EXTENDED MASS LAYOFFS -- SECOND QUARTER 2012!

                          
Employers in the private nonfarm sector initiated 1,476 mass layoff events in the
second quarter of 2012 that resulted in the separation of 262,848 workers from
their jobs for at least 31 days, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
today. Over the year, total extended mass layoff events and associated worker
separations were down from 1,810 and 317,546, respectively. (See table A.) In 2012,
total events reached their lowest second quarter level since 2007, while
manufacturing sector events declined to their lowest level for any quarter in
program history (with data available back to 1995). The completion of seasonal
work accounted for 44 percent of the total extended mass layoff events during the
quarter. Second quarter 2012 layoff data are preliminary and are subject to revision.
(See the Technical Note.)

Industry Distribution of Extended Layoffs

Over the year ending in the second quarter of 2012, the number of private nonfarm
extended mass layoff events declined in 15 of the 18 major industry sectors, with
the largest decreases occurring in accommodation and food services and in
manufacturing. Total manufacturing events declined over-the-year from 263 to 180,
their lowest level for any quarter in program history. Sixteen of the 21 manufacturing
subsectors experienced over-the-year decreases in the number of layoff events. (See
table 1.)

The construction sector had 194 extended mass layoff events and 21,825 separations,
primarily due to contract completion. This sector accounted for 13 percent of the
layoff events and 8 percent of the related separations during the second quarter of
2012.

Reasons for Extended Layoffs

Layoffs due to the completion of seasonal work accounted for 44 percent of extended
mass layoff events and 51 percent of related separations in the private nonfarm sector
during the second quarter of 2012. Business demand factors, primarily contract
completion, accounted for 32 percent of the events and 27 percent of related
separations during the quarter. (See table 2.)


Table A. Selected measures of extended mass layoff activity


     Period                  Layoff events       Separations     Initial claimants
    
     2008

January-March............         1,340            230,098            259,292
April-June...............         1,756            354,713            339,630
July-September...........         1,581            290,453            304,340
October-December.........         3,582            641,714            766,780

     2009

January-March............         3,979            705,141            835,551
April-June...............         3,395            651,318            731,049
July-September...........         2,034            345,531            406,823
October-December.........         2,416            406,212            468,577

     2010

January-March............         1,870            314,512            368,664
April-June...............         2,008            381,622            396,441
July-September...........         1,370            222,357            260,077
October-December.........         1,999            338,643            390,584

     2011

January-March............         1,490            225,456            258,220
April-June...............         1,810            317,546            342,530
July-September (r) ......         1,393            235,325            291,066
October-December (r) ....         1,903            334,383            403,439

     2012

January-March (r) .......         1,290            245,901            286,384
April-June (p) ..........         1,476            262,848            221,997


    r = revised.
    p = preliminary.


Movement of Work

In the second quarter of 2012, 36 extended mass layoffs involved movement of work and
were associated with 7,506 worker separations. Forty-seven percent of the events
related to movement of work were from manufacturing industries. Employers cited
organizational changes as the economic reason for layoff in 58 percent of the events
involving movement of work. Among workers seperated by the movement of work, the
largest proportions were in the Midwest. (See tables 6-8.)

The 36 events with movement of work for the second quarter involved 42 identifiable
relocations of work actions. (See table 9.) Employers were able to provide information
on the specific number of worker separations for 25 of these actions. Among these
actions, most were domestic reassignments and involved work moving within the same
company. (See table 10.)

Recall Expectations

Sixty-four percent of the private nonfarm employers reporting an extended mass layoff
in the second quarter of 2012 anticipated recalling at least some of the displaced
workers--the highest second quarter percentage since 1998. Of those employers expecting
to recall workers, 44 percent indicated the offer would be extended to all displaced
employees and 77 percent anticipated extending the offer to at least half of the workers.
Among employers expecting to recall laid-off workers, 75 percent intend to do so within
six months. Excluding extended mass layoff events due to seasonal work and vacation period,
employers anticipated recalling laid-off workers in 38 percent of the events. (See table
11.)


Table B. Metropolitan areas with the largest number of initial claimants associated with
extended mass layoff events in the second quarter 2012, by residency of claimants


                                                        2011 II (r)            2012 II (p)
                       
            Metropolitan area                        Initial                  Initial
                                                    claimants     Rank       claimants   Rank

        Total, 372 metropolitan areas ...........    278,922                  181,686     

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Calif. ........     34,819        1          22,248      1
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
    Island, N.Y.-N.J.-Pa. .......................     20,469        2          16,019      2
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, Ill.-Ind.-Wis. .......     14,664        3          12,497      3
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif. ........      9,355        4           6,134      4
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, Pa.
   -N.J.-Del.-Md. ...............................      8,621        5           4,561      5
St. Louis, Mo.-Ill. .............................      5,077        9           4,190      6
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, Calif. ...........      7,826        6           4,087      7
Kansas City, Mo.-Kan. ...........................      1,904       27           3,353      8
Pittsburgh, Pa. .................................      5,600        8           3,042      9
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas ...............      3,118       13           2,881     10

    r = revised.
    p = preliminary.
    NOTE: The geographic boundaries of the metropolitan areas shown in this table are defined
    in Office of Management and Budget Bulletin 10-02, December 1, 2009.


Size of Extended Layoffs
 
The average size of a layoff (as measured by the number of separations per layoff event)
was 178 workers during the second quarter of 2012. (See table 12.) Events were largely
concentrated at the lower end of the extended layoff-size spectrum, with 67 percent
involving fewer than 150 workers. Conversely, only 6 percent of layoff events involved
500 or more workers. (See table 13.)

Initial Claimant Characteristics

A total of 221,997 initial claimants for unemployment insurance were associated with
extended mass layoffs in the second quarter of 2012. Of these claimants, 18 percent were
black, 18 percent were Hispanic, 53 percent were women, and 25 percent were 55 years of
age or older. (See table 3.) In the entire civilian labor force for the same period, 12
percent of all persons were black, 16 percent were Hispanic, 47 percent were women, and
21 percent were 55 years of age or older.

Geographic Distribution
 
Among the four census regions, the West recorded the highest number of extended mass layoff
events in the second quarter of 2012. Among the nine census divisions, the highest number
of mass layoff events was in the Pacific. All regions and 8 of the 9 divisions registered
fewer extended mass layoff events compared with the second quarter of 2011. (See table 4.)

