Employment Michael Jordan – Page 16 – Contains about employment Information

06
May
2018

Do You Need To Worry About Pre-Employment Background Checks

The pre-employment background check is becoming more and more common place. As employers work to protect their places of employment from individuals that aren’t the best for the job or could pose a dangers to others, these background checks happen to be the tool of choice. After all, your past can say a lot about the person that you are and the person that you are likely to be, too. Yet, if you don’t have anything to hide in your past, should you really worry about what happens when a background check is done on you?

You Don’t Want It

Even for many individuals that have nothing in their past to be worried about, this type of privacy invasion is enough to bother them. In most cases, you can refuse to have one done, assuming that it isn’t a legal requirement for the position with the home such as when you are working with children or in the police department. Yet, doing this could potentially stop you from being hired anyway. Someone that refuses a background check is okay, but someone else that applies for the same position with the same qualifications and passes that pre-employment background check with flying colors is more likely to obtain the position.

Another concern that many have is the fact that the information on their pre-employment background check could mistakenly provide the wrong information. Perhaps there is information on your background check that is wrong. You could be suffering without realizing why. Or, perhaps it will uncover something that is potentially harmful but shouldn’t have anything to do with the current position in question. Sometimes, information can be taken out of context by the investigator and it could, ultimately effect your position with the company. Even some information that may be illegal for the investigator to consider in the hiring process could turn up. Although they technically can not use this to not hire you, it may leave them with a bad taste in their mouths, which could sway them the other way for other reasons.

Background checks are a potential nightmare for some individuals. If you have nothing to worry about, or so you think, you should still run a background check on yourself to determine if there are any potential problems lurking there. Doing so can at least give you peace of mind. Everyone needs to know what is in their background check.

04
May
2018

Utopian Society Is Not Ideal

categories: Employment

Among the discoveries that occurred then was that of the New World by European explorers, and the curiosity concerning these voyages of exploration plus the advent of the printing press meant that printed records of the Renaissance explorations were [soon] everywhere available, and thus Utopia as a product of this exploratory context is undeniable. This is apparent in that its central character is a sailor and that his impressions of the imaginary island of Utopia constitute most of Mores text, which is a cross between travel narrative and social satire. The above quotation from Utopia depicts the Utopian lifestyle, one that has benefits and drawbacks, and the references to work, corruption, and poverty highlight key aspects of any debate considering whether or not one would like to live in Mores Utopia.

The above extract begins with the lack of distractions that might otherwise keep Utopians from their work, but the use of evading and usual convey the familiarity and routine that accompanies employment in Utopia. Everyone has a job, which is a comforting thought in light of the levels of unemployment and the resultant poverty existing in sixteenth- and twenty-first- century England. Elsewhere, we learn that Utopians, of both sexes, are guaranteed work that is suited to both ability and interest: of the other foresaid crafts every man learneth one. And the women [] and if any person [] be desirous to learn also another, he [] occupieth whether he will. However, this employment system is very regimented. Each day begins at four oclock in the morning and consists of three hours of work, followed by lunch and a two hour break, then another three hours of work, then supper, and then everyone goes to bed at eight oclock, and eight hours they give to sleep. In this light the Utopians strict workdays seem more like that of prisoners than of citizens of a democratic nation like Utopia purports to be.

The extract also lists the lack of distractions and vices in Utopia, such as alehouses, brothels, hiding places, and places for secret meetings. Clearly, the rulers of Utopia recognise alcoholism and adultery as dangerous threats to social order, and the absence of opportunities for drunken and licentious behaviour is evidence of the importance of strong family and marriage bonds in Utopia, or in other words, More [] makes family life the most important institution among the Utopians, with adultery being a potentially capital offence. Yet in spite of this firm image of family and marriage, the words no hiding places, no [] secret meetings and in full view of all convey a sense of exposure or surveillance. The latter quotation highlights the Utopians lack of privacy, which seems a high price to pay in order to be perceived as behaving in a respectable way. Thus, there seems to be very little choice but to conform to social rules.

