Already a Bloomberg.com user?
Sign in with the same account.
JOB MOBILITY, AMERICAN-STYLE
It's rising fast--mainly among men
An analysis of recent government data by the Employee Benefit Research Institute provides important new evidence that structural shifts in the U.S. economy and a rising tide of permanent layoffs have significantly increased job mobility. The EBRI analysis points to a sharp decline in male job stability in recent years.
Specifically, between 1991 and 1996, median job-tenure levels for men 25 to 64 fell by an average of around 19%. For those 35 to 64, the drop continues a trend that began in the early 1980s, after male job tenure hit a postwar peak.
But females' job tenure, which rose in the early 1980s, has remained relatively constant since 1983. The greater stability posted by women may be related to the surge in women working since the mid-'70s and the heavier toll among men of recent job losses.
The data also confirm that older men have been particularly affected by layoffs: Since 1983, median job tenure has dropped by 6 years, or 29%, among males 55 to 64, and by nearly 3 1/2 years, or 25%, among males 45 to 54.
While rising mobility may entail hardship for individual workers, many economists believe that it has contributed to employment and economic growth in recent years. It may be no coincidence that the U.S., which has the shortest average job tenure among industrial nations, has also posted the strongest gains in employment.
As the EBRI notes, however, mobility caused by layoffs can have negative implications for the economic security of affected workers--and for long-term national savings. Studies indicate that many laid-off workers take jobs that lack the health insurance they formerly enjoyed, for example. And many dip into retirement savings.
In fact, less than half of all lump-sum distributions from retirement plans--which are usually paid out when a worker loses or changes his job--are rolled over into Individual Retirement Accounts or similar savings programs.By GENE KORETZReturn to top
Return to top
DO LOW TAXES LURE INVESTMENT?
They matter to some multinationals
Although it stands to reason that state taxes play a part in corporate decisions about capital investment in the U.S., researchers have often had difficulty in demonstrating the effect--presumably because other factors, such as local infrastructure and access to markets, can offset high tax rates. Now, James R. Hines Jr. of Harvard University has turned up one area where tax rates seem to make a clear difference: foreign direct investment.
Writing in the American Economic Review, Hines notes that nations generally use two methods to avoid subjecting multinational corporations to double taxation on their overseas activities. Some, such as Britain, Japan, and the U.S., provide credits for taxes paid to foreign governments--credits that can be used to offset home-country taxes. Others, such as Canada, France, and Germany, effectively exempt the foreign earnings of their multinationals from any home-country taxes at all.
Hines figures that multinationals from countries providing tax credits against foreign taxes should be relatively unconcerned about state taxes in making U.S. investment decisions. Multinationals that are exempt from home-country taxation, however, are likely to avoid states with high taxes, since such taxes are a direct cost item to them.
That, in fact, is exactly the pattern Hines found when he looked at foreign investment patterns in the late 1980s in all 50 states. While all multinationals tended to invest more heavily in states with low corporate income taxes, the difference was far greater for multinationals from countries exempting foreign-source income from taxation.
The moral for states courting foreign investment: Those with high tax rates would do well to woo investors that benefit from domestic tax credits.By GENE KORETZReturn to top