California recorded the largest number of extended mass layoff events in the second quarter
of 2012, followed by Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York. Over the year, 38 states reported
decreased numbers of extended mass layoff events for the second quarter. The largest declines
were in California, Florida, and Pennsylvania. (See table 5.)

Eighty-two percent of the initial claimants for unemployment insurance associated with
extended mass layoff events in the second quarter of 2012 resided within metropolitan areas.
Among the 372 metropolitan areas, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Calif., reported the
highest number of resident initial claimants. (See table B.)

Note

The quarterly series on extended mass layoffs cover layoffs of at least 31-days duration that
involve 50 or more individuals from a single employer filing initial claims for unemployment
insurance during a consecutive 5-week period. Approximately 30 days after a mass layoff is
triggered, the employer is contacted for additional information.  Data for the current quarter
are preliminary and subject to revision. This release also includes revised data for previous
quarters. Data are not seasonally adjusted, but survey data suggest that there is a seasonal
pattern to layoffs. Thus, comparisons between consecutive quarters should not be used as an
indicator of trend. For additional information about the program, see the Technical Note.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/

Milton Friedman - Redistribution of Wealth!

Milton Friedman clears up misconceptions about wealth redistribution, in general, and inheritance tax, in particular.
Using McDonalds as an example, Milton Friedman explains how the minumum wage actually kills jobs for young people entering the job market and decreases their ability to acquire beginning job skills.

Knight Capital algorithm malfunction!

Investors' anxieties over volatile marktes compounded on Wednesday by a trading algorithm malfunction. It cost the brokerage company Knight Capital $440m. Lex's Stuart Kirk and Vincent Boland discuss the effect of another rogue algo on jittery markets.

Is the SAT ineffective and outdated?

FAQ: Q: What can I do to help/change the situation? A: Expecting me to suddenly come up with a solution to an issue this vast and ingrained in society is quite a high order. This is the kind of construct that is so established that it would take years to patch up. If I absolutely had to be put on the spot, I would opt for the lessening or even elimination of standardization in college admissions. The simplest thing you can "do to help" is share this video. The first step in change and reform is an informed public who cares about an issue. Change will not happen without awareness. HOWEVER, if you really need to take some sort of action, you can take the ACT, as it is more accurate at gauging a student's logic and thinking skills. Unfortunately, the CEO of the company distributing the ACT receives a compensation rate of 3.09, more than twice that of the CEO of the College Board. Decide which you think is the lesser of two evils.

Q: Hurr nurr you didn't provide sources so this is UNSUPPORTED. A: That isn't a question, but thank you for pointing it out. All sources are now at the bottom of the description. Q: The statistics at 1:30 are incorrect, the CEO of Red Cross ALSO earns a compensation within the 1-2million dollar range! Should I be outraged? A: No, you should not. Those statistics are based off of compensation rates (compensation:revenue). The CEO of Red Cross may not receive five times the amount, but his organization circulates five times the revenue, making his compensation rate a fifth of the College Board's CEO. Same goes with the Salvation Army CEO. Q: How can you try and claim that the correlation between family income and SAT scores is so unacceptable when multiple studies show that family income and intelligence are also related? A: This is a somewhat valid counterargument, however it is the amount of correlation that disturbs me. The R^2 of family income and SAT scores is 0.95! That's an unbelievable amount of correlation, enough so that I feel it worth mentioning. Q: What's the point of this video? It is a PSA, Public Service Announcement, intended to inform the public about a current issue. Q: The SAT isn't in my region, what in the world am I watching? A: The SAT is a test that almost all college-prone students in the U.S. and all around the world take. It is based on math, reading, and writing comprehension. However, it is greatly flawed and does not actually gauge a student's intelligence or potential. Unfortunately, many colleges still consider it a valid aspect of the admissions process. Most of these colleges, especially prestigious ones, require SAT (and ACT) scores from students simply so that they may bolster their statistical advertising campaigns (i.e. being able to put "Average SAT score of 2300!" on their school pamphlet and being ranked as a "top school"). On top of all that, it just happens to generate a billion dollars a year that could be spent... elsewhere.

Complete Urban City Preparedness Guide for Economic Collapse, Natural Disaster!

Is your home in the midst of a large population center? If it is, then there may be considerable danger in the event of an economic collapse. Urban survival is definitely possible, but follows different guidelines and involves dangers not covered in most survival manuals. If you are not confident in your ability to stay safe in a populous area, you may want to use a retreat away from the city....

How fast is the federal deficit rising?

The United States public debt is the money borrowed by the federal government of the United States at any one time through the issue of securities by the Treasury and other federal government agencies. The U.S. national public debt consists of two components:

-Debt held by the public includes Treasury securities held by investors outside the federal government, including that held by individuals, corporations, the Federal Reserve System and foreign, state and local governments.

-Debt held by government accounts or intragovernmental debt mainly includes non-marketable Treasury securities held in accounts administered by the federal government that are owed to program beneficiaries, such as the Social Security Trust Fund. Debt held by government accounts represents the cumulative surpluses, including interest earnings, of these accounts that have been invested in Treasury securities.

How fast is the federal deficit rising? In every second of 2011, the federal government spent $41,210 that it didn't have. No agenda. No party line. Just facts. More facts at www.FaceTheFactsUSA.org. A project of The George Washington University.

World Statistics Day: Statistics All Around Us!

Help the US Census Bureau celebrate World Statistics Day with the United Nations and statistical agencies across the globe. This video highlights some of the many benefits we receive from the statistical information provided by the U.S. federal statistical community. The key question: "What would our country -- our world -- be like, without statistics?"

Bankruptcy Basics: The Process!

The procedural aspects of the bankruptcy process are governed by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (often called the "Bankruptcy Rules") and local rules of each bankruptcy court. The Bankruptcy Rules contain a set of official forms for use in bankruptcy cases. The Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules (and local rules) set forth the formal legal procedures for dealing with the debt problems of individuals and businesses.

There is a bankruptcy court for each judicial district in the country. Each state has one or more districts. There are 90 bankruptcy districts across the country. The bankruptcy courts generally have their own clerk's offices.

The court official with decision-making power over federal bankruptcy cases is the United States bankruptcy judge, a judicial officer of the United States district court. The bankruptcy judge may decide any matter connected with a bankruptcy case, such as eligibility to file or whether a debtor should receive a discharge of debts. Much of the bankruptcy process is administrative, however, and is conducted away from the courthouse. In cases under chapters 7, 12, or 13, and sometimes in chapter 11 cases, this administrative process is carried out by a trustee who is appointed to oversee the case.

