Business

Good News for Some of Us: Other People are Quitting Jobs

Published

11 years ago

March 11, 2015

In this Jan. 29, 2015 file photo, Tyler Kelly, 19, left, fills out applications for parking enforcement and environmental compliance jobs during a public safety job fair at City Hall in Saginaw, Mich. The Labor Department releases job openings and labor turnover survey for January on Tuesday, March 10, 2015. (AP Photo/The Saginaw News, David C. Bristow)

CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — Quitting your job — all but unheard of during and after the Great Recession — is becoming more common again. That could mean pay raises are coming for more Americans.

The trend has already emerged in the restaurant and retail industries, where quits and pay are rising faster than in the overall economy. Workers in those industries appear to be taking advantage of rising consumer demand to seek better pay elsewhere.

Workers who quit typically do so to take higher-paying jobs. That’s why rising numbers of quits typically signal confidence in the economy and the job market. As the trend takes hold, employers are often forced to offer higher pay to hold on to their staffers or attract new ones.

The Labor Department said Tuesday that the number of people who quit jobs rose 3 percent from December to January to 2.8 million — the most in more than six years. Quits have jumped 17 percent over the past 12 months.

Since the Great Recession ended, the figure has soared. Just 1.6 million people quit their jobs in August 2009, two months after the recession officially ended. That was the fewest for any month in the 14 years that the figures have been tracked.

Quits tend to open up more jobs for the unemployed. One barrier for the jobless in a weak economy is that few workers risk quitting their jobs to take a different one, in part because new hires are often most likely to be laid off.

So most workers stay put, leaving fewer options for college graduates, people recently laid off and others seeking work.

The rising number of quits has begun to affect many larger corporations. Frank Friedman, interim CEO at the consulting and auditing firm Deloitte, says his firm’s clients, which include about 80 percent of the Fortune 500, are increasingly struggling to retain employees.

“The biggest problem for many businesses is talent retention,” Friedman said. “Wages are a critical component of it. The balance of power has changed in favor of the employee.”

Deloitte itself faces the same challenges. It’s stepping up its hiring, in part because more of its employees have left for other jobs.

The firm plans to add 24,000 people this year, including paid internships, to its staff of 72,000. That’s up from the past several years, when Deloitte typically hired 19,000 to 21,000 people, and the increase is largely to make up for more quits.

The same trend is squeezing the restaurant and hotel industries. Nearly half their workers quit last year, up from about one-third in 2010. And average hourly earnings for restaurant employees rose 3.4 percent in January compared with 12 months earlier, before adjusting for inflation. That’s much better than the national average of 2.2 percent, which was barely above inflation.

About one-third of U.S. retail workers quit last year, up from one-quarter in 2010. And pay rose 3.2 percent in January from the previous year.

Individual retailers, including Wal-Mart, the Gap, and TJX Cos., which owns T.J. Maxx and Marshalls, have announced pay raises in recent weeks

Not surprisingly, quit rates are much lower in higher-paying industries. Just 12 percent of manufacturing workers and 14.8 percent of financial services employees left work last year. The quit rate in government was just 7.7 percent.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, said that data from payroll processor ADP showed that workers who switched jobs in the final three months of 2014 received average pay increases of nearly 14 percent compared with their previous jobs. For those who remained in the same job for a year, pay rose an average 3.2 percent, before adjusting for inflation.

(Moody’s and ADP work together to compile measures of hiring and wages.)

For the economy as a whole, significant pay gains remain rare. Average hourly earnings rose just 2 percent in February from 12 months earlier, about the same weak pace of the past five years. Many economists expect those gains to pick up by year’s end as the U.S. unemployment rate, now 5.5 percent, falls further.

Some other data in the Labor Department’s release Tuesday:

— The number of open jobs rose 2.5 percent in January to nearly 5 million, the most in 14 years. That’s a sign that the robust hiring of the past 12 months should continue. Openings are typically followed by job gains, though many employers have been slow to fill their available jobs.

— Total hiring actually slowed in January, to fewer than 5 million, after reaching 5.2 million, a seven-year high, in December. Those figures reflect everyone hired in that month. By contrast, the job gains in the government’s monthly employment reports are a net figure: Jobs gained minus jobs lost.

— There were, on average, just 1.8 unemployed people for every open job in January. That ratio is typical of a healthy economy and down from a record high of nearly 7 to 1 in July 2009. The drop in competition for each job could nudge employers to raise pay.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Inside Big Taxi’s Dirty War With Uber

Don't Miss

Banking Arbitration Hurts Consumers, Regulator Says

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of July 22 – 28, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of July 22 – 28, 2026

Published

16 hours ago

July 27, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Business

Starting This Summer, California Car Buyers Can Get an Instant $3500 Off the Cost of Electric Vehicles

OAKLAND POST — Beginning later this summer, eligible Californians can receive a $3,500 rebate on new zero-emission vehicles with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of up to $50,000. Buyers purchasing qualifying used electric vehicles priced at up to $25,000 can receive a $1,750 rebate. The rebate will be applied directly at participating dealerships, allowing buyers to receive the discount immediately instead of waiting for reimbursement.

Published

1 day ago

July 26, 2026

bpusa-syndication

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

California residents purchasing their first zero-emission vehicle will soon be eligible for an instant rebate of up to $3,500 under a new state program aimed at making electric vehicles more affordable.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 168 on July 16, creating the MyFirstEV program as part of California’s 2026-27 state budget. The initiative dedicates $135.5 million in state funding for point-of-sale rebates, which participating automakers will match dollar for dollar. State officials said the combined investment will provide $270 million in savings for first-time electric vehicle buyers.

Beginning later this summer, eligible Californians can receive a $3,500 rebate on new zero-emission vehicles with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of up to $50,000. Buyers purchasing qualifying used electric vehicles priced at up to $25,000 can receive a $1,750 rebate. The rebate will be applied directly at participating dealerships, allowing buyers to receive the discount immediately instead of waiting for reimbursement.

“With our new instant rebate program for electric vehicles, we’re making it easier for families to drive clean, breathe clean, and keep more money in their pockets,” Newsom said in a statement.

The MyFirstEV program is part of a broader $600 million investment in California’s clean transportation economy included in the state budget. The funding package also provides $150 million for the Community Air Protection Program, $19.8 million for the Clean Cars 4 All program for lower-income residents, $35 million for clean off-road equipment through the Air Quality Improvement Program, $135.5 million for the Clean Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project, and $130 million for the Carl Moyer Program to replace older heavy-duty engines with cleaner alternatives.

According to the governor’s office, the transportation investments are funded through Cap-and-Invest revenue and smog-abatement fees while maintaining a balanced state budget.

California continues to expand its zero-emission transportation network. The state surpassed 2.5 million cumulative zero-emission vehicle sales earlier this year, exceeding its original goal of 1.5 million sales by 2025. Officials also reported that California has more than 200,000 public and shared electric vehicle charging plugs statewide, in addition to an estimated 800,000 home charging stations.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

Business

Surveillance Pricing Fight: State Senate Debates Bill Banning Retailers from Using AI to Set Prices Based on a Buyer’s Profile

OAKLAND POST — Currently, there is no precise public data quantifying how many Black residents in California are actively affected by surveillance pricing. However, because the practice leans heavily on ZIP codes and localized demographic tracking, algorithmic pricing models frequently result in higher costs for Black and non-white communities compared to others, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital space

Published

1 day ago

July 26, 2026

bpusa-syndication

By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media

Surveillance pricing—the algorithmic practice of using personal data to determine individualized costs for goods and services—is widespread in California, according to Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego). He warns that this system is actively impacting consumers across the state, and Black Californians could be specifically targeted.

Ward’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2564, the Surveillance Pricing Act, aims to prohibit businesses from using this practice.

“Surveillance pricing is a growing phenomenon that a lot of people don’t realize is already happening,” Ward told California Black Media (CBM) at the State Capitol on June 29.

On June 22, the bill passed out of the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee with a 5-2 vote and was re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary for consideration. On May 27, the Assembly voted to advance AB 2564 with a 42-21 vote.

Currently, there is no precise public data quantifying how many Black residents in California are actively affected by surveillance pricing. However, because the practice leans heavily on ZIP codes and localized demographic tracking, algorithmic pricing models frequently result in higher costs for Black and non-white communities compared to others, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital space.

Justin Brookman, a public-interest lawyer, supports AB 2564. His organization is an official sponsor of the bill. He advocates on behalf of Consumer Reports.

“We found that people shopping for the exact same item at the exact same time, and the exact same store, were getting different prices. In some cases, up to 23% higher,” Brookman said. “So, one person looking at a jar of Skippy peanut butter, it was $2.99. Another person, same exact time, it was $3.69.”

AB 2564 is primarily opposed by a coalition of corporations and technology industry associations. They argue that the bill’s language is overly broad, outlaws common consumer-friendly discounts, and creates costly litigation risks for small businesses.

Chamber of Progress – a tech industry association that lobbies for public policies that expand digital commerce and technological advances – says that banning data-driven personalization would wipe away targeted digital coupons that families count on to prolong their budgets.

In a March 18 written letter to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, Robert Singleton, senior director of Policy and Public Affairs for California and the U.S. West at the Chamber of Progress, urged the body to oppose AB 2564.

“We share the legislature’s concern about affordability,” Singleton wrote. “The cost of living is the top issue facing American families, and we understand the impulse to ensure consumers are getting a fair deal. But this bill risks backfiring on the families it aims to help.

Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City) supported and voted for the bill in the Assembly on May 27, but she still has questions about a “litigation risk” that could be costly.

“Every business or retailer that is spending their time battling courts is spending resources, which drives the cost up for everyone,” said Wilson, a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC).