National

Axios Finish Line

It's not exactly the "great resignation," but more like the "great reorganization": Millions of Americans want to quit their jobs, but many of them would happily stay at their companies in different positions.

What's happening: 1 in 3 candidates who sought out a new job in the past year searched internally within their organization first, according to a new report from the consulting firm Gartner.

As workers in the era of COVID, "we’re more open to re-examination," says Shonna Waters, a vice president at the career coaching company BetterUp. 

"For some people, that means moving somewhere new or pursuing a passion, but for a lot of people it could also just mean looking around and saying, 'I want a higher-level role,' or 'I want a different role at the same company,' or 'I want my time to be used differently in my current role.'"

Many people want change at work, but also want to retain the friendships and reputation they've built within a company, she says.

That's good news for stressed-out human resources departments navigating the post-pandemic avalanche of quitting. It means they might be able to fill some of those mounting job openings with applicants who've already gone through on-boarding and are familiar with the firm.

Yes, but: "Historically, that's been very hard to do," says Brian Kropp, chief of research for Gartner’s HR practice. "Employees find it really hard to navigate an internal labor market, and most companies sadly have such little knowledge about the skills and capabilities of their existing workforce."

Applying for a new job at a new firm is a familiar exercise, says Waters. "But not every company has a clear process for making those changes internally."

According to Gartner's study, just 17% of candidates applying internally say their managers are helpful in the process. Just 20% say they feel supported by their peers.

And hiring managers can be biased against people who already work for the company, Kropp says. "There's an emphasis on hiring a fresh face." 

When someone is selected from within the company, they've often been picked out before the role is even publicized.

What to watch: To retain some of those "great resignation" workers who might want to stay on in new roles, companies will have to rethink their hiring practices and biases.

One solution is to open up applications for a job a week early to internal candidates to encourage them to apply, says Kropp.

Firms can also promote stories of workers who have made a successful transition from one role to another. Employees often hear from leaders who have worked their way up in a company, but not as much from those who've moved laterally across departments, he says.

The bottom line: There's a misconception about the "great resignation." 

"People have gotten bored," says Kropp. "They want different. But it doesn’t need to be that different."

Editor's note: This story was originally published on Feb. 3.

A "great resignation" silver lining for HR

1 in 3 candidates who sought out a new job in the past year searched internally.

Illustration of a briefcase-shaped storm cloud with a silver lining

Jobs

Economy & Business

Employers are beefing up benefits packages to lure workers in a tight labor market, and many are adding pricey fertility benefits — such as in-vitro fertilization and egg freezing — to their offerings.

Why it matters: Benefits around fertility and family-building have long been overlooked by employer health care plans, but that's rapidly changing.

"You see couples today that are living child-free, and a lot of times that's their decision, but a lot of times it's not," says Gina Bartasi, founder and CEO of the fertility clinic Kindbody.

Employers can play a vital role in helping people find alternative options to grow their families, she says.

What's happening: "Earlier in my career, it was so rare for companies to offer this," says Alice Vichaita, head of global benefits at Pinterest, which covers fertility services for its global workforce. "More and more companies are becoming aware that this is really an inadequacy in our health care system."

In the past, many companies have avoided offering fertility benefits due to concerns about the cost, according to a Mercer report. But the rise in the number of fertility clinics — and growing demand for their services — is driving down the price, Bartasi says.

97% of employers who provide this coverage say it has not resulted in a significant increase in medical plan costs, per a Mercer survey.

By the numbers: 11% of U.S. employers with 500 employees or more covered egg freezing in 2020, compared with just 5% in 2015, according to the Mercer study. When looking just at firms with 20,000 employees or more, the 2020 share is 19%.

Also as of 2020, 58% of employers with 500 or more workers covered evaluations by reproductive doctors and 27% covered IVF.

Some companies, like Nike, Johnson & Johnson and IBM, even help with the costs of adoption, according to the Society for Human Resource Management.

Fertility services are also key from a diversity, equity and inclusion perspective, says Tanner Brunsdale, senior manager of benefits and mobility at Lyft, which offers these benefits. 

