Bullish Jobs Prediction: Bank Of America Says Employment Will Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels By Year’s End

Daily Life in New York City Around The One-year Anniversary of The COVID-19 Shut Down

Following blockbuster data showing the U.S. added 917,000 jobs in March, analysts from Bank of America said they expect jobs to return to pre-pandemic levels by the end of the year if that pace of improvement continues.

It’s a much more aggressive prediction than other experts, including the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department, have taken so far this year.

Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell has said that while he’s optimistic that hiring will pick up in the coming months, it’s “not at all likely” the U.S. will reach maximum employment this year.

In a hearing before Congress last month, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said she believes the economy may return to full employment next year.

Bank of America’s analysts said they expect “considerably more job creation” in the leisure and hospitality sectors—two areas hit hardest by the pandemic—in the months ahead as the U.S. economy reopens.

The growth Bank of America is predicting also comes with a risk, the analysts said: jobs could continue to accelerate beyond pre-pandemic levels right as trillions of dollars in stimulus spending kick in and the economy reopens in earnest.

.

Employment Lawyer Alex Lucifero answers questions about Employee Rights When Businesses Reopen during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada. Can my employer discipline or fire me if I don’t feel safe returning to work when the business reopens? Can my employer recall me from work and put me in a different job, or give me different responsibilities? Can my employer recall younger employees before older employees, in an effort to protect the latter from COVID-19? Lucifero, an Ottawa employment lawyer and partner at Samfiru Tumarkin LLP, joined Annette Goerner on CTV Ottawa Morning Live, where he answered those questions and more.

.

.

All those factors could lead to dangerous overheating and inflation, which could destabilize an already fragile economic recovery and rattle investors.

Crucial Quote

“We saw the economy gain traction in March as the American Rescue Plan moved and got passed, bringing new hope to our country,” President Biden said during prepared remarks on Friday. Biden’s flagship pandemic relief bill authorized another $1.9 trillion in federal stimulus spending.

Big Number

9.7 million. That’s how many people are now unemployed across the country, according to the Labor Department, down from 22 million at the onset of the crisis last spring.

Key Background

Biden unveiled his next legislative effort, the $2+ trillion American Jobs Plan, earlier this week. That plan is designed to revitalize American infrastructure and manufacturing and  jumpstart the transition to clean energy and industry. The Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce estimated that the plan would create or save 15 million jobs over a decade and that three-quarters of the infrastructure jobs it creates would be for workers with no more than a high school diploma.

Further Reading

The U.S. Added 916,000 Jobs In March As Labor Market Comes Roaring Back (Forbes)

The Economy Doesn’t Need The Fed’s Easy Monetary Policy To Keep Booming, BofA Says (Forbes)

$1,400 Stimulus Checks Are Already Working As Credit, Debit Spending Surges 45%, BofA Says (Forbes)

Powell And Yellen Praise Aggressive Stimulus Spending, Acknowledge Incomplete Economic Recovery In Congressional Testimony (Forbes)

I’m a breaking news reporter for Forbes focusing on economic policy and capital markets. I completed my master’s degree in business and economic reporting at New York University. Before becoming a journalist, I worked as a paralegal specializing in corporate compliance.

Source: Bullish Jobs Prediction: Bank Of America Says Employment Will Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels By Year’s End.

.

More Contents:

107.5 million private sector workers in pandemic-essential industries in 2019 : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://www.bls.gov – February 22
[…] CHART IMAGECHART DATA Share of private employment in pandemic-essential industries, by recommended vaccination phase, 2019 Select vaccination phase: Private employment in pandemic-essential industries, by recommended vaccination phase, 2019 State Phase 1a Phase 1b Phase 1 […]
N/A
January 2021 LFS Preview: Will Employment Take Another Hit?
http://www.hiringlab.org – February 2
[…] As a result, employment in pandemic-exposed services could take another hit […]
0
Young people with disabilities face “barriers to employment” in pandemic recession | by Nathan Clarke | Jan, 2021
nathanclarke735.medium.com – January 5
Young people with disabilities face “barriers to employment” in pandemic recession Experts fear that the suspension of assisted employment schemes will leave young peopl […]
0
German manufacturing momentum will propel the economic recovery
frontierview.com – December 4, 2020
[…] Bank (ECB), introduced a mammoth stimulus package and further enhanced it in November to support employment in pandemic-affected sectors in 2021 […]
0
The Digital Divide Hits U.S. Immigrant Households Disproportionately during the COVID-19 Pandemic
http://www.migrationpolicy.org – September 3, 2020
[…] Yet despite the fact that many immigrants have increased exposure to COVID-19 due to their employment in pandemic-response occupations, their reduced connectivity and familiarity with digital tools may preven […]
2
Poll: 1 in 5 Hispanic families have lost employment in pandemic | Coronavirus | santafenewmexican.com
One-third of Hispanic parents or primary caregivers in New Mexico has had difficulty paying their rent or mortgage, while nearly half of them have seen their hours or pay cut…