A debtor's involvement with the bankruptcy judge is usually very limited. A typical chapter 7 debtor will not appear in court and will not see the bankruptcy judge unless an objection is raised in the case. A chapter 13 debtor may only have to appear before the bankruptcy judge at a plan confirmation hearing. Usually, the only formal proceeding at which a debtor must appear is the meeting of creditors, which is usually held at the offices of the U.S. trustee. This meeting is informally called a "341 meeting" because section 341 of the Bankruptcy Code requires that the debtor attend this meeting so that creditors can question the debtor about debts and property.

A fundamental goal of the federal bankruptcy laws enacted by Congress is to give debtors a financial "fresh start" from burdensome debts. The Supreme Court made this point about the purpose of the bankruptcy law in a 1934 decision:

[I]t gives to the honest but unfortunate debtor…a new opportunity in life and a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of preexisting debt.

Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 244 (1934). This goal is accomplished through the bankruptcy discharge, which releases debtors from personal liability from specific debts and prohibits creditors from ever taking any action against the debtor to collect those debts. This publication describes the bankruptcy discharge in a question and answer format, discussing the timing of the discharge, the scope of the discharge (what debts are discharged and what debts are not discharged), objections to discharge, and revocation of the discharge. It also describes what a debtor can do if a creditor attempts to collect a discharged debt after the bankruptcy case is concluded.

Six basic types of bankruptcy cases are provided for under the Bankruptcy Code, each of which is discussed in this publication. The cases are traditionally given the names of the chapters that describe them.

Chapter 7, entitled Liquidation, contemplates an orderly, court-supervised procedure by which a trustee takes over the assets of the debtor's estate, reduces them to cash, and makes distributions to creditors, subject to the debtor's right to retain certain exempt property and the rights of secured creditors. Because there is usually little or no nonexempt property in most chapter 7 cases, there may not be an actual liquidation of the debtor's assets. These cases are called "no-asset cases." A creditor holding an unsecured claim will get a distribution from the bankruptcy estate only if the case is an asset case and the creditor files a proof of claim with the bankruptcy court. In most chapter 7 cases, if the debtor is an individual, he or she receives a discharge that releases him or her from personal liability for certain dischargeable debts. The debtor normally receives a discharge just a few months after the petition is filed. Amendments to the Bankruptcy Code enacted in to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 require the application of a "means test" to determine whether individual consumer debtors qualify for relief under chapter 7. If such a debtor's income is in excess of certain thresholds, the debtor may not be eligible for chapter 7 relief.

Chapter 9, entitled Adjustment of Debts of a Municipality, provides essentially for reorganization, much like a reorganization under chapter 11. Only a "municipality" may file under chapter 9, which includes cities and towns, as well as villages, counties, taxing districts, municipal utilities, and school districts.


Chapter 11, entitled Reorganization, ordinarily is used by commercial enterprises that desire to continue operating a business and repay creditors concurrently through a court-approved plan of reorganization. The chapter 11 debtor usually has the exclusive right to file a plan of reorganization for the first 120 days after it files the case and must provide creditors with a disclosure statement containing information adequate to enable creditors to evaluate the plan. The court ultimately approves (confirms) or disapproves the plan of reorganization. Under the confirmed plan, the debtor can reduce its debts by repaying a portion of its obligations and discharging others. The debtor can also terminate burdensome contracts and leases, recover assets, and rescale its operations in order to return to profitability. Under chapter 11, the debtor normally goes through a period of consolidation and emerges with a reduced debt load and a reorganized business.

Chapter 12, entitled Adjustment of Debts of a Family Farmer or Fisherman with Regular Annual Income, provides debt relief to family farmers and fishermen with regular income. The process under chapter 12 is very similar to that of chapter 13, under which the debtor proposes a plan to repay debts over a period of time – no more than three years unless the court approves a longer period, not exceeding five years. There is also a trustee in every chapter 12 case whose duties are very similar to those of a chapter 13 trustee. The chapter 12 trustee's disbursement of payments to creditors under a confirmed plan parallels the procedure under chapter 13. Chapter 12 allows a family farmer or fisherman to continue to operate the business while the plan is being carried out.


Chapter 13, entitled Adjustment of Debts of an Individual With Regular Income, is designed for an individual debtor who has a regular source of income. Chapter 13 is often preferable to chapter 7 because it enables the debtor to keep a valuable asset, such as a house, and because it allows the debtor to propose a "plan" to repay creditors over time – usually three to five years. Chapter 13 is also used by consumer debtors who do not qualify for chapter 7 relief under the means test. At a confirmation hearing, the court either approves or disapproves the debtor's repayment plan, depending on whether it meets the Bankruptcy Code's requirements for confirmation. Chapter 13 is very different from chapter 7 since the chapter 13 debtor usually remains in possession of the property of the estate and makes payments to creditors, through the trustee, based on the debtor's anticipated income over the life of the plan. Unlike chapter 7, the debtor does not receive an immediate discharge of debts. The debtor must complete the payments required under the plan before the discharge is received. The debtor is protected from lawsuits, garnishments, and other creditor actions while the plan is in effect. The discharge is also somewhat broader (i.e., more debts are eliminated) under chapter 13 than the discharge under chapter 7.

The purpose of Chapter 15, entitled Ancillary and Other Cross-Border Cases, is to provide an effective mechanism for dealing with cases of cross-border insolvency. This publication discusses the applicability of Chapter 15 where a debtor or its property is subject to the laws of the United States and one or more foreign countries.

In addition to the basic types of bankruptcy cases, Bankruptcy Basics provides an overview of the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act, which, among other things, provides protection to members of the military against the entry of default judgments and gives the court the ability to stay proceedings against military debtors.

This publication also contains a description of liquidation proceedings under the Securities Investor Protection Act ("SIPA"). Although the Bankruptcy Code provides for a stockbroker liquidation proceeding, it is far more likely that a failing brokerage firm will find itself involved in a SIPA proceeding. The purpose of SIPA is to return to investors securities and cash left with failed brokerages. Since being established by Congress in 1970, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation has protected investors who deposit stocks and bonds with brokerage firms by ensuring that every customer's property is protected, up to $500,000 per customer.