Lyft's benefits have helped employees from all walks of life — including LGBTQ+ couples and single parents — become parents through IVF, sperm and egg donation and other services, he says.

What to watch: Look for fertility services to become a new standard benefit at work. 

"Within the last five years, this has really taken off," says Brunsdale. "It's kind of table-stakes benefits at this point, especially at a tech company where you’re trying to attract strong talent."

Editor's note: This story was originally published on Jan. 31.

Rising workplace benefit: Fertility services

Employers are beefing up benefits in a tight labor market.

Illustration of a bird and two bees all holding briefcases

Fertility

The U.S. faces a range of health care flashpoints — unaffordable drugs, opioids, vaping — as we debate whether to adopt universal care. For now, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, but Republicans want to issue it a final death blow.

Health

Congressional staffers formally announced on Friday the start of their "efforts to unionize the offices and committees of the United States Congress."

Driving the news: Both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have indicated they support the staffers' unionization efforts in recent days.

The big picture: A survey of congressional staff by the Congressional Progressive Staff Association released last month found that 47% of the respondents "find themselves struggling to pay bills or make ends meet."

More than a third of respondents said they have a second job in order to supplement their income, and nearly 40% said they "have taken out debt to make ends meet."

What they're saying: "While not all offices and committees face the same working conditions, we strongly believe that to better serve our constituents will require meaningful changes to improve retention, equity, diversity, and inclusion on Capitol Hill," the Congressional Workers Union said.

On Friday, a spokesperson for Schumer said the Senate leader "believes that hard-working Senate staff have the right to organize their workplace and if they chose to do so, he would support that effort."

Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.) also said that the House will take legislative action next week to support congressional staffers' effort to form a union.

Levin said that the staff's decision to form a union is "a fundamental right of all workers."

Congressional staffer unionization effort gains traction

A recent survey to congressional staff found that nearly half of respondents "find themselves struggling to pay bills."

Photo: Samuel Corum/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Labor unions

Policymaking

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

Source: Department of Labor; Chart: Axios Visuals

The January numbers that are due out at 8:30am Friday are going to be a hot mess express.

Why it matters: We generally look to the monthly jobs report for guidance about how the economy is evolving. That will be harder than usual this month.

It starts with Omicron. The peak of infections occurred in precisely the survey week on which the employment data are based — which meant millions of Americans were home sick, quarantining, or caring for others.

For people who are salaried employees or received paid sick leave, that shouldn’t affect the numbers. But for people who worked no hours and were unpaid during the reference week, that will show up as jobs that evaporated.

We got a hint of how big the effects might be in the ADP private sector employment survey published Wednesday, which showed employers cut 301,000 jobs.

The consensus forecast is that payrolls rose by 175,000 in January, but a negative number would hardly be shocking, and the White House is braced for that possibility. 

But that’s not all! Several other quirks will make the January numbers hard to parse.

January is a month with extreme seasonal adjustments, as employers typically cut millions of holiday-season temporary workers. But there is some evidence — very low jobless claims, for example — that the pandemic and labor shortages may have broken those usual seasonal patterns.

It's possible that employers, hungry for workers, are not cutting jobs the way they normally do after Christmas. If so, that would push job growth numbers up.

Meanwhile: Numbers based off a survey of households, like the unemployment rate, shouldn’t be affected by absences due to Omicron, but have their own problems this month. The Bureau of Labor Statistics updates the data based on new population estimates, which means the January numbers are not directly comparable to December.

It will also update payroll numbers through an annual benchmarking process matching survey data to actual employment claims.

The bottom line: Maybe don't draw too many huge conclusions about the economy from the data in this very weird month — and have some sympathy for your friendly neighborhood economics writer.

Get ready for a messy jobs report

From Omicron effects to seasonal adjustments, it will be hard to interpret

A hiring sign is seen outside of Accurate Personnel office (employment agency) in Buffalo Grove, Ill.