The final sentence of the above extract paints a very attractive picture of the quality of life of the average Utopian in the fact that it there seems to be no poverty on the island. This is apparently because everyone share[s] everything equally, which refers to the Utopians distribution of private property, as is described elsewhere in the book: this they do freely without any benefit, taking nothing again of them to whom the things is given [] So the whole island is as it were one family or household. The Utopian distribution of wealth ensures that there is no poverty or beggary in Utopia and this is an admirable thing, which thus also criticises contemporary attitudes to material possessions, or in other words: Utopians not only do without money but also despise [] the symbols of wealth to which Europeans were so attached. However, such a system does not tolerate individuals desire for personal possessions and this intrudes on ones personal freedom, and so if this were enforced in a real community certainly many would resent having to give up such personal possessions and privileges.

In conclusion, Mores Utopia with its guarantee of jobs and its lack of vices and poverty has many attractions, but it is doubtful that any modern person would want to live there in light of its regimented schedules and its demands on our personal freedoms and possessions. Moreover, Utopia clearly criticises the contemporary social values and practices of Mores time, and in this sense it is difficult to come to any certain judgements as to how seriously More meant the book as a blueprint for a realistic alternative society.

30
Apr
2018

After 1 Year, Obama Vs. Reagan

categories: Employment

As we approach the end of the year, we are also approaching the end of President Obamas first year in office. You might be wondering how he is doing, based on actual numbers (rather than political spin).

Obama clearly inherited a difficult situation economically. Only two others in the modern era came even remotely close. One, of course, was FDR, but unfortunately the data from then is rather sparse, and mostly available on just an annual basis, or at best quarterly (good economic data was one of the by-products of the New Deal).

The other who inherited a difficult economic situation was President Reagan. Granted, the type of difficulty was very different under Reagan, and presidents — like quarterbacks — get too much of both the praise for a good economy and the blame for a bad economy.

Still, I think comparing the numbers for the two during their first “year in office could be instructive. The data I used for the comparison are all available monthly (at least, and if more frequently, I used the monthly data). The source of all data is the St. Louis Fed (except for the S&P 500).

The two presidents offered very different prescriptions for the economy. Reagan was all about cutting taxes and less government involvement in the economy. While most of the really big moves of government into the economy in response to the recent economic crisis actually took place under President George W. Bush, Candidate Obama saw them as needed. The Bush Administration was the one that bought the stakes in American International Group (AIG – Snapshot Report), Fannie Mae (FNM – Snapshot Report), Freddie Mac (FRE – Analyst Report) and the banks, while Obamas support for a prepackaged bankruptcy resulted in large government stakes in the Auto industry.

There were no comparable big investments by the government into the private sector late in the Carter Administration, and certainly Reagan did not initiate any. Reagan did not have to deal with a financial meltdown when he took office, but on the other hand, Obama did not have to deal with runaway inflation. Both are serious diseases, but think of it this way: both cancer and heart disease can kill you, but you would not want to give chemotherapy drugs to a heart attack patient. Thus, perhaps it is appropriate that the prescriptions be different.

If one only looks at the unemployment rate (U-3), both did a poor job in their first year, and Obama was significantly worse. The unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.6% and by November it had climbed to 10.0%. In January 1981, when Reagan took office, the unemployment rate was almost identical at 7.5%, and by November of 1981 it had climbed to only 8.3%.

Private employment actually rose during the first 11 months of 1981 by 0.55%, from 74.671 million to 75.084 million. Under Obamas tenure so far, private payrolls have dropped by 2.95% to 108.495 million from 111.793 million.

So on the employment front, Reagan is the clear winner so far. However, over the course of 1982 and 1983 the employment situation deteriorated significantly. We do not know what unemployment will do in 2010 and 2011, and thus can only judge based on what we have seen so far and in the comparable period under Reagan.

Advantage: Reagan

Reagan also wins when it comes to real disposable personal income, which expanded by 2.3% in the first 11 months Reagan was in office, while it has only increased by 1.0% so far under Obama.

Advantage: Reagan

The dollar was also much stronger during the first 11 months of Reagan, although I am not sure if that is a positive or a negative. During the first 11 months of Reagan, the dollar relative to an index of major currencies gained 9.88%, while under Obama, the dollar has lost 9.70% relative to the same index.