The bankruptcy process is complex and relies on legal concepts like the "automatic stay," "discharge," "exemptions," and "assume." Therefore, the final chapter of this publication is a glossary of Bankruptcy Terminology which explains, in layman's terms, most of the legal concepts that apply in cases filed under the Bankruptcy Code.
Contact Us | Careers | Privacy & Security Policy | Judicial Conduct & Disability | Glossary of Legal Terms

Source: http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/Bankruptcy/

Ex IRS Agent Tells It Like It Is!

The startling truth about the fundamental (il)legality of the IRS, and why these former IRS enforcers never file for federal taxes again. If you've ever had the funny feeling that there was something wrong with the way we're being fleeced, this will more than confirm your suspicions.

CFPB “Know Before You Owe” mortgage forms!

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau proposes “Know Before You Owe” mortgage forms

CFPB also proposes rules to expand consumer protections for high-cost mortgages

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is proposing easier-to-use mortgage disclosure forms that will help consumers make informed decisions when shopping for a mortgage and avoid costly surprises at the closing table. The CFPB is also proposing a rule today that expands protections for “high-cost” mortgage loans.

“When making what is likely the biggest purchase of their life, consumers should be looking at paperwork that clearly lays out the terms of the deal,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray, who will be speaking in Las Vegas today about the agency’s work to restore trust in the mortgage market. “Our proposed redesign of the federal mortgage forms provides much-needed transparency in the mortgage market and gives consumers greater power over the exciting and daunting process of buying a home.”

EASIER-TO-USE MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE FORMS

The proposed forms, which consumers will receive after applying for a loan and before closing, are part of the CFPB’s Know Before You Owe mortgage project. They are the result of more than a year of research, testing, writing, and review.

Consumers currently receive two different but overlapping federal disclosure forms after application that are supposed to spell out the terms and costs of the mortgage loan – the forms required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The differences in these two forms can be confusing to consumers and industry. At the direction of Congress, the CFPB is combining them to create one document.

The CFPB has designed the new “Loan Estimate” and “Closing Disclosure” forms to present the costs and risks of the loan in clearer terms. The forms benefit consumers by using plain language and a format that will help them understand their loans. They benefit lenders by cutting down on redundancy. Below are some of the key improvements in the CFPB’s proposed forms:

• Simpler than the old forms. Consumers can understand and compare different mortgages more effectively, and examine their estimated and final terms and costs more easily, helping them make the right decisions for themselves and their families.
• Highlight information consumers need. Interest rates, monthly payments, the loan amount, and closing costs are all right there on the first page of the CFPB proposed form. Also, the first page explains how the interest rates, payments, and loan amount might change over the life of the loan, including the highest they can go. In addition, the forms offer more information about taxes, insurance, and other property costs so consumers can better understand the total cost.
• Easier to look out for risks. The forms provide clear warnings about features some consumers may want to avoid, such as prepayment penalties and an increase in the loan balance (negative amortization). The proposed rule also contains provisions to make estimates more reliable. And because the proposed rule requires lenders to keep electronic copies of the forms they give to consumers, industry and regulators will be able to address compliance questions more easily.
• More time to consider choices. Lenders must give the Loan Estimate to consumers within three business days of applying for a loan and consumers must receive the Closing Disclosure at least three business days before closing on a loan. This will allow consumers to decide whether to go ahead with the loan and whether they are getting what they expected.
• Limits on closing cost increases. The proposed rule would restrict circumstances in which consumers can be required to pay more for settlement services than the amount stated on their Loan Estimate.

The CFPB’s proposal took into consideration 10 rounds of testing with consumers and industry and feedback from the public on multiple prototype forms over the past 18 months. Public feedback has included tens of thousands of comments. A side-by-side comparison of the proposed mortgage forms and the old ones, an illustration of how the rule relates to the forms, and a timeline of the CFPB’s Know Before You Owe mortgage project are available at: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/knowbeforeyouowe

The public can weigh in on the CFPB’s proposal here. The public will have 120 days, until Nov. 6, 2012, to review and provide comments on most of this proposal. However, comments are due for specific portions after 60 days on Sept. 7, 2012. The CFPB will review and analyze the comments before issuing final rules.

HIGH-COST MORTGAGE PROTECTIONS

Consumers who take out mortgages that are considered “high cost” receive special protections from fees and risky loan terms. The CFPB is proposing rules today that would expand what is considered a “high-cost mortgage” and provide more protections to consumers who take out those loans.

The proposed rule would implement Congress’s expansion of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) with respect to mortgages with high interest rates, fees, or prepayment penalties. The CFPB’s proposal would:

• Ban potentially risky features. For mortgages that qualify as high-cost based on their interest rates, points and fees, or prepayment penalties, the proposed rule would generally ban balloon payments (a large, lump sum payment usually due at the end of the loan), and would completely ban prepayment penalties.
• Ban and limit certain fees. The CFPB’s proposed rule would ban fees for modifying loans, cap late fees, and restrict the charging of fees when consumers ask for a payoff statement (a document that tells borrowers how much they need to pay off the loan).
• Require housing counseling for high-cost mortgages. The proposed rule would require consumers to receive housing counseling before taking out a high-cost mortgage. In addition, the CFPB’s proposal would implement TILA counseling requirements for first-time borrowers taking out certain mortgage loans that permit negative amortization. The proposal would also implement an amendment to RESPA to generally require that a list of housing counselors or counseling organizations be provided to all mortgage applicants.

The public can weigh in on the CFPB’s proposal here. The public will have 60 days, until Sept. 7, 2012, to review and provide comments on most of this proposal. The CFPB will review and analyze the comments before issuing final rules in January 2013.

Source: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/

CFPB Cycle of Boom and Bust in Private Student Loan Market!

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and U.S. Department of Education Joint Report Finds a Cycle of Boom and Bust in Private Student Loan Market

Study Finds Risky Practices and Loose Underwriting Result in More Borrowers, More Debt

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the U.S. Department of Education released a report that describes the risky practices and debt that stemmed from the boom and bust of the private student loan market in the past ten years. According to the CFPB’s estimates, outstanding student loan debt in the United States topped $1 trillion in 2011 — $864 billion of federal student debt and approximately $150 billion of private student loan debt.

“Our findings reveal that students were yet another group of consumers that were hurt by the boom and bust of the financial crisis,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Too many student loan borrowers are struggling to pay off private student loans that they did not understand and cannot afford. Moving forward, we must do our best to leave the next generation in a better place than we are today, rather than buried under a mountain of debt.”