Axios Closer

Share of Black workers in U.S. workforce

Reproduced from Economic Policy Institute; Chart: Axios Visuals

As the nation marks Black History Month, a look back at the history of globalization reveals economic and racial inequities that still reverberate.

Why it matters: Black Americans have been disproportionately affected by the manufacturing sector’s contraction.

Among median-wage, non-college-educated employees, Black workers earn $5,000 more per year in manufacturing jobs than in other roles.

Driving the news: Black workers lost 646,500 manufacturing jobs from 1998 to 2020, wiping out more than 30% of their employment in the sector, according to a new report by the Economic Policy Institute.

Black Americans went from 10.6% of the industry’s positions at their peak to 10.2% in 2020.

Many of those higher-paying jobs have disappeared as production shifted overseas.

“The loss of jobs offering good wages and superior benefits in manufacturing has narrowed a once viable pathway to the middle class, particularly for workers of color — who represent a disproportionate share of those without a college degree,” according to the EPI report.

Ripple effects: The job losses have had a “spiral effect” on communities with a high percentage of people of color by undermining their tax bases, report co-author Valerie Wilson tells Axios.

“The jobs that were growing and newly available were not the same quality of jobs that were lost,” Wilson says, noting that low-paying service-sector positions have proliferated.

What’s next: EPI is calling for an investment in infrastructure and climate-change-related programs to boost U.S. exports and pair it with policies that “help ensure that workers of color and women can access these jobs.”

Black workers hard hit by decades of globalization

Black Americans have been disproportionately affected by the manufacturing sector’s contraction.

Trade/globalization

Axios Markets

Companies talk openly these days about ways to improve workers’ lives, but employers in the service sector may be ignoring a critical issue.

The big picture: Workers in the service industries — think retail and restaurants — continue to face unpredictable work schedules, seeing little change from what they experienced in 2017, according to a new study from the Shift Project, a national survey of more than 100,000 workers at the nation's biggest retailers.

Why it matters: Unstable schedules harm workers' health and well-being, and the well-being of their children — especially during a time of uncertainty around schools and child care.

By the numbers: About two-thirds of workers received less than two weeks’ notice of their work schedule.

21% performed "on-call" assignments, requiring them to be available if needed, but without paying them for their time.

57% experienced last-minute changes to scheduled shifts.

The bottom line: Flexibility is the new buzzword for a certain class of professionals, but for those earning low pay, more structure is desperately needed.

Service workers still struggle with unstable schedules

Flexibility is the buzzword for a certain class of professionals, but for those earning low pay, more structure is needed.

Photo of a masked worker with one arm reaching out a window with a receipt toward a hand in the car 

Photo: Jeffrey Greenberg/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Retail

Axios AM

Almost every small business owner in a Goldman Sachs survey is having trouble hiring — and two-thirds think the federal government has done too little to ease their hiring, supply-chain and inflation worries.

Why it matters: The Goldman Sachs research gives a vivid window into the continuing headwinds and hardship for entrepreneurs.

The survey included 1,466 participants in the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Small Businesses program, representing 47 states. 58% were women.

By far, finding and retaining employees was seen as the biggest problem facing small business, with supply chain issues and inflation far behind. 

Nevertheless, 73% of small business owners said they’re optimistic about the financial trajectory of their businesses this year.

Joe Wall, national director of Goldman Sachs 10,000 Small Businesses Voices, told Axios: "This new data clearly shows that the economic headwinds created by the pandemic are stronger than ever — and keep hitting Main Street hardest."

"Congress needs to seriously consider additional policies and programs, like reauthorizing the COVID EIDL [Economic Injury Disaster Loan] program, to aid in the recovery of small businesses."

Other key findings: 71% said the rise in COVID cases due to Omicron has hurt revenue.

37% say their businesses had to close temporarily or scale back due to the recent COVID surge.

These small businesses see tough times continuing:

Just 29% think things in the U.S. are moving in the right direction. 

24% describe the state of the American economy as excellent or good.

Go deeper: Read the survey, "Small Businesses on the Brink."

Small businesses see hiring as No. 1 worry

Almost every small business owner in a Goldman Sachs survey is having trouble hiring.

