Now thats Socialism!!!

The List: The Best Places to Lose Your Job

By Annie Lowrey

 

Posted March 2009 

SOURCE: http://www.foreignpolicy.com

As many as 50 million people could be out of work by the end of 2009. But the unemployed in some countries definitely have it better than others.

Ralph Orlowski/Getty Images

SCANDINAVIA

Benefits: 80 to 90 percent of prior income

For how long? 10 months to four years

Life on the dole: Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. They’re cold. They’re dark. And they’re the best places on Earth to be sacked. On virtually every metric, these countries outspend and outdo all others in supporting the involuntarily unemployed. Denmark -- home to the most generous entitlement in the world -- offers up to 90 percent of prior earnings for up to 48 months. Average-income workers in Finland take home about 85 percent for up to 500 days, a little over 17 months. Comparatively stingy Sweden provides about 80 percent of earnings for about 10 months.

All of the Scandinavian countries require registration with public offices that connect job seekers with employers and retrain workers into high-demand industries. Denmark, for instance, staffs 190 such offices. They offer computer training and résumé review, and even help place unemployed workers into temporary positions, filling in for employees who leave for educational sabbaticals and parents on maternity or paternity leave.

---

GERARD CERLES/AFP/Getty Images

BENELUX

Benefits: 60 to 85 percent of prior income

For how long? One year to indefinitely

Life on the dole: Second to Scandinavia come Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. In Luxembourg, a single, unemployed worker gets 80 percent of her income, up to 250 percent of the minimum wage -- currently more than €1,300 ($1,690) a month. The Netherlands shells out up to €168 ($218) a day and provides Dutch-as-a-second-language programs and short-term work placements for the unemployed. Belgium offers 60 percent of salary for an indefinite amount of time -- distributed by separate Flemish and French offices, naturally. The country also offers cash and retraining to recent university graduates having trouble finding work in the declining job market.

The government of Luxembourg, however, has recently grown fed up with wastrel youths applying for unemployment benefits while still living with their parents. Anyone applying for social benefits now has to take minimum-wage government jobs or attend subsidized vocational training instead.

---

FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images

SWITZERLAND

Benefits: 70 to 80 percent of prior income

For how long? 400 to 520 days

Life on the dole: The Swiss government metes out generous weekly checks from unemployment pools to avoid anyone taking a lump sum and fleeing the country (depositing in a Swiss bank account, perhaps?). In 1997, the country began requiring districts to fund job-retraining courses and offices to aid job seekers. Those who miss their classes can forfeit up to a month’s unemployment benefits.

And it isn’t just the unemployed who benefit from the Swiss state’s generosity. If you find a job that pays less than two thirds of your prior salary, the government will subsidize your wages. Despite the generosity of its benefits, the country maintains a low rate of unemployed and underemployed workers. Switzerland also does one of the world’s best jobs at keeping tabs on its social assistance figures and programs. Kept like clockwork since 1948, all stats are online.

---

CYRIL FOLLIOT/AFP/Getty Images

FRANCE

Benefits: 57 to 75 percent of prior income

For how long? Up to three years

Life on the dole: If you’re fired in France, expect a weekly benefit check if you were a salaried employee who worked six months out of the past 22. The country scales its payouts depending on how long the worker paid into a national unemployment insurance fund; checks average €1,100 ($1,430) a month. Minimum-wage workers receive 75 percent of their last paycheck; higher-income workers receive about 57 percent. France is also one of the toughest countries on Earth to get laid off in. The country requires companies to justify themselves to unions or trade commissions when they feel the need to fire workers to cut costs.

Unfortunately, because the French workforce is so cushy, it can be a very tough club to join. France has astronomically high rates of unemployment among youths -- up to 40 percent in some areas -- who’ve never held jobs and therefore do not qualify for benefits. This génération stagiaire, or “work-experience generation,” of 20-somethings who accept short-term and unpaid work experiences to remain active has taken to the streets in protest in past years.

---

TORU YAMANAKA/AFP/Getty Images

JAPAN

Benefits: 50 to 80 percent of prior income

For how long? Six months to a year

Life on the dole: The country’s unemployment benefits calculation works like a Rube Goldberg machine, involving length of employment, age of the worker, non-bonus pretax income, and a number of other data points. If a worker can muddle through the paperwork, though, he may receive between 50 and 80 percent of salary, for up to six months. Workers are supported even longer if their industry is deemed to be in decline.