Given that we are running chronic trade deficits now, but really were not back then, I would argue that today a weak dollar is good for the economy today since it will help out on the net export side of things. Inflation is not a big problem today, but was the number one problem with the economy when Reagan took office. The downside of a weak dollar is that it contributes to inflation, so back then having the dollar strengthening was a good thing.

No Advantage to Either

On the inflation front, however, things are far better under Obama. On a headline basis, prices have gone up by 2.39% so far under Obama, while they rose 7.57% during the first 11 months that Reagan was in office. On a core basis (ex-food and energy) the difference is even more stark, rising 8.31% under Reagan and up just 1.51% under Obama so far. Later in the Reagan Administration, inflation fell much more, but even when he left office in 1989 inflation was far higher than it is today.

Advantage: Obama

Industrial production fell slightly more during the first 11 months of Reagan (1.07%) than it has under the first 11 months of Obama (0.68%). Capacity Utilization started out at a much lower level when Obama took the oath than the Reagan did, at 71.1% (an all-time record low at the time) vs. 80.7% when Reagan took office. However, by November of 1981, the total capacity utilization rate had fallen to 77.9%. Under Obama, capacity utilization has actually risen to 71.3%, although it remains at a historically low level.

Advantage: Obama

Interest rates can tell a lot about the state of the economy. For example, the spread between the rate that gilt-edged companies have to pay on their bonds and what normal companies have to pay on their bonds tells a lot about how much bond investors fear companies going belly up. The former is measured by the Moodys (MCO – Analyst Report) Aaa rate and the later by the Baa rate (not to be confused with “junk bond” rates; Baa is still investment grade).

In January of 1981, the best credits in America had to pay 12.81% on their bonds, while normal companies had to pay 15.03%, for a spread of 2.22% (or as a ratio, normal companies had to pay 17.3% more than the gilt-edged ones). By November of 1981, both the best and the ordinary had to pay more — the Aaa rate had surged to 14.22% while the Baa rate had risen to 16.39%, so the spread had fallen ever-so-slightly to 2.17. The ratio had come down a bit more, and the ordinary firms were paying 15.3% more than the best firms.

When Obama took office, the Baa rate was 8.14% while the Aaa rate was 5.05%, for a spread of 3.09. In other words, ordinary firms had to pay 61.2% more for money than the best firms did. Investors were very afraid that companies would go bankrupt, and so demanded a higher rate from normal companies than from firms that seemed to have very little risk of writing a new chapter (the eleventh) in their corporate histories.

Since then, the rate the highest-rated firms have to pay has actually increased slightly to 5.19% while the rate that normal firms have to pay has plunged to 6.32%, bringing the spread down to 1.13% and the ratio down to the point where normal companies are paying 21.8% more for their money than the Aaa firms.

(Given the huge difference in the overall level of interest rates between the two eras, it is important to look at both the spreads and the ratios. Clearly a spread of 2% has a very different meaning and significance if it is between 1% and 3% than if it is between 13% and 15%).

Advantage: Obama

Another important signal that comes from interest rates is the yield curve, or the difference between long-term and short-term interest rates. The curve is measured using Treasury notes or bills, since you only want to be looking at the differences due to maturity, not due to quality (the opposite of the Aaa-Baa spread, which is only looking at quality differences, not maturity differences).

While there are many different measures of the curve, the one that is used the most is the difference between the 2-year note and the 10-year note. Generally speaking, the steeper the yield curve, the better. An inverted yield curve is very bad news, and is probably the best single indicator that the economy is about to go into a recession.

When Reagan entered office, the 10-2 curve was inverted, with the yield on a 2-year note at 13.26% and the yield on the 10-year at 12.57%, for a spread of -0.69. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was providing only 0.95 of the 2-year. By the time November of 1981 rolled around, the curve had returned to normal but was still pretty flat. The yield on the 2-year had fallen to 12.88%, while the yield on the 10-year had increased to 13.39, resulting in a positive curve of 0.51. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was 1.08 of the 2-year.

When Obama entered office, the 2-year was at a very low 0.81% while the 10-year was 2.52%, for a positive spread of 1.71%. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was yielding over three times as much as the 2-year (3.11x to be exact). By the end of November, the curve had expanded even further, with the 2-year virtually unchanged at 0.80%, while the yield on the 10-year had risen to 3.40%, for a spread of 2.60% and a ratio of 4.25x. Again, given the vastly different overall levels of rates, it is important to consider both the spreads and the ratios when making the comparisons.

Advantage: Obama

Mortgage rates were both far higher and moving in the wrong direction early in the Reagan presidency. When he took office they were at 14.90%, and by November they had risen to 17.83%. When Obama took office, the rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage was 5.06% and has since fallen to 4.88%.

Not surprisingly, then, the housing market was far worse under Reagan than it has been under Obama (at least if measured by direction, not levels). In January of 1981, housing starts were running at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.547 million, and by November of that year they had plunged to 837,000, a decline of 45.9%. Since January of 2009, housing starts have risen from an annualized rate of 488,000 to a rate of 574,000 in November, an increase of 17.6%.

Advantage: Obama

Similarly, single family new home sales plunged by 25.2% early in the Reagan years to a rate of 382,000. Since Obama came into office, new single family home sales have risen by 22.2% to an annualized rate of 402,000. Existing home sales are not particularly important to the economy (just like used car sales are not very important).

Auto sales also fared worse under the early part of the Reagan Administration than they have so far under Obama (at least as measured point-to-point). When Reagan took office, auto and light truck sales were running at an annualized rate of 11.03 million and had fallen to 9.21 million, a decline of 16.5%. Under Obama, auto and light truck sales have risen from an annualized rate of 9.59 million in January to a rate of 10.89 million in November, an increase of 13.6%.

Advantage: Obama

Finally, while people sometimes make too much of the day-to-day fluctuations in the stock market, it is a good reflection of the overall health of the economy when you look at longer time periods — and almost a year is long enough to qualify there. On that metric, there is simply no contest. Between inauguration day and Christmas Eve in 1981, the S&P 500 lost 7.65%. Since Obama took office, the S&P 500 has gained 39.9%.

Advantage: Obama

Weighing these different economic indicators is inherently subjective, and thus I am not sure that one can come to a clear-cut case that one has done a better job than the other — at least so far. This is also far from a complete list of economic indicators and I focused on only those that were available at least monthly, and many of the most important economic numbers come out quarterly.

Arguably, the economic mess that Obama inherited was worse than the one that Reagan inherited, although both were pretty nasty — yet very different. The U.S. economy is more of an oil tanker than a speedboat, and does not turn around on a dime, so it really is too early to tell how Obama is doing.

However, the indicators that are most forward-looking and leading for the economy (stock market, yield curve and quality spreads, housing starts) are the ones that favor Obama over Reagan. Overall, 11 months in, one must conclude that Obama is doing at least as good a job on the economy as Reagan did in his first 11 months.

26
Apr
2018

Entrepreneurial Options

categories: Employment

Very few people ever got rich by working for someone else. Leaving aside pop musicians, sportsmen and similarly gifted people, the only way to acquire wealth by work is to build a business of your own. The type of business you decide upon will depend on: a) how much money you have available as start-up capital and working capital; b) your business idea; and c) your confidence level.

There are three types of business: 1) the traditional one in which you are reliant solely on your own efforts; 2) a franchise where you follow a proven idea and receive considerable training and back-up from the franchise company; and 3) network marketing.

Each business type has its pros and cons.

The traditional business requires considerable financial input, either from your own resources or part-funded by your bank. You may need to rent premises; buy equipment; hire staff; pay for advertising, brochures, stationery, and stock. A frighteningly high percentage of this type of business fails in the first year. To succeed you need: a good idea, considerable financial backing, good health, an understanding spouse, and stamina. If you do succeed you will own the business outright and benefit from all the profits.
Franchises have a high success rate. Banks like them because each franchise operation has a proven track record and thus the banks can accurately judge the risk, consequently they will lend money for this sort of start-up. However, all the support and training comes at a price: the initial entrance fee is likely to be very high, and a percentage of the business’s turnover has to be paid to the franchise company.
Network marketing, also known as multi-level marketing, has many advantages and few disadvantages. The entrance fee is low and the ongoing expenses are even lower. A network marketing business can be started in your spare time – in fact that is the best way to approach it. Start small, and keep at it. The secret is perseverance, get past the first year and you should find the business has a sound foundation from which you can build a serious income. It is said that 95% of those who survive ten years in network marketing become wealthy beyond their wildest expectations.