Illustration of a dotted outline of a shop worker wearing an apron. 

Small businesses

Millennial homeownership is on the rise — but student loan debt is still keeping millions of members of America's largest generation from owning a home.

Why it matters: Buying a house remains the No. 1 way to build wealth in the U.S.

What's happening: Due to their sheer numbers, millennials are the largest group buying homes right now, but their rate of homeownership lags behind previous generations.

The homeownership rate among people under 35 is around 37%, per U.S. Census data. That's up from around 34% in 2016, but still relatively low, says Jessica Lautz, vice president of demographics and behavioral insights at the National Association of Realtors.

For instance, when Gen Xers were roughly the same age as millennials are today — in the early 2000s — their homeownership rate hovered close to 42%.

And when baby boomers were in their early 30s in the 1980s, their rate was around 40%.

"Affordability and inventory play a role," Lautz says. Housing prices are rising faster than incomes, "but student loan debt is an enormous factor."

36% of U.S. millennials say their student debt is a major barrier to saving for a down payment, according to a new report from the asset management firm Legal & General.

And while 45% say saving for a down payment is their top priority, 26% say they first want to pay off student debt, and another 12% say their top concern is paying off medical debt.

Sky-high rents are also preventing younger people from saving for a home, notes Lautz.

A bit of a pandemic silver lining: Interest rates on federal student loans — which account for some 93% of student debt — were set at 0%.

On top of that, many young people moved back in with family and saved extra money.

As a result, 38% of millennials surveyed by the National Association of Realtors said the pandemic helped them make a dent in paying down their student debt.

What to watch: Pandemic-era student loan relief may drive up rates of homeownership among millennials, Lautz says.

Editor's note: This story was first published on Jan. 20. 

Student debt getting in the way of millennial homeownership

Buying a house remains the No. 1 way to build wealth in the U.S.

Illustration of a ball and chain crashing into the roof of a house.  

Millennials

Data: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Congressional Budget Office; Chart: Axios Visuals

Yes, the pandemic has created unusual temporary labor market dynamics. But in the bigger picture, the 2010s were a golden age for companies seeking cheap labor. The 2020s are not.

The big picture: In the 2010s, the massive millennial generation was entering the workforce, the massive baby bo0m generation was still hard at work, and there was a multi-year hangover from the deep recession caused by the global financial crisis.

But now, boomers are retiring, millennials are approaching middle age, and the Gen Z that follows them is comparatively small.

Why it matters: Demography is destiny, and U.S. demographics in the years ahead favor workers over employers.

By the numbers: The Congressional Budget Office forecast in July that the size of the U.S. labor force will grow by a mere 0.2% a year from 2024 to 2031. Employers can't count on a flood of new workers to fill empty jobs.

"We're trying to warn employers that this is not just a passing fad but a new reality," said Bruce Evans with Emsi Burning Glass, a firm that analyzes job listings.

"When I entered the labor market, all these systems were set up to keep people away, because every job was overwhelmed with the number of workers looking to do those jobs," said Evans. "Now that's just not true anymore, but all those systems have been retained."

The bottom line: Fortune favors the bold — as well as the companies that recognize that the labor market of the 2020s isn’t going to be like that of the 2010s.

America's labor shortage is bigger than the pandemic  

Worker shortage unleashes a forever jobs crisis

The hard math behind America's labor shortage

Demography is destiny, and U.S. demographics in the years ahead favor workers over employers.

Labor

Family income, by couple

Data: The Hamilton Project; Chart: Kavya Beheraj/Axios

A married female couple will bring home lower wages, on average, than an opposite-gender married couple or a same-gender male couple.

Why it matters: Women in same-gender partnerships can experience (at least) two kinds of discrimination, based on their gender and on their sexual orientation. 

The latest: A new analysis from The Hamilton Project, a policy think tank at The Brookings Institution, offers new info, delving into five years of Census data on same-gender household income. Findings:

Male same-gender married couples earned $121,000 in income, on average.