“Subprime-style lending went to college and now students are paying the price,” said U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan. “We still have some work to do to ensure that students who take out private student loans have the same kinds of protections offered by federal loans. In the meantime, if you have to take out a loan to pay for college, federal student aid should be your first option.”

Private student loans were originally designed to supplement federal student loans, and still serve that role in most cases, but there were significant changes in lending in the years leading up to the financial crisis. Funded in large part by the asset-backed securities market, many lenders made money by originating and then selling private student loans with less regard for borrowers’ creditworthiness. The market grew from less than $5 billion in 2001 to over $20 billion in 2008, and then rapidly contracted to less than $6 billion in 2011. After the financial crisis, underwriting standards tightened as investors pulled out of the market.

In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street and Consumer Protection Act, Congress mandated that the CFPB and the U.S. Department of Education conduct a detailed study to determine where there might be consumer protection gaps in the private student loan market. For this report, the CFPB received loan data from nine lenders on over five million loans made between 2005 and 2011, as well as data from five nonprofit lenders.

Three major findings of the joint report are:

• Private student loans are riskier: Used appropriately, private student loans have a role to play in financing higher education. However, compared to federal student loans, private student loans often lack repayment flexibility and other protections when borrowers are struggling to make ends meet. Most private loans have few options for payment modification or forbearance. Federal loans have a fixed interest rate and most private loans have variable rates, making estimates about future debt payments difficult. Prior to 2010, federal law did not require a disclosure showing the actual interest rate on a borrower’s loan until after the lender documented the loan, approved the credit, and readied the check for mailing.
• Lax underwriting practices rise during boom: Some lenders bypassed school financial aid offices and marketed loans directly to students. As a result, in many cases, the school could not review the borrower’s financial need, compare it to the loan amount, or even verify that the borrower was enrolled. Many lenders also lowered the minimum credit score required to receive a private student loan so that they could originate and then sell off more loans. Many students did not understand the differences and features between federal and private loans. They ended up using riskier private loans before exhausting their safer federal options.
• Borrowers are trapped after bust: Defaults on private student loans have increased since the financial crisis. Based on the CFPB’s sample, there are now over $8.1 billion in defaulted private loans, representing more than 850,000 distinct loans. Congress amended the bankruptcy code in 2005 to make it tougher to discharge private student loans. There is little to no evidence that there was an improvement in price and it is unclear that there was an increase in access to credit as a result of these changes. Borrowers reported their lenders were unable or unwilling to modify or adjust repayment terms.

Since 2008, lending standards in the private student loan market have tightened. Lenders are not able to easily sell off the student loans they originate, so they have more “skin in the game” when it comes to the borrower’s ability to repay. In 2011, 90 percent of private student loans had a creditworthy co-signer, compared to only 67 percent in 2008. The credit scores of those obtaining student loans in the past few years have risen. More than 90 percent of loans are now reviewed by a school financial aid office to make sure that loan amounts match financial need.

As part of the study, the CFPB and Department of Education each offered common-sense recommendations to reform the private student loan market to ensure that the bad practices of the past are not repeated. They recommended that lenders and school financial aid counselors work together in everyone’s best interest. Borrowers should have the information they need to have a full picture of their debt obligations, and lenders need to maintain careful underwriting standards. They also articulated the need to take a second look at how borrowers might be able to restructure their debt in the bankruptcy process.

The CFPB launched a tool to help borrowers once they have missed monthly payments on their private or federal student loans. TheStudent Loan Debt Collection Assistant is designed to help these borrowers understand their options, communicate effectively with their servicer or debt collector, and bring their loan out of default. Because student loans are not generally dischargeable in bankruptcy, and because federal student loans have specific consumer protections guaranteed by law, it is very important for borrowers to understand their rights and responsibilities.


Source: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/

Private business sector: indexes of productivity and related measures, 1987-2011!

Private business sector: indexes of productivity and related measures, 1987-2011(1)


Indexes 2005=100

                                                       Combined          
               Output                                  units of          
       Output  per                                     labor in-             
       per     unit of Multi-                          put and   Capital     
       hour    capital factor                  Capital capital   services    
       of all  servic- Product-        Labor   Servic- servic-   per hour of 
Year   persons es      ivity2  Output3 Input4  es5     es6       all persons 


1987    65.4    109.3   81.4    54.2    76.4    49.6    66.6      59.9
1988    66.4    109.9   82.1    56.5    78.9    51.4    68.9      60.5
1989    67.1    109.7   82.3    58.6    81.5    53.5    71.3      61.2


1990    68.6    108.1   82.8    59.5    81.4    55.1    71.9      63.5
1991    69.7    104.4   82.0    59.1    80.5    56.6    72.0      66.8
1992    72.6    106.3   84.1    61.4    81.4    57.8    73.0      68.3
1993    73.1    106.5   84.3    63.4    83.9    59.6    75.3      68.6
1994    73.8    108.0   84.9    66.6    87.7    61.7    78.4      68.3


1995    73.8    106.5   84.6    68.5    90.0    64.3    80.9      69.3
1996    76.0    106.6   86.1    71.7    91.8    67.2    83.2      71.3
1997    77.3    106.5   86.8    75.4    95.4    70.8    86.9      72.6
1998    79.6    105.3   88.0    79.2    97.6    75.2    89.9      75.6
1999    82.4    104.3   89.7    83.6    99.9    80.2    93.3      79.0


2000    85.3    102.6   91.2    87.4   101.1    85.3    95.9      83.2
2001    88.0     98.9   91.9    88.3    99.3    89.2    96.0      89.0
2002    92.1     97.8   94.1    90.0    97.4    92.1    95.6      94.2
2003    95.7     98.4   96.7    92.9    97.0    94.4    96.1      97.3
2004    98.4     99.8   99.0    96.7    98.1    96.9    97.7      98.6


2005   100.0    100.0  100.0   100.0   100.0   100.0   100.0     100.0
2006   101.0    100.0  100.5   103.1   102.4   103.1   102.6     101.0
2007   102.6     99.3  100.8   105.2   103.6   106.0   104.4     103.2
2008   103.3     95.7   99.6   103.8   102.1   108.5   104.3     108.0
2009   106.0     90.5   98.8    98.9    95.5   109.2   100.1     117.1


2010   110.3     93.7  102.2   102.8    96.0   109.7   100.6     117.8
2011   110.8 94.0  102.5   105.0 97.9   111.7   102.5     117.8

http://www.bls.gov/

FOREIGN-BORN WORKERS: LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS -- 2011!

