> BLS DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, MAY 25, 2001:
>
> The proportion of U.S. workers holding contingent jobs -- those expected
> to last a relatively short time -- declined somewhat between 1999 and
> 2001, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. To some extent, the
> strong economy during that period reduced contingent work, the agency
> suggests. During the same 2-year period, BLS says the use of various
> alternative employment arrangements held steady. The total number of
> independent contractors -- comprising the largest category of alternative
> arrangements -- rose to 8.6 million as of February 2001. However, their
> share of total employment (6.4 percent) was little changed from 1999.
> Judging by the pattern of self-employment, as shown in the monthly
> household survey, some categories of contingent or alternative work might
> be expected to increase if the economic downturn persists, BLS economist
> Steven Hipple said. "You could expect some wage and salary workers to
> possibly move into self employment or independent contraction," Hipple
> said. During prior slowdowns and recessions, self employment has risen as
> a proportion of total employment, according to BLS data. In an article
> recently published in BLS's "Monthly Labor Review", Hipple analyzed
> contingent worker data and found the robust economy had little effect on
> the total number of workers holding such jobs. "Despite the economic
> expansion that continued into the late 1990s, both the number of
> contingent workers and the proportion of total employment composed of such
> workers changed little between 1997 and 1999," he wrote (Daily Labor
> Report, page D-1).
>
> New claims filed with state agencies for unemployment insurance benefits
> rose by 15,000 to a seasonally adjusted total of 407,000 during the week
> ended May 19, according to the Labor Department's Employment and Training
> Administration. The weekly total has stayed close to the 400,000 mark in
> recent weeks, moving up from early this year as layoffs continue in many
> industries. May employment and unemployment figures are scheduled for
> released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on June 1 (Daily Labor Report,
> page D-14;
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/businessnews/article/0,2669.2-51847
> ,FF.html); The Wall Street Journal, page A2; The Washington Post, page
> E3).
>
> Many hospitals are winning sharply higher payments from insurers and the
> efforts of insurance companies to pass those costs along to employers and
> consumers are contributing to the most rapid surge in medical costs in
> years. Medical costs increased 10 to 15 percent in the first quarter for
> the biggest insurance companies after averaging 5 to 6 percent for a
> decade. Experts expect them to keep rising. Health maintenance
> organizations are asking the employers that are their biggest customers
> for increases in premiums averaging 18.3 percent, according to a
> preliminary estimate by Hewitt Associates, with proposed increases as high
> as 60 percent (The New York Times, page 1). A table that shows the
> national average gross cost of health care insurance for each employee,
> 1997 through projected 2002, is shown in a graph on page C5 of The Times.
> The data is attributed to Hewitt Associates.
>
> An important gauge of future economic activity rose 0.1 percent in April,
> gaining after two consecutive monthly declines and suggesting that the
> U.S. economy is starting to recover. The Conference Board said its Index
> of Leading Economic Indicators rose to 108.7 last month, after slipping a
> revised 0.2 percent in March and 0.2 percent in February. The improvement
> reflects the positive effect of the Federal Reserve's recent interest rate
> costs
> (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/businessnews/article/0,2669,2-5184
> 7,FF.html).
>
> The U.S. economy grew far more slowly in the first 3 months of this year
> than the government previously estimated, reflecting a steeper drop in
> business investment in computer and other equipment and weaker consumer
> spending. The Commerce Department reported today that gross domestic
> product -- the country's total output of goods and services -- grew at an
> annual rate of just 1.3 percent in the January-March quarter. The anemic
> showing represented a big downward revision from the government's estimate
> downward revision from the government's estimate one month ago that the
> economy expanded at a rate of 2 percent, a figure that astounded analysts
> and raised hopes for a rebound (The Associated Press,
> http://www.latimes.com/bjsiness/updates/ap-economy010525.htm;
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/businessnews/article/0,2669,ART-520
> 30,FF.html; http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/14724p-287587c.html).
>
> Signaling that the economy might not be as strong as investors hope, sales
> of new single-family homes fell during April after rising for 2 straight
> months (The Wall Street Journal, page A2).
>
> Americans bought fewer new homes in April, signaling a softening of the
> country's housing market, which until now has proved remarkably resistant
> to the economic slowdown, the Commerce Department said. New home sales
> dropped 9.5 percent in April, to an annual rate of 894,000 houses. That
> was down significantly from March's revised rate of 988,000 units. The
> decline was the biggest percentage drop since April 1997 (The Washington
> Post, page E3).
>
application/ms-tnef