Meanwhile, female same-gender married households made $93,000, or slightly less than the average household income for different-gender couples.

Of note: The small difference between female same-gender married couples and opposite-gender couples was especially surprising because female partnerships are more likely dual-income (both women working), said Lauren Bauer, a fellow at Brookings, who co-authored the paper.

88% of female same-gender married households are dual income, compared to 78% of male-female marriages, according to the data.

"Two women in a couple will experience two gender gaps, and that’s a big part of the difference," said M. V. Lee Badgett, an economics professor at University of Massachusetts, Amherst and author of The Economic Case for LGBT Equality: Why Fair and Equal Treatment Benefits Us All

What's next: More research. The Census only started collecting reliable info on same-gender households in 2015, after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. Bauer said they're only scratching the surface here.

Women in same-gender partnerships face a double pay gap

It's another dimension of America's wage gap.

Wages

The next U.S. jobs report could be a big market-moving event.

Why it matters: The Fed wants to know if the U.S. labor market has made “substantial further progress,” the vague threshold that would give the FOMC the confidence to dial back some of its emergency bond purchase program.

By the numbers: According to FactSet, economists estimate U.S. employers added 756,500 jobs in August, which would be a slowdown from the 943,000 added in July.

The unemployment rate is estimated to have fallen to 5.2% in August from 5.4% the month prior.

What they’re saying: “The softening in employment activity would be consistent with other economic data that have weakened since the surge in COVID case counts due to the Delta variant,” Bank of America U.S. economist Joseph Song says.

“Related to that,” Wells Fargo economists write, “the FOMC is likely to again consider deteriorating public health conditions as a detriment to ‘substantial further progress,’ which removes some heft from the August employment report when it comes to determining the timing of potential tapering.”

In other words, assuming job growth did decelerate significantly in August, then the FOMC may wait until after its Sept. 22 meeting to announce the timing of tapering.

What to watch: The August U.S. jobs report will be released at 8:30am ET on Friday.

Go deeper: The harm the Fed wants to avoid by tapering too early

What economists expect from the August jobs report

The Fed wants to know if the U.S. labor market has made “substantial further progress.”

A man walks by a "Now Hiring" sign outside a store in Arlington, Va.

A man walks by a "Now Hiring" sign outside a store in Arlington, Va. Photo: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images

Jobs report

Axios Future

A survey of C-suite executives found more than a quarter are considering moving their operations to another state or country.

Why it matters: The forced march to remote work during the pandemic has shaken loose the bonds that tie large businesses to their home territory — and that could be bad news for high-cost cities and states.

By the numbers: In a poll of 150 C-suite executives released today and conducted by the consulting firm West Monroe, 29% of companies reported they were considering moving major operations or headquarters to another state or country.

The biggest reason was the cost of talent and living in their current location, followed by the burden of taxes.

Not surprisingly, the No. 1 destination under consideration was Texas, followed by Florida — two states with generally low costs of living and low tax burdens.  

Of note: West Monroe's chief strategy officer Tom Bolger tells Axios the West Coast "had by far more companies looking to relocate than any other geographical area in the survey."

That dovetails with recent reporting about tech companies and founders looking to relocate out of the Bay Area, which has some of the highest housing prices in the country.   

That includes Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who said in December that he was moving from California to Texas. 

Be smart: Companies complaining about the high cost of living and working in states like California or New York is hardly new, but the embrace of remote work — accelerated by the pandemic — has given workers and CEOs more options.

Nearly half of the executives polled by West Monroe said they had plans to split their workforces between remote and onsite, though only 1% said they would go fully remote.

"If I'm paying major city taxes in a place like New York City and it doesn't really matter for me if I'm in New York, why not go somewhere that's less expensive?"

The bottom line: Mayors of high-cost cities may need to fight to keep their businesses.

New survey shows companies are open to moving to cheaper locales

Remote work — accelerated by the pandemic — has made it easier for companies to seek out less expensive regions

Sections

Axios Local

Axios gets you smarter, faster with news & information that matters.

About

Subscribe

All Jobs stories