Thursday new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics's Business Employment Dynamics program was published covering the U.S. economy through the first quarter of 2010.  It's quite a puzzling picture that it paints overall and for looking at entrepreneurship specifically. 

First, BLS finds that from December 2009 to March 2010 the gross job losses in the U.S. economy hit their lowest point on record for this particular time series.  This means, that the 6.4 million private sector job losses in the quarter were lower than any other quarter since 1992.  When looking at gross losses as a percentage of total employment in the economy, total losses, along with each of its components - losses in contracting establishments and losses from closing establishments - hit or tied series lows.  Taking both of these things together then it seems the mass layoffs and closings of the previous couple of years might have peaked - something we can find much reason to celebrate.

But, this severe downturn in downturns is not mirrored by increases in hirings.  Indeed at the same time, the gross job gains from opening establishments hit its second lowest point (by percentage) on record and its lowest numerical point.  This means that opening establishments in this period only contributed a little more than 1.1 million jobs to the economy, down from 1.9 million jobs in 2000. 

I will be spending a lot of time with this data in the coming couple of months along with expected data from the Census Bureau's Business Dynamics Series.  Obviously there is a lot of important information to be garnered here.

	Brent Holbert - 11/26/2010 11:03:15 AM
	Lets tax Chinese imports like Donald Trump says... great video http://shouldtrumprun.com/on-the-record-trump-for-presiden/ Tax the imports for 5 to 7 years and take the billions we collect and turn them into entrepreneur grants in the amount of $250,000 each. We need to stimulate entrepreneurism and innovation kind of like Singapore does. The strength of our economy is individual ambition, good ideas, solid advice and lastly is the funding. The idea below with what to do with the Chinese tax has the right spirit...... Think of the innovation that has been created in the US economy with a good idea, 250 grand and the right mentor. Create $250,000 entrepreneur grants and give participating mentors access to a venture capital network willing to work with the program. Here is how it works. Take billions of dollars in Chinese import taxes, set up a fund with local bank access, designate the funds specifically for the program grants and let individuals and smart business people run with it. We The People, It is our money why can't we choose who gets it? It is not the government or a banker who decides if an applicant is worthy of the grant it is a citizen who decides. Each citizen decider/volunteer/mentor has to be a proven business success (a multi-millionaire) and committed to working with 2 grant applications/business plans/entrepreneurs during a calendar year plus be willing to mentor the recipients and work with venture capitalists. The payoff for the mentor is a tax deduction that is residual. The tax deductions take effect and the percentage increases with each of the chosen applicant successes (they can pick a couple every year if the program is extended). Success is determined by a winning applicants hiring of a minimum of 4 employees the first year and keeping them employed for 365 days in the following year after their approval (it is a two year plan). If the approved applicant continues to succeed in the future years the "mentor" gets a tax break for those years as well and the more his choices succeed the smaller his annual tax liability. The well screened and pre-approved "mentors" (they have to apply to be a mentor) sign contracts not to steal ideas and can then scan through the web-based business plans database and choose the applicants/business plans they think have a real shot at success. Access to the venture capitalist database is for the mentors only. These business "mentors" will be far better at making the right decision on who gets the money or where to get more than some government hack or committee especially when the payoff is less taxes for themselves. Millions of entrepreneurs could post their plans online and have a shot at not only 250 grand but also a top gun mentor with something to gain from their success. The "mentor" might even become an investor and why not if the idea succeeds they pay less taxes. Even if the mentors game the system for tax deductions by assisting the winning applicants with funding or creating companies the American people still win and hundreds of thousands of jobs and businesses are created. If the business goes bust and the money is lost, so what it was spent here. losing the money here is a better than giving it to the Chinese. We enrich our country not China..

	Chris - 11/27/2010 7:33:21 PM
	Your comment is clearly well-intentioned, but it is an awful idea. An import tariff not only hurts Chinese producers, it hurts American consumers. Take a look at a basic Econ 101 tariff graph. Your plan is: tax Americans at 5% and choose some "business experts" to give the money away to people who want to start a business. Then we force these business to hire employees even if they don't need them yet. How about we stick with the current system where scrappy entrepreneurs risk their own capital and seek out real mentors. You seem to have a lot of disdain for the government, but then think they are capable of picking business winners. It's crazy. Oh, and no decent venture capitalist will ever sign a contract agreeing not to steal ideas. That is just opening themselves up to lawsuits. Besides, ideas are a dime a dozen.

	brent Holbert - 11/28/2010 10:06:34 AM
	chris here is a great example from ronald reagan and how tariff's saved an american icon. did you watch trump's video link from my first post? At the beginning of the 80′s Harley-davidson was in financial distress with about 4% of the market it dominated in the 70′s. In 1981, Harley was in 5th position for market share behind Honda (38%), Yamaha (25%), Kawasaki (16%), and Suzuki (14%). At the request of Harley-Davidson (the same request was denied a few years before) and to protect the last remaining US motorcycle manufacturer against Japanese imports, the Ronald Reagan administration accepted to impose “Safeguards” by which imported motorcycles were “tariffed” and heavily taxed for the years 1983 to 1988 (starting at 49.4% the 1st year to 14.4% the last year). After receiving temporary import relief starting in 1983, Harley-Davidson came back stronger than ever and even asked the Reagan administration to lift the importation tariffs during the 5th year of the program. Its sales increased dramatically at an annual rate of 10% from 1983 to 1990. The Harley-Davidson case is now heralded as a great success of safeguard protection, although many economists have challenged Tariffs as the reason for the spectacular recovery. A temporary tariff on all Chinese goods would help not hurt us and 250 grand grants for innovative ideas would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Sure tweak the idea but the core of it is sound and Harley proved it. The tariff is temporary....

	brent Holbert - 11/28/2010 11:52:39 AM
	More on Harley The article I got this from backs up your points of being anti tariff but ultimately it turned out in the Harley case they were wrong. Look at Harley today. After the American motorcycle industry has the advantage of the protection of a tariff for five years, it is likely that additional protection will be demanded. Temporary tariffs, as Ronald Reagan has often said of temporary government agencies, are the nearest thing to eternal life on this earth. Trade Representative William Brock's monitoring of the situation could lead to an extension of protection as easily as it can lead to a curtailment. Since the tariff went into effect, approximately six months ago, comprehensive data showing the price changes resulting from the tariff have not been compiled. We can, however, see the effects on innovation in the 1984 product lines. Suzuki is introducing just 2 new models over the 700cc mark; last year, it introduced 13. Honda will introduce just two new models in 1984, down from four in 1983. Honda's entrepreneurial efforts have gone into developing bikes with engines just under 700cc. Honda is introducing four bikes with engines measuring between 694cc and 698cc. Similarly, Yamaha is now producing a 699cc bike. **Kawasaki's main response to the tariff has been to shift more of its assembly activities to its U.S. plant in order to escape the duty.** Here is the whole article, it is worth a read... From: The CATO Institute January 12, 1984 Taking America for a Ride: The Politics of Motorcycle Tariffs by Daniel Klein http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa032.html