The New Hiring Practices At McKinsey And Goldman Sachs

uncaptioned

Have you ever stopped to think how absurd recruiting is? You meet a company for a total of two hours or at most two days and then you—and the company—basically have to decide if you want to enter a long, committed relationship.

The hiring market is so inefficient that when a firm finds a suitable candidate it’s tempting to extend an offer. Likewise, when a candidate finds an fine job, one for which they may still feel overqualified, they are tempted to sign on the dotted line.

But even when both parties choose to swipe right, the stakes for committing are very high.

The Cost Of Recruiting

Accepting a job is like a legal marriage. You can usually leave at any time, but the associated costs can really add up. Job switching costs for an employee, both in time and money, are high. Firing, for a firm, is equally expensive. There’s the severance cost, the training costs, the cost of the burden placed on existing employees who have to temporarily pick up the slack. And in countries with rigid employee protection regulation, firing costs easily skyrocket.

In a recent Harvard Business Review article on recruiting, the Society for Human Resource Management estimated that firms spend “an average of $4,129 per job in the United States…and many times that amount for managerial roles—and the United States fills a staggering 66 million jobs a year.”

I remember reading a statistic a while back that a recruiter is considered to be really good if ~60% of their hires are successful. That means that a really good recruiter makes a hiring mistake 40% of the time. 40%! Imagine if a doctor made a mistake 40% of the time. Or a pilot made an error 40% of the time. You might find that to be overstated, but hiring bad people can be just as fatal for an organization.

When you’re young, there’s often a taboo around getting a job through a connection. But when you’re old(er), you’re foolish if you try to get a job without a connection. Companies don’t want to risk hiring someone bad; they would much rather hire someone who comes with a reference, a known quantity. But this introduces all sorts of unconscious bias into the process and essentially makes an organization a vehicle for sourcing talent from a small pool of networks.

Many companies try to introduce new hiring practices to address the inherent problems in hiring. Young tech startups, probably with the influence of Google, have introduced a variety of new ways to recruit talent. But I was interested to see the change seep into the psyche of two of the most reputable companies in business: the consulting firm McKinsey and the financial services firm Goldman Sachs.

McKinsey’s Problem Solving Video Game

McKinsey recently introduced a digital assessment gaming tool. The tool is a video game of sorts. It’s 60 minutes long and consists of three separate blocks. Each section simulates a bunch of different scenarios that tests candidates on their way of thinking and decision-making. The assessment explicitly doesn’t test business knowledge. The game was designed to identify “how you think and approach problems regardless of your background.”

In its most basic form, management consulting is the business of problem-solving. Developing a tool that tests candidates on the core of the business while trying to remove cognitive bias is, in my opinion, a great idea. Cognitive psychology has proved that left to our own fallible human devices, we choose to hire people who are most like us, which perpetuates a single-minded culture.

But the test serves another, perhaps unintentional, purpose: it attracts candidates who find this type of assessment appealing. I admit as a consutlant, as soon as I heard about this new simulation, I wanted to apply to McKinsey just so I could take the test. Some people hate the unknown and ambiguity of problem-solving. But as a manager, I need to hire people who are easily captivated by the challenge of that ambiguity.

Goldman Sachs’s Virtual Interviewing Process

Goldman Sachs is another establishment that has rejiggered its recruiting process over the last few years with the introduction of video interviewing.

Historically, Goldman used to send recruiters and hiring managers to top “feeder” schools to recruit―the arguable assumption being that they would find the highest concentration of talented, high-caliber candidates at those schools. This approach is naturally constrained by the number of people you can push out to interview. The big advantage of their new virtual approach is they can conduct video interviews with potential hires from a much broader and more diverse range of schools and backgrounds.

Global Head of Human Capital Management at Goldman Sachs, Danes Homes, wrote in a recent Harvard Business Review article:

In 2015, the year before we rolled out this platform, we interviewed fewer than 20% of all our campus applicants; in 2018 almost 40% of the students who applied to the firm participated in a first-round interview.