The unemployment rate for the foreign born was 9.1 percent in 2011, down from 9.8
percent in 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The jobless
rate of the native born was 8.9 percent in 2011, compared with 9.6 percent in the
prior year. The foreign born made up 15.9 percent of the labor force.

Data on nativity are collected as part of the Current Population Survey (CPS), a
monthly sample survey of approximately 60,000 households. The foreign born are
persons who reside in the United States but who were born outside the country or
one of its outlying areas to parents who were not U.S. citizens. The foreign born
include legally-admitted immigrants, refugees, temporary residents such as students
and temporary workers, and undocumented immigrants. The survey data, however, do
not separately identify the numbers of persons in these categories. For further
information about the survey, see the Technical Note.

Highlights from the 2011 data:

  -- In 2011, there were 24.4 million foreign-born persons in the U.S. labor
     force, comprising 15.9 percent of the total. (See table 1.)

  -- Hispanics accounted for 49.0 percent of the foreign-born labor force in
     2011. Asians accounted for 22.3 percent. (See table 1.) (Data in this news
     release for persons who are white, black, or Asian do not include those
     of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Data on persons of Hispanic or Latino
     ethnicity are presented separately.)

  -- Foreign-born workers were more likely than native-born workers to be
     employed in service occupations; production, transportation, and
     material moving occupations; and natural resources, construction, and
     maintenance occupations. (See table 4.)

  -- The median usual weekly earnings of foreign-born full-time wage and
     salary workers were $609 in 2011, compared with $780 for their native-
     born counterparts. (See table 5.) (Differences in earnings reflect a
     variety of factors, including variations in the distributions of foreign-
     born and native-born workers by educational attainment, occupation,
     industry, and geographic region.)

Demographic Characteristics

The demographic characteristics of the foreign-born labor force differ from those of
the native-born labor force. In 2011, men accounted for 59.0 percent of the foreign-
born labor force, compared with 52.3 percent of the native-born labor force. By age,
the proportion of the foreign-born labor force made up of 25- to 54-year-olds (75.4
percent) was higher than for their native-born counterparts (64.5 percent). Labor
force participation is typically highest among persons in that age bracket. (See
table 1.)

In 2011, nearly half (49.0 percent) of the foreign-born labor force was Hispanic, and
22.3 percent was Asian, compared with 8.5 and 1.4 percent, respectively, of the native-
born labor force. About 19 percent of the foreign-born labor force was white and 8.8
percent was black, compared with 76.4 and 11.6 percent, respectively, of the native-
born labor force.

In 2011, 25.5 percent of the foreign-born labor force 25 years old and over had not
completed high school, compared with 5.3 percent of the native-born labor force.
The foreign born were less likely than the native born to have some college or an
associate degree--17.5 versus 29.9 percent. Similar proportions of foreign-born and
native-born persons in the labor force had a bachelor's degree or higher (31.7 and
36.1 percent, respectively).

Labor Force

The share of the U.S. civilian labor force that was foreign born was 15.9 percent in
2011, little different from 15.8 percent in 2010. (See table 1.)

In 2011, the labor force participation rate of the foreign born was 67.0 percent. The
labor force participation rate of the native born was 63.6 percent. The labor force
participation rate of foreign-born men was 79.5 percent in 2011, compared with 68.8
percent for native-born men. Among women, 54.6 percent of the foreign born were labor
force participants, compared with 58.7 percent of the native born.

Among the foreign born, the labor force participation rate for blacks was 71.2 percent
in 2011, little different from the participation rate for Hispanics (69.8 percent). The
participation rate for whites was 60.2 percent, while that for Asians was 65.6 percent.
Among the native born, the labor force participation rate for whites was 64.3 percent,
followed by Hispanics (63.2 percent), Asians (61.5 percent), and blacks (60.1 percent).

In 2011, foreign-born mothers with children under 18 years old were less likely to be
labor force participants than were native-born mothers--59.8 versus 73.2 percent. Labor
force participation differences between foreign-born and native-born mothers were
greater among those with younger children than among those with older children. The
labor force participation rate of foreign-born mothers with children under age 6 was
50.5 percent in 2011, much lower than that for native-born mothers with children under
age 6, at 67.3 percent. Among women with children under age 3, the participation rate
for the foreign born (45.2 percent) was nearly 20 percentage points below that for
native-born mothers (64.3 percent). The labor force participation rates of foreign- and
native-born fathers with children under age 18 were similar, at 93.8 and 93.1 percent,
respectively. (See table 2.)

By region, the foreign born made up a larger share of the labor force in the West
(24.0 percent) and in the Northeast (18.5 percent) than for the nation as a whole
(15.9 percent) in 2011. In contrast, the foreign born made up a smaller share of the
labor force than for the nation as a whole in the South (14.2 percent) and Midwest
(8.0 percent). (See table 6.)

Unemployment

From 2010 to 2011, the unemployment rates of the foreign born and the native born each
declined by 0.7 percentage point, to 9.1 percent and 8.9 percent, respectively. Overall,
the unemployment rates of the foreign born in younger age groups (ages 16 to 34) tend
to be lower than the jobless rates for the native born, while for older workers (ages 35
and up), unemployment rates of the foreign born tend to be higher than for the native
born. (See table 1.)

In 2011, the unemployment rate for foreign-born men was 8.8 percent, compared with 9.5
percent for native-born men. Among women, however, the jobless rate for the foreign born
was higher than for the native born, 9.5 versus 8.3 percent.

Among the major race and ethnicity groups, blacks had the highest unemployment rate in
2011, regardless of whether they were foreign born or native born. Among the foreign
born, blacks had an unemployment rate of 12.5 percent in 2011, compared with 6.7 percent
for Asians, 7.6 percent for whites, and 10.1 percent for Hispanics. Among the native
born, the jobless rate of blacks (16.3 percent) was higher than the rate for whites (7.2
percent), Asians (8.2 percent), and Hispanics (13.0 percent).

Occupation

In 2011, foreign-born workers were more likely than native-born workers to be employed
in service occupations (24.6 versus 16.4 percent). Within service occupations, about
two-thirds of the foreign born were employed in food preparation and serving related
occupations and in building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations (combined),
whereas about one-half of the native-born service workers were employed in the same
occupations. Foreign-born workers also were more likely than native-born workers to be
employed in production, transportation, and material moving occupations (15.8 versus
11.0 percent) and in natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations (13.5
versus 8.5 percent). (See table 4.)

