Bizzy’s AM Coffee Biz-Econ Links (022806)

Free Links:

• The shortage is of objective talent at Reuters — Their report on the latest Manpower Inc. survey of employers starts this way (HT Taranto at Best of the Web; bold is mine):
  

  Employers are having difficulty finding the right people to fill jobs despite high unemployment in Europe and the United States, a survey by U.S.-based staffing firm Manpower showed Tuesday.

  The talent shortage referred to starts at Reuters, which must be having a very tough time finding writers who recognize there is a difference between double-digit near double-digit unemployment in Europe (”high”) and 4.7% enemployment in the US (”low”).

  Update: eLarson in the comments asks a great question about whether unemployment rates between the US and Europe are comparable. Based on the info below, which also inlcludes the unemployment rates in various European countries as of December, I would say the answer is “yes”:

_____________________

_____________________

It appears that the definitions in the U.S. and European are essentially in sync, as both implicitly exclude “discouraged workers” (those who are out of work and not actively looking for work) and both use a 4-week time frame to determine whether someone is “actively” looking for work. Here’s the U.S. definition:

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:
- Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview;
A public or private employment agency;
Friends or relatives;
A school or university employment center;
- Sending out resumes or filling out applications;
- Placing or answering advertisements;
- Checking union or professional registers; or
- Some other means of active job search.

Update 2: Just when I think I have a handle on it — “German unemployment rises to 12.2 per cent.” Unless German unemployment went from 9.5% in December (DE above) to 12.2% in February (doubtful), there must be a difference in the way the EU reports unemployment vs. the way at least one of the governments reports it. Zheesh.

• First, They Came for Wal-Mart — Now the health-care mandate crowd in Maryland is working its way down the ladder, from its biggest employer, Wal-Mart, down to its smallest. This is from OpinionJournal.com’s Politicaly Diary (no link available):
  

  Eurosclerosis Comes to Maryland

  Last month, over Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich’s veto, Maryland Democrats enacted a “fair share” health-care tax on Wal-Mart. Now Delegate James Hubbard is going after the rest of the business community in a quest to give “health coverage to all Marylanders.”

  Four years ago Mr. Hubbard first offered legislation to impose a broad mandate on employers to provide health insurance. It went nowhere, so he turned to salami tactics. The just-enacted Wal-Mart bill was always just a first step. Last week, he introduced the next salami slice — legislation to force companies with more than 1,000 employees to spend at least 4.5% of their payrolls on health care or cut a check to Annapolis for the difference.

  Mr. Hubbard tells us he’s committed to being an “agent of change,” and he’s already sizing up his next target — companies with fewer than 1,000 employees. He wants to mandate that 2% or 3% of their payrolls be spent on health care.

  The Wal-Mart bill, which took aim at employers with 10,000 or more workers, had been pushed by big labor and some of the state’s biggest retailers, including supermarket chains, seeking to hobble a competitor. But the state Chamber of Commerce opposed the law. Now its warning about letting the camel’s nose under the tent has been vindicated. Mr. Hubbard’s latest health-care mandate bill “is the rest of the camel,” said chamber spokesman Ronald Wineholt.

  Whether the partially business-funded coalition for higher health spending will hold together now that Wal-Mart has been whacked will be worth watching. Though styled as health benefits, Mr. Hubbard’s plans are a direct tax on employment, which can only have a negative effect on job creation. Euro-stagnation anyone?

  The “business funders” should be second-guessing themselves about sticking it to Wal-Mart right about now.

  Update: Brendan Miniter has more at today’s OpinionJournal.com, especially how perverse federal incentives encourage states to expand the Medicaid rolls so that they will get — you guessed it — more federal dollars.