So which type of business is for you? If you wish to provide a service or product where you have previous experience from, say, a former employment, the traditional business will be probably be the best choice. However, if you are just tired of working for someone else and making them rich and wish to strike out on your own, then a franchise or network marketing must be the preferred option.

The choice then is determined chiefly by the funds you have access to, and the time and effort you wish to put into your enterprise. A franchise will require substantial funds and 100% commitment. You are jumping in at the deep end, although the franchise company will provide training and support to help you to swim.
On the other hand you can ease yourself gently into network marketing by starting part-time while you continue with your current employment, building your business by ploughing back profits if necessary. Persevere and there will come a time when the income from your own business will be sufficient to support you financially. You will then be able to leave your employment and concentrate on your business, spending more time on it or enjoying considerable free time with your family.

21
Apr
2018

Inland Revenue P46 Tax Questions With Notes On Accepting The P46 Form

categories: Employment

A new employee may not have a P45 due to circumstances of first job, student, first employment in the current financial year, immigrant worker, P45 lost or perhaps not issued by a previous employer or issued late. If a new employee does not give the new employer a P45 on the day employment commences then the employer has a responsibility to ensure the new employee completes a P46 form

Completing the Inland Revenue P46 form is the method an employer uses to advise HMRC about the employment of a new employee who does not have a P45.

2. P46 forms should be sent to HMRC on the first pay day they are paid allowing a short period of time for a new employee who does not have a P45 to obtain one.

3. A new rule was introduced from 6 April 2008 if the employee has ticked either box A or B then the P46 revenue form does not have to be sent to HMRC until that employee earnings reach the lower earnings limit. PAYE records still need to be produced by the employer but official notification to HMRC is not required unless the lower earnings level is exceeded.

Should the earnings of the employee continue to be below the lower earnings limit then the earnings and employment would still be advised to HMRC on the P35 annual employers return.

4. If the new employee does not complete the Inland Revenue P46 form before the first pay day then the new employer should complete section one. Section one includes the employee name and address, date of birth and national insurance number.

5. If the employee does not have a national insurance number then the employer must also advise the job centre. It is important to advise the authorities when the employee does not have a number to avoid illegal employment laws. The P46 revenue form can still be submitted to HMRC without a national insurance number who have the facility to trace the number from the information supplied.

While preferable for the employee to sign the P46 form the P46 tax form can be submitted by an employer without the employee signature.

6. If the employee does not complete the P46 the employer must deduct tax using a BR tax code taxing all earnings and excluding personal tax allowances.

7. The tax code to be applied to new employee earnings is dependent upon when the employee joined and which of the boxes A, B or C are ticked on the P46 tax form.

If box A is ticked then apply the emergency tax code which from 6 April 2008 is 543L and after 7 September 2008 and the new tax code 603L. Tax is deducted on a cumulative basis. If box B is ticked then apply the emergency tax code which from 6 April 2008 is 543L and after 7 September 2008 and the new tax code 603. Tax is deducted on a week 1 or month 1 basis.

If box C is ticked then apply the BR tax code. Income tax is deducted on cumulative basis.

If none of the boxes A, B or C are ticked then apply the BR tax code and deduct tax on a cumulative basis.

8. If the new employee has ticked box D then student loan deductions should be made with effect from the first pay date provided the earnings level for deduction of student loans has been reached. Refer to the student loan deduction tables at Student Loan Table to determine how much should be deducted.

9. P46 forms can be filed online by an employer. When the Inland Revenue P46 form is filed online the employer should also have kept a record of how the information submitted was obtained.

10. Before the P46 Inland Revenue form can be filed online the employer must have obtained the facility to do so by registering with HMRC for a PAYE scheme. The HMRC website contains free software that can be used for this purpose.