Second, we now encounter talent from places we previously didn’t get to. In 2015 we interviewed students from 798 schools around the world, compared with 1,268 for our most recent incoming class. In the United States, where the majority of our student hires historically came from ‘target schools,’ the opposite is now true.”

“Talent Is Everywhere, Opportunity Is Scarce”

I’m not saying that these hiring techniques are necessarily best-in-class, but they are a recognition that more breadth and diversity are needed. It is especially notable that these older, more established companies are adopting hiring changes, usually the last to make changes.

The irony in this shift is that it is also a recognition that intelligence, work ethic, and innovative thinking are not a function of where you went to school or what brand-name firm you work for. But, as the oft-quoted saying goes, while talent is everywhere, opportunity is scarce.


Follow Stephanie Denning on Twitter:   @stephdenningAnd Also Read:

How Basecamp Rejects Workaholism And Still Drives Results

The Netflix Pressure-Cooker: A Culture That Drives Performance

My writing explores the choices firms and leaders make and the impact of those choices. I work as a management consultant specializing in growth strategy.

Source: The New Hiring Practices At McKinsey And Goldman Sachs

What Employers And Employees Need To Know Today About Raises – Kathy Caprino

1.jpg

During my 18-year corporate career in marketing, research and product management, I felt that raises were an important way that the leadership at my organizations demonstrated their recognition for what I contributed in my role and in the enterprise as a whole. Interestingly, the conversations that took place leading up to the actual raise or promotion were at least as impactful as the raise itself.

If I found that my manager communicated effectively both praise and constructive, thoughtful feedback and indicated an understanding of how I personally contributed to the team, those interchanges helped build trust, loyalty and commitment, often as much (if not more) than the additional money in my paycheck. But if the conversations around raises and promotions weren’t clear, honest and supportive, inevitably I’d feel less positive and engaged in my role.

Turns out, this is an extremely common experience. In working now as a career and executive coach with professionals around the world, I’ve heard from thousands of people about their deep challenges in trying to figure out how to ask for a raise, the best way to build a case for it, and how to deal with their disillusionment when they didn’t receive the raise they believed they deserved.

To learn more about how employers and employees should approach handling raises, I was excited to catch up this week with Lydia Frank, who is vice president of content strategy for PayScale, the leading compensation data and software provider, helping employees and employers understand market pay and have more open and mutually beneficial conversations about compensation.

The recent PayScale Raise Anatomy study examines which workers are asking for raises, which workers are receiving them, what is preventing certain workers from asking and how the raise conversation – whether the outcome is positive or negative – can impact employee engagement and retention.

Here’s what Frank shares:

Kathy Caprino: Why did PayScale feel it was important do this research into pay raises now?

Lydia Frank: We’re in an extremely tight job market currently in the U.S. with unemployment under 4%, and oddly, wages have not grown to the degree that we’ve seen historically when similar positive conditions have been in place in terms of the economy and labor market.

And, while 59% of employers are saying that talent retention is a major concern, according to the results of PayScale’s most recent Compensation Best Practices survey, most organizations are not addressing that concern with higher base pay increases. This places more burden on individual employees to proactively manage their own earning potential by asking for raises and making a solid business case for more than the standard 3%.

We also knew from past studies that a good portion of employees don’t proactively ask for raises. We know that wage gaps do exist for women and people of color. So, we wanted to really understand the dynamics at play and provide guidance for both employees and employers to ensure that every worker has equal opportunity to make a fair wage for the work they’re doing.

Caprino: What were the most interesting findings? Were these surprising to you?

Frank: Only 37% of workers have ever asked for a raise from their current employer, which is lower than I’d expect with it being an employee’s job market right now, but of those who did ask, 70% received some type of raise, even if it wasn’t for as much as they requested. It’s a good reminder for employees that the outcome of a raise conversation has a high likelihood of being favorable for you.

2.jpg

However, not every employee has the same chance for that positive outcome. We saw no difference by gender or race in terms of who says they have asked their current employer for a raise. We did find, though, that people of color are far less likely to receive a raise when they ask for one than their white male peers (women of color are 19% less likely and men of color are 25% less likely).