Japan also offers other perks, such as retraining and unemployment health insurance. The Ministry of Labor’s employment bureau, called -- really -- “Hello Work,” has bolstered these benefits since the financial crisis took hold. It now subsidizes public housing for the laid-off, many of whom had been receiving housing as part of their compensation. It has also shortened the minimum time a worker needs to pay into the system to become eligible. Still, Japan’s safety net has a huge hole. It excludes most temporary and short-contract workers, who now make up more than 30 percent of the workforce. They’re completely out of luck.

Annie Lowrey is an assistant editor at FP.

  

The List: The World’s Biggest Bailouts (before The Bailout)

The List: The World’s Biggest Bailouts

SOURCE: http://www.foreignpolicy.com

 

Posted September 2008 

Lehman Brothers is no more. But before letting it fail, the United States rescued Bear Stearns and saved Fannie and Freddie. So what are the biggest bailouts of all time? In this List, FP looks at five of the biggest—and whether they were worth the cost.

LUKE FRAZZA/AFP/Getty Images

The U.S. Savings and Loan Crisis

Bailout date: August 1989

Amount: Estimates vary widely, but $200 billion (in 2008 dollars) is a reasonable figure.

What happened: The “S&L” debacle of the late ’80s and early ’90s was long in the making and long in the unwinding. U.S. taxpayers were first put on the hook when then President George H.W. Bush (right) signed the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, which radically reformed the savings and loan industry and federal regulations. When the dust finally settled in 1995, more than 1,000 small lending institutions known as “savings and loans,” also called “thrifts,” had failed. Half of the federally insured thrift institutions in the United States had gone under in less than a decade, and the associated slowdown in new home construction and the financial fallout contributed to the 1990-1991 recession. The underlying causes of the S&L crisis are complex and disputed, but most scholars generally agree that high, volatile interest rates, reckless lending practices, rapid deregulation, and lax oversight paved the way for the greatest banking disaster since the Great Depression.

---

PAUL VICENTE/AFP/Getty Images

South Korea

Bailout date: December 1997

Amount: $78 billion (in 2008 dollars)

What happened: Two words: Asian crisis. Beset by a collapsing currency and bankruptcies galore, South Korea turned to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help, and the World Bank, the United States, Japan, and 11 other countries pitched in funds as well. In exchange, the Korean government had to stomach tough conditions, including higher interest rates and reforms intended to open the country’s closed economy and crack down on cozy relationships between banks and large, opaque conglomerates called chaebols. The economic crisis brought to power opposition leader Kim Dae Jung (left), a reformer credited by many for pulling South Korea back from the brink of disaster. Today, South Korea’s economy faces challenges of a different sort—principally rising inflation and an aging population—though The Economist forecasts 4.2 percent growth for 2009.

---

AGUS LOLONG/AFP/Getty Images

Indonesia

Bailout date: January 1998 – April 1999

Cost: between $58 billion and $64.7 billion (in 2008 dollars)

What happened: Rocked by the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, Indonesia was home to one of the IMF’s biggest bailouts. The country’s rupiah currency had been dropping steadily since August 1997, with inflation soaring to nearly 80 percent. On top of the ensuing capital flight, protests and political turmoil paralyzed the capital of Jakarta under President Suharto (shown at right with then IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus), in power since 1968. At first, the IMF money was contingent on Suharto’s ending his penchant for cronyism, but that stipulation was dropped shortly after the president defiantly named family members and associates to his government. After the bailout, Indonesia’s economic woes continued for several years and resentment grew toward the IMF policies of the 1990s, which some felt compromised the country’s economic sovereignty. Macroeconomic conditions eventually improved, aided by the resolution of the East Timor crisis. Ironically, the 2004 tsunami also helped, bringing the country close to settling a dispute in the separatist Aceh region. In 2006 and 2007, the U.S. CIA called the country’s stock market one of the three best performers in the world.

---

EVARISTO SA/AFP/Getty Images

Brazil

Bailout dates: November 1998, August 2001, and August 2002

Cost: $56.7 billion, $16.3 billion, and $36.7 billion (respectively, in 2008 dollars)

What happened: Brazil’s first bailout in 1998 came on the heels of financial crises in Asia and Russia that had prompted panic among investors in Latin America. This time, the IMF and a host of other lenders vowed to head off the crisis before it struck. Brazil, South America’s largest economy, was offered a healthy package of aid to stabilize the region. In return, Brazil was asked to cut spending and raise taxes to prevent a budget shortfall. Brazil’s legislature rejected the conditions, but the loans went forward anyway. Lenders intervened again in the name of stability in 2001, as Brazil’s currency, the real, had devalued 20 percent between January and August and public debt was growing. Elections in 2002 raised yet more concerns as investors were unsure how leftist candidate Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (above) would handle the crisis. Brazil’s stock market fell further when then U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill demanded proof that another loan would not “go out of the country to Swiss bank accounts.” Furious, Brazil demanded an apology, and soon thereafter, the United States and the IMF offered the country a $30 billion package.