Native-born workers were more likely than foreign-born workers to be employed in
management, professional, and related occupations (39.3 versus 28.6 percent) and in
sales and office occupations (24.8 versus 17.5 percent).

Employed foreign-born men were more likely than their native-born counterparts to work
in natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations; service occupations;
and production, transportation, and material moving occupations. Compared with native-
born women workers, employed foreign-born women were more likely to be in service
occupations and in production, transportation, and material moving occupations. The
disparity was especially great in service occupations. In 2011, 32.2 percent of
foreign-born women workers were in service occupations, compared with 19.4 percent of
native-born women workers. Employed native-born women were more likely than employed
foreign-born women to be in sales and office occupations, 32.6 versus 24.5 percent.

Earnings

In 2011, the median usual weekly earnings of foreign-born, full-time wage and salary
workers ($609) were 78.0 percent of the earnings of their native-born counterparts
($780). Among men, median earnings for the foreign born were $624 per week, while the
native born earned $879 per week. The median usual weekly earnings for foreign-born
women were $585, compared with $701 for native-born women. Differences in earnings
reflect a variety of factors, including variations in the distributions of foreign-
born and native-born workers by educational attainment, occupation, industry, and
geographic region. (See table 5.)

Hispanic foreign-born full-time wage and salary workers earned 77.0 percent as much
as their native-born counterparts in 2011. For white, black, and Asian workers,
earnings were similar for the foreign born and the native born.

The earnings of both foreign-born and native-born workers increase with education.
In 2011, foreign-born workers age 25 and over with less than a high school education
earned $417 per week, while those with a bachelor’s degree and higher earned about
2.8 times as much--$1,148 per week. Among the native born, those with a bachelor’s
degree and higher earned about 2.3 times as much as those with less than a high school
education--$1,151 versus $497 per week.

Native-born workers earn more than the foreign born at most educational attainment
levels. The gap between the earnings of foreign-born and native-born workers narrows
with higher levels of education. For example, among those with less than a high school
diploma in 2011, full-time workers who were foreign born earned 83.9 percent as much
as their native-born counterparts. Among those with a bachelor’s degree and higher,
foreign-born workers earned essentially as much (99.8 percent) as native-born workers.

Source: http://www.bls.gov/

Job Openings and Labor Turnover – May 2012!

There were 3.6 million job openings on the last business day of May,
little changed from 3.4 million in April, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. The hires rate (3.3 percent) and
separations rate (3.3 percent) were essentially unchanged in May. This
release includes estimates of the number and rate of job openings,
hires, and separations for the nonfarm sector by industry and by
geographic region.

Job Openings


The number of job openings in May was 3.6 million, little changed from
April. (See table 1.) Job openings increased for manufacturing,
government, and state and local government. The number of openings
also increased for the Midwest region. The level of total nonfarm job
openings in May was up from 2.4 million at the end of the recession in
June 2009. (Recession dates are determined by the National Bureau of
Economic Research.)


The number of job openings in May (not seasonally adjusted) increased
over the year for total nonfarm, total private, and government. Job
openings increased over the year for several industries and the
Northeast and South regions. (See table 5.)


Table A.  Job openings, hires, and total separations by industry, seasonally
adjusted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   |    Job openings    |       Hires        | Total separations
                   |--------------------------------------------------------------
     Industry      | May  | Apr. | May  | May  | Apr. | May  | May  | Apr. | May
                   | 2011 | 2012 | 2012p| 2011 | 2012 | 2012p| 2011 | 2012 | 2012p
-------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------
                   |                     Levels (in thousands)
                   |--------------------------------------------------------------
Total..............|3,077 |3,447 |3,642 |4,182 |4,213 |4,361 |4,177 |4,142 |4,349
                   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
Total private(1)..|2,774 |3,093 |3,247 |3,923 |3,916 |4,063 |3,867 |3,838 |4,020
  Construction.....|  100 |   69 |   77 |  366 |  276 |  284 |  369 |  290 |  327
  Manufacturing....|  227 |  259 |  310 |  269 |  260 |  258 |  258 |  239 |  241
  Trade, trans-    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   portation, and  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   utilities(2)....|  513 |  562 |  594 |  833 |  826 |  857 |  793 |  817 |  790
   Retail trade....|  303 |  338 |  348 |  564 |  556 |  552 |  548 |  560 |  539
  Professional     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   and business    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   services........|  626 |  660 |  688 |  911 |  888 |  925 |  894 |  855 |  961
  Education and    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   health ser-     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   vices(3)........|  575 |  665 |  699 |  468 |  495 |  536 |  438 |  470 |  479
   Health care     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    and social     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    assistance.....|  527 |  610 |  640 |  412 |  427 |  462 |  372 |  408 |  416
  Leisure and      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   hospitality.....|  301 |  419 |  429 |  643 |  717 |  727 |  688 |  710 |  732
   Arts, enter-    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    tainment and   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    recreation.....|   33 |   61 |   56 |  120 |  123 |  113 |  151 |  133 |  139
   Accommodation   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    and food       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    services.......|  268 |  358 |  373 |  523 |  594 |  614 |  538 |  577 |  594
Government(4).....|  303 |  354 |  395 |  258 |  297 |  298 |  310 |  304 |  329
  State and local  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   government......|  257 |  282 |  333 |  228 |  263 |  261 |  281 |  271 |  297
                   |--------------------------------------------------------------
                   |                       Rates (percent)
                   |--------------------------------------------------------------
Total..............|  2.3 |  2.5 |  2.7 |  3.2 |  3.2 |  3.3 |  3.2 |  3.1 |  3.3
                   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
Total private(1)..|  2.5 |  2.7 |  2.8 |  3.6 |  3.5 |  3.7 |  3.5 |  3.5 |  3.6
  Construction.....|  1.8 |  1.2 |  1.4 |  6.7 |  5.0 |  5.2 |  6.7 |  5.2 |  5.9
  Manufacturing....|  1.9 |  2.1 |  2.5 |  2.3 |  2.2 |  2.2 |  2.2 |  2.0 |  2.0
  Trade, trans-    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   portation, and  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   utilities(2)....|  2.0 |  2.2 |  2.3 |  3.3 |  3.3 |  3.4 |  3.2 |  3.2 |  3.1
   Retail trade....|  2.0 |  2.2 |  2.3 |  3.9 |  3.8 |  3.7 |  3.8 |  3.8 |  3.7
  Professional     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   and business    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   services........|  3.5 |  3.6 |  3.7 |  5.3 |  5.0 |  5.2 |  5.2 |  4.8 |  5.4
  Education and    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   health ser-     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   vices(3)........|. 2.8 |  3.2 |  3.3 |  2.4 |  2.4 |  2.6 |  2.2 |  2.3 |  2.4
   Health care     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    and social     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    assistance.....|. 3.1 |  3.5 |  3.6 |  2.5 |  2.5 |  2.7 |  2.2 |  2.4 |  2.5
  Leisure and      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   hospitality.....|  2.2 |  3.0 |  3.1 |  4.8 |  5.3 |  5.4 |  5.2 |  5.2 |  5.4
   Arts, enter-    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    tainment and   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    recreation.....|  1.7 |  3.1 |  2.8 |  6.3 |  6.4 |  5.9 |  7.9 |  6.9 |  7.3
   Accommodation   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    and food       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    services.......|  2.3 |  3.0 |  3.1 |  4.6 |  5.1 |  5.3 |  4.7 |  4.9 |  5.1
Government(4).....|  1.4 |  1.6 |  1.8 |  1.2 |  1.3 |  1.4 |  1.4 |  1.4 |  1.5
  State and local  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
   government......|  1.3 |  1.5 |  1.7 |  1.2 |  1.4 |  1.4 |  1.5 |  1.4 |  1.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1 Includes mining and logging, information, financial activities, and
other services, not shown separately.
  2 Includes wholesale trade and transportation, warehousing, and utilities, not
shown separately.
  3 Includes educational services, not shown separately.
  4 Includes federal government, not shown separately.
  p = Preliminary


