the clubs or the dancers or both.

    Circling back on topic, as with 'mainstream' employer / employee economics, there is no getting around the fact that every additional full time employee brings additional incremental costs to the employer of provided mandated insurance and benefits. This provides a strong incentive to that employer to A. limit employee working hours down to the point ( 24 hours per week ??? ) where employees are considered to be part-time - and as such aren't covered by gov't employee benefit mandates, or B. reduce the total number of full time employees, while forcing the remaining employees to work more hours ( i.e. the costs of comp / disability / unemployment insurance aren't materially changed if that employee averages 32 or 40 or 48 hours per week ). Either option is 'bad' for overall dancer employment statistics.

    However, if a club converts to the 'employee' dancer business model and 'lays off' 25%-33% of its present independent contractor dancers in an effort to minimize the club's new mandated employee benefit costs, in theory this should result in improved earnings potential for the remaining dancers. The flip side risk, of course, is that while the remaining dancers may wind up performing 25%-33% more private dances ( thus increasing gross earnings by a similar amount ), newly imposed 'employer' payout schedules may very well see that extra 25%-33% of gross dancer earnings 'kept' by the club and used to cover the new costs of mandated employee benefits !!! From that standpoint, 'employee' dancers will wind up working 25%-33% 'harder' in exchange for the same amount of net earnings. And that assumes that the club's customer base and customer spending habits will not decline as a result of the club offering customers 25%-33% fewer dancers for them to choose from !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 10-24-2010 at 05:04 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Goals for October
    By CandyRain0922 in forum Life Support
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-28-2011, 01:56 AM
  2. October Vacation
    By sander8son in forum General Board
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-18-2007, 07:43 PM
  3. October Vacation
    By sander8son in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-12-2007, 08:03 PM
  4. Blue October
    By hyzenthflay in forum Music Mix
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-30-2007, 12:36 PM
  5. Getting a BA in October, help with ??'s
    By Paris in forum Body Business
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-13-2004, 05:02 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •