Example collocations logo

Employment in sentence

3253 examples of Employment in a sentence

It is time to return to the macroeconomic policies of the 1950s and 1960s, which recognized the benefits of full employment in fostering social stability and sustainable growth.
As the Nordic model shows, high employment is good for the economy because it ensures adequate tax revenues to finance high levels of social investment, which creates a virtuous cycle.
Theirs was a vote against the lack of progress and hope in Israel’s relations with its Arab neighbors, the open rift with US President Barack Obama, and the cost of social welfare for the ultra-Orthodox, who rarely hold productive employment.
This would bolster bank credit and stimulate demand, employment, GDP, and tax revenues.
The Fed’s first priority is to try to keep the American economy from dropping too far below full employment, and to try and avoid a US meltdown contaminating other economies.
If employment and incomes in America crash, US demand for imports crashes – and not just America but the whole world will slide into recession.
And if housing and mortgage security prices don’t just fall but collapse, everyone should remember that construction employment falls faster than employment in tradable goods can grow.
Just 0.1 percentage points of the 21.4 percentage-point decline in the employment share of manufacturing during this period is attributable to NAFTA, which was enacted in December 1993.
This is undoubtedly a significant problem; but anyone who claims that the collapse of US manufacturing employment resulted from “bad” trade deals is playing the fool.
The facts about the declining US manufacturing employment are plain; there are no “alternatives.”
Finally, China’s extraordinarily rapid rise pushed the employment share of manufacturing down to 8.7%;NAFTA took it to 8.6%.
As Harvard University’s Larry Summers and Barry Eichengreen of the University of California at Berkeley, have observed, it is almost as if Trump’s economic strategy – if one can call his vague and vacillating statements that – has been designed to reduce manufacturing employment in America further.
In the US today, some on the left are just as keen as Trump to blame Mexico for the entire decline in manufacturing employment over the past three decades.
An already far too high dollar would be pushed even higher as Asia seeks to resolve its employment problems by ever-larger trade surpluses.
In a short time, money and self-interested initiative would create a boom in employment and activity because China has an immensely entrepreneurial culture.
QE’s impact hinges on the “three Ts” of monetary policy: transmission (the channels by which monetary policy affects the real economy); traction (the responsiveness of economies to policy actions); and time consistency (the unwavering credibility of the authorities’ promise to reach specified targets like full employment and price stability).
With respect to the United States, I welcome President Barack Obama’s recent proposals to address growth and employment; actions like more aggressive principal-reduction programs or helping homeowners to take advantage of low-interest rates would also help.
Closing the gender gap in labor-force participation would deliver 54% of those gains; aligning rates of part-time work would provide another 23%; and shifting women into higher-productivity sectors to match the employment pattern of men would account for the rest.
Capitalist economies are not self-adjusting: market forces might eventually restore an economy of full employment, as Keynes said, but in the long run we are all dead.
In a nutshell, Keynes struggled against the notion that if only countries would cut their deficits, "confidence" would be restored, investment would return, and the economy would again attain full employment.
They provided many examples of policies that could have improved output growth, employment, financial stability, and income distribution.
The Polish economist Michal Kalecki, a co-inventor of Keynesian economics (and a distant relative of mine), predicted this politically motivated ideological reversal with uncanny accuracy back in 1943:“The assumption that a government will maintain full employment in a capitalist economy if it knows how to do it is fallacious.
Under a regime of permanent full employment, ‘the sack’ would cease to play its role as a disciplinary measure, leading to government-induced pre-election booms.
The economist who declared that government policies to maintain full employment were “manifestly unsound” was Milton Friedman.
Suppose, on the other hand, that the “progressive” economics of full employment and redistribution could be combined with the “conservative” economics of free trade and labor-market liberalization.
Not only is the public almost entirely ignorant of the EU’s policy agenda for boosting competitiveness, economic growth, and employment, but this ignorance extends to many intellectuals, academics, CEO’s, and even some MP’s.
Any attempt to use expansionary government policies to drive unemployment below a certain level, they demonstrated, would fuel inflationary expectations and undermine both economic growth and employment.
As a result of both technological displacement and technology-enabled globalization, the share of employment in occupations in the middle of the skill distribution has declined rapidly in both the United States and Europe.
Using a variety of measures to assess the susceptibility of jobs to computerization, a recent study of 702 occupations finds that nearly half of total US employment is at risk.
In the longer term, more radical policies – such as the introduction of a negative income tax or a basic income – must be considered, with the goal of providing a guaranteed minimum standard of living regardless of employment status and market wage.
BackNext