Hires


In May, the hires rate was essentially unchanged at 3.3 percent for
total nonfarm. The hires rate was little changed in all industries and
regions. (See table 2.) The number of hires in May was 4.4 million, up
from 3.7 million at the end of the recession in June 2009.


Over the 12 months ending in May, the hires rate (not seasonally
adjusted) was little changed for total nonfarm and total private but
increased for government. The hires rate declined over the year in
construction but rose in transportation, warehousing, and utilities
and federal government. (See table 6.)


Separations


The total separations figure includes quits, layoffs and discharges,
and other separations. Total separations is also referred to as
turnover. Quits are generally voluntary separations initiated by the
employee. Therefore, the quits rate can serve as a measure of workers’
willingness or ability to leave jobs. Layoffs and discharges are
involuntary separations initiated by the employer. Other separations
include separations due to retirement, death, and disability, as well
as transfers to other locations of the same firm.


The seasonally adjusted total separations rate was essentially
unchanged for total nonfarm, total private, and government in May.
(See table 3.) Over the year, the total separations rate (not
seasonally adjusted) was essentially unchanged for total nonfarm,
total private, and government. (See table 7.)


In May, the quits rate displayed little or no change for total
nonfarm, total private, and government. (See table 4.) The number of
quits was 2.1 million in May, up from 1.8 million at the end of the
recession in June 2009.


The number of quits (not seasonally adjusted) in May was essentially
unchanged over the year for total nonfarm, total private, and
government. The number of quits increased over the year in several
industries but decreased in retail trade. (See table 8.)


The layoffs and discharges component of total separations is
seasonally adjusted at the total nonfarm, total private, and
government levels and for the four regions. The layoffs and discharges
rate was essentially unchanged for total nonfarm and total private but
increased for government. The layoffs and discharges rate showed
little change in all four regions. (See table B.) The number of
layoffs and discharges for total nonfarm was 1.9 million in May 2012,
down from 2.1 million at the end of the recession in June 2009.


Table B.  Layoffs and discharges, seasonally adjusted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       | Levels (in thousands) |    Rates (percent)
                       |------------------------------------------------
Industry and region(1) |  May  |  Apr. |  May  |  May  |  Apr. |  May
                       |  2011 |  2012 |  2012p|  2011 |  2012 |  2012p
-----------------------|------------------------------------------------
Total..................| 1,843 | 1,743 | 1,885 |  1.4  |  1.3  |  1.4
Total private.........| 1,732 | 1,644 | 1,749 |  1.6  |  1.5  |  1.6
Government............|   111 |    98 |   136 |  0.5  |  0.4  |  0.6
                       |       |       |       |       |       |
                       |       |       |       |       |       |
Northeast.............|   377 |   334 |   354 |  1.5  |  1.3  |  1.4
South.................|   612 |   614 |   662 |  1.3  |  1.3  |  1.4
Midwest...............|   399 |   406 |   459 |  1.3  |  1.3  |  1.5
West..................|   455 |   388 |   410 |  1.6  |  1.3  |  1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1 For region definitions see footnote 8, table 1.
  p = Preliminary


The layoffs and discharges level (not seasonally adjusted) for total
nonfarm, total private, and government was little changed over the 12
months ending in May 2012. Over the year, the number of layoffs and
discharges rose for mining and logging and was essentially unchanged
in all four regions. (See table 9.)


The other separations component of total separations is seasonally
adjusted at the total nonfarm, total private, and government levels.
In May 2012, there were 344,000 other separations for total nonfarm,
an increase from the previous month. Over the 12 months ending in May
2012, the number of other separations was little changed. (See tables
C and 10.)


Table C.  Other separations, seasonally adjusted
--------------------------------------------------------------------
                   | Levels (in thousands) |    Rates (percent)
                   |------------------------------------------------
     Industry      |  May  |  Apr. |  May  |  May  |  Apr. |  May
                   |  2011 |  2012 |  2012p|  2011 |  2012 |  2012p
-------------------|------------------------------------------------
Total..............|   338 |   285 |   344 |  0.3  |  0.2  |  0.3
Total private.....|   261 |   224 |   286 |  0.2  |  0.2  |  0.3
Government........|    77 |    61 |    58 |  0.3  |  0.3  |  0.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------
  p = Preliminary


Net Change in Employment


Large numbers of hires and separations occur every month throughout
the business cycle. Net employment change results from the
relationship between hires and separations. When the number of hires
exceeds the number of separations, employment rises, even if the hires
level is steady or declining. Conversely, when the number of hires is
less than the number of separations, employment declines, even if the
hires level is steady or rising. Over the 12 months ending in May
2012, hires totaled 51.1 million and separations totaled 49.3 million,
yielding a net employment gain of 1.8 million. These figures include
workers who may have been hired and separated more than once during
the year.


Source: http://www.bls.gov/