---

FABIAN GREDILLAS/AFP/Getty Images

Argentina

Bailout dates: December 2000 and August 2001

Cost: $50.7 billion and $1.5 billion (respectively, in 2008 dollars)

What happened: Just two years after a dramatic recession that left unemployment at about 16 percent, Argentina’s bailout came at a moment of severe crisis. A projected $6.5 billion budget shortfall in 2001 coincided with another $15 billion due to creditors that year. With Argentine markets tumbling, the government rushed to secure assistance from the IMF, the World Bank, and other lenders. Loans were extended again in 2001, and this time, lenders asked Argentina to slash pensions and government spending while raising taxes. The austere strategy provoked tens of thousands of angry protesters to hit the streets repeatedly. Despite the loans, the economic crisis was far from averted and the country defaulted on $81 billion in bonds in December 2001. Banks and the Argentine peso collapsed, and many middle-class Argentines fled abroad, their savings wiped out. In 2003, the IMF and Argentina agreed that the heavily indebted country would be asked to repay only the interest on its debt, and in March 2005, bondholders swallowed a restructuring of the defaulted debt. Argentina paid off a final $9.5 billion owed to the IMF in 2006, and on Sept. 2, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner promised to repay another $6.7 billion to the Paris Club of international creditors.

Note: One should be careful comparing bailouts of financial systems or national economies with those of individual firms such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Additionally, one could also list such bailouts relative to the size of the economy in question, in which case smaller countries such as the Dominican Republic would rank much higher.

xenophobic populism FOX NEWS

As Economy Slumps, Firms Line Up to Hire Skilled Foreign Workers

IT communications workers complain that H-1B visa workers take jobs away from Americans, but companies say recruiting foreign talent is necessary to remaining competitive in a global economy.

By Hadley Gamble

FOXNews.com

Thursday, March 19, 2009

WASHINGTON -- At a time when high-tech corporations like Microsoft, Cisco and IBM are laying off American workers by the thousands, some of those very same companies will begin applying for the right to hire foreign workers on April 1.

The Washington Alliance of Technology Workers -- the IT arm of the Communications Workers of America -- has expressed outrage that the Homeland Security Department is once again expected to issue 65,000 visas, known as H-1Bs, that allow American firms to hire foreign workers each year.

"In this brutal economic climate, American workers should get first dibs at the jobs out there," says WashTech spokeswoman Priyanka Joshi. "No more workers on H-1B visas should be invited into the country until Americans have had the opportunity to fill those jobs."

But companies have traditionally argued that recruiting foreign talent is necessary to remaining competitive in a global economy.

"It's not just a zero-sum game in terms of employment," said longtime immigration attorney Daryl Buffenstein. "When companies start new projects, sometimes they need to bring in someone with a particular skill set, and what people often forget is that many of the people here on H-1B visas become engines of economic growth."

With the number of visas available capped at 65,000 each year, the demand for H-1B visas over the past two years has exceeded supply. Analysts expect this year to be no exception despite a global recession, which tends to reduce migration.

"My impression is that the number of petitions is certainly down from last year," Buffenstein said. "But I don't think that it will be as low as some people are predicting."

Microsoft Corporation led U.S. companies receiving H-1B visas last year with a total of 1,037. Microsoft's announcement in January that the company would shed up to 3,000 jobs over the next 18 months does not seem to be putting a damper on its  search for foreign talent.

In an e-mail, Microsoft said it will continue to seek the most highly skilled technical expertise in the U.S. and abroad. A company spokesman said the option to hire foreign workers is necessary to protecting and increasing Microsoft's ability to continue providing U.S. workers with jobs.

The argument for recruiting talent abroad -- that the foreign worker possesses skill that uniquely qualify them to fill necessary jobs -- may not pass muster as American unemployment figures continue to skyrocket. U.S. employers are eliminating jobs at an alarming rate -- 651,000 positions last month alone. The Labor Department said Thursday that requests for unemployment dropped to 646,000.

Conversely, the U.S. financial sector, for years a major player in the visa process, may have to scale back its foreign worker pool. Under President Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill, financial institutions that received TARP money must give hiring priority to U.S. workers.

"The TARP provisions will have a chill effect on the ability of companies to bring in key personnel," Buffenstein said. "The problem with the whole TARP debate is that it misses the fact that many of those businesses have just a tiny proportion of their workforce here on H-1B visas, in some cases less than 1 percent of their whole workforce. Ninety-nine percent of their employees are U.S. workers. So it's unfortunate that a company would be prohibited from bringing in key personnel."

Already, Bank of America has begun rescinding job offers made to MBA students graduating from U.S. business schools this year. Bank of America was granted just 32 H-1B visas last year. The bank is now projecting some 35,000 lay offs over the next three years.

"Here at Dartmouth we are partially subsidizing -- through private and federal money -- the education of some of the brightest students from around the world," said Dartmouth economics professor Bruce Sacerdote. "It's a slam dunk that we should want to keep those people here in the U.S. once they are educated."

Many economists now wonder if the new restrictions will damage New York's financial sector -- an area that employs thousands of H-1B recipients.

"Restrictions on H-1B visas is simply poor economic policy," said Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, "reflecting xenophobic populism rather than hard-headed analysis."

Recession? What Recession?

Highest paid athletes in the world

1. Tiger Woods: $100 million
2. Oscar De La Hoya: $43 million
3. Phil Mickelson: $42.2 million
4. Kimi Raikkonen: $40 million
5. Michael Schumacher: $36 million
6. David Beckham: $33 million
7. Kobe Bryant: $32.9 million
8. Shaquille O'Neal: $31.9 million
9. Michael Jordan: $31 million
10. Ronaldinho: $31 million
11. Valentino Rossi: $30 million
12. Alex Rodriguez: $29.2 million
13. Roger Federer: $29 million
14. Derek Jeter: $28.3 million
15. LeBron James: $27.3 million
16. Floyd Mayweather: $26.5 million
17. Yao Ming: $26.3 million
18. Vijay Singh: $25.8 million
19. Leonard Davis: $25.4 million
20. Arnold Palmer: $25.0 million
21. Jeff Gordon: $24.5 million
22. Kevin Garnett: $24.3 million
23. Reggie Bush: $23.8 million
24. Allen Iverson: $23.3 million
25. Maria Sharapova: $23 million

Figures include endorsements and bonuses
For the period ending October 2007
Source: Forbes magazine

Commentary: Obama a leader who actually leads

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

Editor's note: Jack Cafferty is the author of a new book, "Now or Never: Getting Down to the Business of Saving Our American Dream," to be published in March. He provides commentary on CNN's "The Situation Room" daily from 4 to 7 p.m. ET. You can also visit Jack's Cafferty File blog.

Jack Cafferty says Obama is getting things done even though he's made some mistakes.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- What a welcome change to feel like someone is running the country instead of running it into the ground.

President Obama has done more in eight weeks than George W. Bush did in eight years -- unless you include starting a couple of wars.

While the armchair quarterbacks second guess the new president, he gets up every day and does things, lots of things.

Whether it's creating commissions for women and girls, ordering the investigation of President Bush's use of signing statements, or jamming a huge stimulus package through Congress, the man is working his tail off. And he seems to be loving every minute of it. It's almost as though our president was born to do exactly what he's doing. He's leading, and boy, is that refreshing.

I remember many times when Bush was in office wondering who the hell was running the country. Then he would appear somewhere in front of a handpicked audience to utter some banalities or say something utterly stupid and I would be reminded. I don't miss him.

That's not to say President Obama hasn't stubbed his toe here and there. Signing that omnibus spending bill with all those earmarks in it after campaigning so hard against pork was probably a mistake. The opportunity was right there to send that bill back to Congress with a note that read, "I told you I am against earmarks and I meant it. Now do it over and send me something clean." Nancy Pelosi's head would have probably exploded, but the American people would have been ready to crown him king.

There are serious questions about whether Tim Geithner has what it takes to solve the banking crisis. Either nationalize the big ones in trouble or let them fail. It doesn't seem that just continuing to hand them money is working.

Better background checks on some of his appointees would have saved him some embarrassment. There's no excuse for asking someone like Tom Daschle with his problems to do anything.

But the point, I guess, is this: President Obama is attacking our country's problems on several fronts. He's got ambitious ideas on how to solve them, and he communicates a sense of calm and confidence to the rest of us as he goes about his business. Will all his ideas work? Of course not. But if you throw enough stuff at the wall, some of it will stick.

And at least I don't go to bed at night worried that I'll wake up in the morning to find out we're about to invade someone.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jack Cafferty.