Economic policy reports, blog postings, and media stories of interest:
For the benefit week ending on October 9th, 13,080 North Carolinians filed initial claims for state unemployment insurance benefits, and 115,564 individuals applied for state-funded continuing benefits. Compared to the prior week, there were fewer initial and continuing claims. These figures come from data released by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Averaging new and continuing claims over a four-week period — a process that helps adjust for seasonal fluctuations and better illustrates trends — shows that an average of 13,767 initial claims were filed over the previous four weeks, along with an average of 116,581 continuing claims. Compared to the previous four-week period, there were fewer initial and continuing claims.
One year ago, the four-week average for initial claims stood at 16,451 and the four-week average of continuing claims equaled 181,186.
While the number of claims has dropped over the past year, so has covered employment. Last week, covered employment totaled 3.7 million, down from 3.9 million a year ago.
The graph (right) shows the changes in unemployment insurance claims (as a share of covered employment) in North Carolina since the recession’s start in December 2007.
Both new and continuing claims appear to have peaked for this business cycle, and the four-week averages of new and continuing claims have fallen considerably. Yet continuing claims remain at an elevated level, which suggests that unemployed individuals are finding it difficult to find new positions.
Also, little change has occurred within recent months. Since April 2010, the four-week average of initial claims consistently has ranged between 13,987 and 11,200.
In a recent presentation to Congress, Ross Eisenbrey of the Economic Policy Institute argued that public policies surrounding retirement have done little to help middle- and low-income households prepare adequately for retirement. This results from the shift of retirement plans from defined-benefit ones (e.g., traditional pensions) to defined-contribution ones (e.g., 401(k)s).
Argues Eisenbrey:
How can it be that after 32 years and trillions in tax subsidies, 401(k)s have worsened—rather than improved—retirement security? First and foremost, the design of the 401(k) ensures that its tax subsidies go disproportionately to high-income earners who least need the government’s help in saving, while providing little or nothing to low-income earners, many of whom struggle to meet their daily expenses, let alone save for a distant retirement.
…
The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that 80% of the tax subsidies for retirement savings go to the top 20% of earners. This is government welfare stood on its head. There is no rationale for providing a larger tax break to a millionaire than to a Wal-Mart cashier for the same dollar contribution to a 401(k) plan (and nothing at all if the cashier owes payroll but not income tax). Similarly, high earners receive more help from employers, who contribute 5% of earnings, on average, to the retirement accounts of households in the 75th percentile, compared with less than 2% for those at the 25th percentile, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Economic policy reports, blog postings, and media stories of interest:
A recent study commissioned by the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation considers differences in wealth between North Carolina’s white and African-American households.
The report found that North Carolina households belonging to both racial groups possess less wealth than do their national counterparts. Nevertheless, the median household wealth of the state’s white households is over seven times that of black households ($71,900 vs. $9,500).
The table below shows wealth data by racial group and income category for the state and nation.
Email Sign-Up | 
RSS Feed