There was weak evidence showing that white women may be receiving raises less often, but the findings were not statistically significant. We controlled for job title, job level, experience, geography, industry, etc. so we could really isolate the effect that the gender and race of the employee might be having on raise decisions. This runs counter to a common narrative, especially in the tech industry, around the workplace being a meritocracy. This may not feel like a surprising finding to many, but there’s a difference between suspecting something is true and knowing it for sure.

Another key finding in this report is that how the raise conversation unfolds can have a critical impact on employee engagement and retention. It really comes down to how much employees trust the organization and their managers. If an employee is denied a raise, 33% are provided no rationale for the denial.

Of those who do receive some type of rationale, only 23% of employees believe it. If they don’t believe it, their satisfaction with the employer takes a serious hit, and they are far more likely to be seeking a new job in the next six months. What was interesting, however, is that when employees did believe the rationale when denied a raise, they had similar levels of employer satisfaction as employees who received a raise.

They were also much more likely to stay with the organization than employees who received no rationale or didn’t believe the one they were given. For employers, the takeaway here is that you don’t necessarily have to grant every raise request to retain your best employees, but you do have to ensure they understand how compensation decisions are made and feel fairly treated. Treating employees fairly isn’t necessarily the same as them feeling fairly treated, so communication strategy around pay is important to get right as well.

Caprino: Why do you think people of color are more often denied a raise when they ask than white men?

Frank: With more than 160,000 survey respondents for this most recent PayScale study, we can say with certainty that there is clear bias at work in pay raise decisions in the workplace – whether unconscious or overt. Unconscious bias has been something employers have been trying to combat for a while, from hiring practices to organizational culture. I think this is just more evidence that it is difficult to eradicate bias when people are involved. We all have biases, whether we’re aware of them or not.

Caprino: I noticed that women cite being uncomfortable negotiating as a reason for not requesting a raise far more often than men. What can be done to ensure women feel more comfortable initiating pay negotiations?

Frank: Yes, 26% of women cite being uncomfortable negotiating as their reason for not asking for a raise vs. 17% of men, while men are slightly more likely than women to say they didn’t ask because they received a raise before needing to or they’ve always been happy with their compensation.

There are systemic issues at work that chip away at women’s confidence levels. For example, based on research from linguist and Textio founder and CEO Kieran Snyder, not only do women receive more criticism in their performance reviews, it’s less constructive and more personal. In Snyder’s analysis, she found that character critiques – words like “abrasive” – showed up in 71 of the 94 critical reviews received by women and was completely absent from reviews received by men.

There’s also research on unconscious bias showing that women pay a social cost in the workplace for initiating negotiations. Essentially, we as a society are conditioned to have different expectations of how women and men behave, and when our expectations are not met, it creates cognitive dissonance. We don’t like it. In many ways, I think the fact that some women feel uncomfortable initiating negotiations is a learned behavior. If you do it and don’t get a positive outcome, you’re more hesitant to try again. Unfortunately, women are more likely to be met with resistance.

Alternatively, there’s newer research from Boston Consulting Group showing that ambition levels in women are impacted significantly by how progressive their workplace is in terms of gender equity.

3.jpg

The key is to fix the systemic issues. Employers can ensure they’re digging into workforce analytics to understand the obstacles to advancement women are facing within their organization, whether that applies to pay or promotion. They can also proactively address underrepresentation of women in leadership. Take a look at your board of directors, your executive team and your most senior managers. Are you demonstrating that women are valued members of the organization?

Caprino: What can employers do to ensure every employee is given equitable consideration when requesting a raise?

Frank: When compensation decisions are data driven and there is clarity around what’s required to advance within your pay range, there is less opportunity for pay inequities to emerge. I’d encourage employers to think about setting up a process for how all raise requests are treated. If there are multiple checkpoints and transparency around the process, one person’s bias is less likely to impact the final outcome of an employee’s raise request.

Caprino: Asking for a raise can be scary for most employees. What guidance do you have for anyone thinking about asking for one?

Frank: Again, I’d point to the data point that of those who ask, 70% receive some kind of raise, with 39% getting exactly what they asked for and another 31% receiving a smaller raise than requested.

The key for employees is to be data driven in your approach to the raise conversation as well. Ensure you’ve done your homework and know what the market is paying for roles like yours. PayScale has a free employee compensation survey, for example, at http://www.payscale.com, where you can receive a precise pay range that takes your background and skills, the talent market you’re competing in and the job role into account.

If everyone who read the articles and like it , that would be much more favorable if make donations…THANK YOU

 

%d bloggers like this: