Example collocations logo

Employment in sentence

3253 examples of Employment in a sentence

The income tax (and thus the tax on employment) is high.
(Admittedly, the Spanish labor market reforms enacted earlier this year may start to lift employment and improve competitiveness and growth on the economy’s tradable side, which is constrained largely by low productivity, not weak demand.)
And it could compel Europe to overcome the political obstacles blocking solutions to longstanding problems, such as providing the cover needed for certain European creditors to grant deeper debt relief for Greece, whose already-massive fiscal and employment problems are being exacerbated by the influx of refugees.
The confusion about which factors – besides price stability and maximum feasible employment – the Fed takes into consideration in setting monetary policy aggravates the problem.
The lesson for Europe is clear: the EU should redefine its Stability Pact in terms of the structural or full employment deficit--what the fiscal deficit would be if the economy were performing at full employment.
But to insist on an arbitrary budgetary position in an economic downturn is to ignore everything we have learned about economics in the past seventy years, risking the well being of millions of workers who are thrown out of employment.
He even got a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, James Callaghan, to introduce in 1966 a Selective Employment Tax, which taxed employment in services more heavily than employment in manufactures – a measure that was reversed in 1973, once it was realized that it would hit the tourist industry, which generated badly needed foreign exchange.
According to The Wall Street Journal, since December 2007, the US has lost 16% of its manufacturing jobs (many to China), leaving it with the lowest employment in this sector since before World War II.
Confidence is too low for commercial banks to create credit on the scale needed to return to full employment and the pre-crisis growth trend, however many hundreds of billions of whatever cash central banks pour into them.
More often, they influence regulation by dangling before the regulator the promise of lucrative future employment.
He cited research by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who, more than 20 years ago, warned that as US multinational companies shifted employment and production abroad, their interests were diverging from the country’s economic interests.
Indeed, in 2009, US multinationals accounted for 23% of value added in the American economy’s private (non-bank) sector, along with 30% of capital investment, 69% of research & development, 25% of employee compensation, 20% of employment, 51% of exports, and 42% of imports.
Equally important, the US operations of these firms accounted for 63% of their global sales, 68% of their global employment, 70% of their global capital investment, 77% of their total employee compensation, and 84% of their global R&D.
First, although US multinationals’ shares of private-sector R&D and compensation were unchanged between 1999 and 2009, their shares of value added, capital investment, and employment declined.
As a result, from 1999 to 2009, the US share of their global operations fell by roughly 7-8 percentage points in value added, capital investment, and employment, and by about 3-4 percentage points in R&D and compensation.
The shrinking domestic share of their total employment – a share that also fell by four percentage points in the 1990’s – has fueled concerns that they have been relocating jobs to their foreign subsidiaries.
From 1999 to 2009, US multinationals in manufacturing cut their US employment by 2.1 million, or 23.5%, but increased employment in their foreign subsidiaries by only 230,000 (5.3%) – not nearly enough to explain the much larger decline in their US employment.
Moreover, US manufacturing companies that were not multinationals slashed their employment by 3.3 million, or 52%, during the same period.
A growing body of research concludes that labor-saving technological change and outsourcing to foreign contract manufacturers were important factors behind the significant cyclically-adjusted decline in US manufacturing employment by both multinationals and other US companies in the 2000’s.
To understand domestic and foreign employment trends by US multinationals, it is also important to look at services.
From 1999 to 2009, employment in US multinationals’ foreign subsidiaries increased by 2.8 million, or 36.2%.
Moreover, US multinationals in services increased their employment both at home and abroad – by almost 1.2 million workers in their domestic operations and more than twice as many in their foreign subsidiaries.
Since many of these services require face-to-face interaction with customers, US multinationals had to expand their foreign employment to satisfy demand in these markets.
At the same time, their growing sales abroad boosted their US employment in such activities as advertising, design, R&D, and management.
Previous research has found that increases in employment in US multinationals’ foreign subsidiaries are positively correlated with increases in employment in their US operations: in other words, employment abroad complements employment at home, rather than substituting for it.
America’s Employment DilemmaBERKELEY – There are always two paths to boost employment in the short term.
The first path is to boost demand for goods and services, and then sit back and watch employment rise as businesses hire people to make the goods and services to meet that demand.
The second path is not to worry about production of goods and services, but rather to try to boost employment directly through direct government hiring.
Thus, policies aimed at boosting employment by the end of, say, this calendar year needed to be put in place about a year ago to have time to have reached their full effect.
This is not to say that the Obama administration did not try to boost employment.
BackNext