SM
|
|
|
|
Who We Are
Money Focus Mutual Funds Insurance Mortgages Taxes Step by Step Hot Topics Contact the Editor
Featured Site AfterHourTrades.com, Inc. Featured Columnist:
All content is © copyright (1999-2002)BonPaulProductions (all rights reserved) |
Order your copy of Building Wealth in a Paycheck-to-Paycheck World by Paul Petillo. It is packed with safe, proven wealth-building strategies that cover all the major components of a balanced financial plan, including:
The Economics of Family, Part Two
"During the last 3
calendar years, that is, January 1999 through December 2001, did (you/name)
lose a job or leave one because: (your/his/her) plant or company closed or
moved, (your/his/her) position or shift was abolished, there was insufficient
work, or another similar reason?" If the answer to that question was "yes,"
then the respondent was asked to identify which reason, among the following,
best described the reason for the job loss:
Respondents, who were part of the January 2002 Current Population Survey (CPS), the monthly survey of
about 60,000 households that provides the basic data on employment and
unemployment for the nation, who provided one of the first three reasons--plant or company
closed or moved, insufficient work, or position or shift abolished--were then
asked questions about the lost job, including how many years it had been held;
the year the job was lost; its earnings, industry, and occupation; and whether
health insurance had been provided.
Nearly two-thirds of the long-tenured displaced were reemployed at
the time of the survey.
Nearly half of the long-tenured displaced workers cited plant or
company closings or moves as the reason for their displacement.
Forty-three percent of displaced workers who had worked for their
employer for 3 or more years had received written advance notification
that their jobs would be terminated.
One-third of long-tenured displaced workers lost jobs in manufacturing.
This proportion continued to be much larger than the industry's share of
long-tenured employees.
Just over half of long-tenured workers who were displaced from full-
time wage and salary jobs and who were reemployed in such jobs had earnings
that were lower than those on the lost job. Among this group of reemployed
full-time workers, about 3 in 10 experienced earnings losses of 20 percent
or more.
Sixty-four percent of the 4.0 million long-tenured displaced workers
were reemployed when surveyed in January 2002.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4.0 million
workers were displaced from jobs they had held for at least 3 years.
6.0 million persons were displaced from jobs they had held for less than
3 years (referred to as short-tenured). Combining the short- and long-
tenured groups, the number of displaced workers totaled 9.9 million, up
from 7.6 million in the prior survey.
The problem with that information provided by the BLS is does not reflect what is still happening and what is about to happen in the near future.
Alan Greenspan spoke before the Joint Economic Committee recently and used phrases like "soft patch" suggesting something short of a sinkhole but more than a muddy puddle on a dirt road. He continued with: "Households have become more cautious in their purchases, while business spending has yet to show any substantial vigor,'' suggesting what everyone fears, and you should take note of, we are not in a recovery.
CEOs are not about to start reinvigorating the economy if the customers aren't there. No amount of tax cuts for businesses, permanent or not, will cause any business leader to stick their highly compensated neck out and gamble on customers who have started to drift away from their all out spending spree. That said, CEOs also suggested that further layoffs are in the works as they adjust their bottom line using the one strategy left, employee cutbacks.
Unfortunately, layoffs are not nearly as lucrative as they were at the beginning of this downward cycle. A good many companies who had offered rather rich severance packages are finding less incentive to send employees packing with little more than the bare minimum. If that. The costs of hefty goodbyes has diminished recently and the truly sizable ones have come under shareholder scrutiny, many of which were negotiated during those thrilling days of yesteryear.
Still the average worker can't expect much more than two weeks for each year worked. This can mean quite a lot for an older employee but becomes a double edge sword. Finding placement in a similar job with comparable pay when you reach your fifties has become increasingly difficult. Workers who changed jobs frequently when it was fashionable to chase a better offer at the next company need only look for some accumulated sick and vacation pay.
Unemployment can often be the lifeline that keeps the worker afloat for a little longer. The maximum benefit received from this benefit varies from state to state, as does the length of time the benefits are available. Currently, all states have extended benefits from the original program designed in 1935, some now offering as much as 30 weeks (Massachusetts and Washington) with newly added extended benefits allowing the program to fund some unemployment insurance programs to as much as 46 weeks.
In too many instances, the employee is well aware in advance that the layoffs or job elimination is about to happen. Looking to a retirement plan as a safety is a patently desperate move that needs some rethinking. The penalties are far to great to allow the employe to get what they need from their plan.
Early withdrawal will cost you 10% in penalties. This would come at a time when the plan is under some serious pressure from poor performing markets. Taking your vested money from your former company when you leave is not only wise but prudent. But it needs to be reinvested until you find new employment. It should never be viewed as a fallback account.
If you have borrowed from your account while you were employed, shame on you. That money will cost you dearly when you do leave as the plan will demand you repay yourself. If that isn't possible, expect to be penalized an additional 10% on the balance of the loan.
The best insurance is planning. Too often we have looked at those suggestions of two to three months of salary in reserve as a waste of good spendable cash. We are not a nation of savers, and putting that kind of money away for a rainy day is done by far too few individuals. If you are still working and are unsure of the future of your job, now is the time to adjust how you spend you money. If the cash you receive in unemployment benefits is needed for more than basic necessities such as mortgages and food, you should attempt to change some bad habits now.
If you are thinking of refinancing your current mortgage, opt for the thirty year. Although the idea of a fifteen year payout is attractive, the higher monthly payment you will be locked into can be an incredible burden if you should become unemployed. The lower monthly mortgage payment of the 30 year loan will allow you a little more flexibility. If you would still like to have your house paid off in a shorter time, prepay each month. A simple rule of thumb suggests that if you have a $1200 mortgage payment, and extra $100 will reduce the life of the loan by eight years, and extra two hundred each month will bring the loan balance to zero in 18 years. And this extra money is not locked into the mortgage.
Another simple but often overlooked suggestion is to begin living on your base pay. When overtime or bonuses become part of your everyday expenditures, problems arise when these are eliminated or reduced. Take any extra money and put it away in a taxable account such as a Roth IRA. The principle in these accounts can be withdrawn without penalty and can be just the added boost a family's budget could use if your unemployment proves long term.
|