>> for more go to www.aljazeera.com. aljazeera.com. the push to ban the box. checking the wrong box on a job application could ruin your chance at a second chance. plus market whiplash, the wild stock market swings and why we should have seen them coming. last night i explained why america's economy was in better shape than the last time the stock market wiped out trillions in wealth. it's true. america re

covered all the 8.7 million jobs lost between 2008 and 2010. the u.s. created 11.7 million jobs, during the recovering, but tonight i want to talk about a group of people who remained at a disadvantage when looking for work in the united states. men and women that served time in prison or gaol. former prisoners are among a larger group of americans with a criminal record, anything from a misdemeanour to a felony conviction, estimates put the number as a million. studies showed that disposing a criminal record on a job application can reduce chances of employment by as much as two-thirds. that's why a growing number of cities and state are pushing employees to remove job applications. the box that you check, if you serve time, or have a criminal record.

the movement is called ban the box. here is how president obama described it last month. >> let's follow the growing number of our state and cities, and private companies. who have decided to ban the box on job applications so that former prisoners who have done their time and trying to get straight with society have a decent shot with a jab interview. president obama was speaking at a convention at the national association. and it is important to know that the ban the box issue affects back and other minorities more than it effects white americans, because harsh sentencing laws for drug crimes had ha disproportionate affect to black americans. they are one factor why a million of the total prison population is black.

that is greater than the 13% that blacks represent in the overall u.s. population. no matter the person's race, his or her chances of finding a job when released from prison will undoubtedly rise if the movement to ban the box spreads, and that could mean better lives, as many as several hundred thousand. david ari oftle has the story. >> i went through a bad thing in my life and didn't know how to deal with it. the drama. >> maryland started to use drugs in the late 1980s. heroin, cocaine. whatever she could get her hands on. she went to prison, after her release, he was ready to move on

with her life and find work. >> i want to be efficient. i tried hard to apply and apply and apply. numerous places, i never got a chance to get a job. the 32 yooerz could never approve that was the reason. >> in the two decades, she never has been able to find more than part-time gigs. >> i make enough to pay rent, barely. that doesn't include food, electricity, clothing. a lot of people don't realise that punishment doesn't end at the prison. glern is the founder -- gl is the founder of a nonprofit

associated with criminal reform. all is part of the fabric of america, through the american dream. martin should know, he served six years and struggled to find menial work. that was as a result of you being incarcerated. >> studies found it identifying as an ex-offender can reduce chances of employment by as much as two-thirds. and an estimated 60 to 75% of americans released from prison can't find work the first year back home. we are looking for the person not to offend. we have a system where two-thirds of people come out and do it again. and we know what works, there's enough reach to tell us what works. access to labour market works. that's why 18 states, 100 cities

and counties and private companies, including target, wal-mart and others instituted ban the box policies. that mines the box. employers can run background checks, but only after job candidates. >> essentially you bring everyone up to the start line so people can compete, barely based on the merits and have a account. >> why should people be given third, fourth, fifth opportunities, particularity when there are people in recovering economies. >> most have had an opportunity . a lot sh people growing up in situations where they don't have access to quality education. >> given that the united states incarcerates more people.

at least relative to the ratio of other groups. is this beyond discrimination based on incarceration, bleeding into the category. one in three go to prison. essentially any policy decision, i'm not hiring anyone with a felony. one in three may walk through the door. >> black men like pearson, where incarceration was life. >> most of my friends are locked up or dead. >> in 2006, pear son was caught dealing drugs. and went to prison. he was hope to ex-offenders. this is my job now. as a labour you are he makes about $5 an hour, days are long, he stays

early and late. research shows those with criminal backgrounds are more productive. pearson made an impression on his boss. >> if you hadn't told me he had known. he'd go far. jobs like pearson's are the exception, not the norm. other industries accepting of backgrounds, low-wage jobs with few benefits. those are not the kind of things that help people turn their lives around and stablilize their families and pay their bills in the long run. >> some business groups say the new rules are time-consuming forcing owners to take unnecessary risks.

many are too knew to conclude a reduction in recidivism or unemployment among offenders. they want president barack obama to ban the box. >> today we ban the box in new york city. >> reporter: just last month new york city passed the nation's strong fair chance law. we heard this story at the bill of signing. >> today i see hope for people like me. who have struggles. it was the moment she was waiting for for 20 long years. >> i'm a 52-year-old woman who never had a full-time job,

back. >> i see light at the end of the tunnel. i see the candle flickering at me. >> david ariosto joins us now. there's some instances, like you said, companies banning the box. a jurisdiction is banning the box. there's a lot of countries that are not comfortable having this imposed upon. >> an applicant will look to the process and go through several rounds of interviews. that's the process. we go through a waiting process, especially when we have small businesses, each matters so much to a company. once we goet to the point of offering a job, maybe we wouldn't want to offer that job. it's speaking to a largely the small business, but it speaks to process. >> let's talk about the differences between government jobs and private sector, we are not just talking about one or the other.

we are looking about 18 states, 400 cities, where they ban the box, where it's in place. four states we look to ban in private companies here. but the average here, we are talking about the united states, which incorporate rates more people than anyone else in the world. at some point they get out of gaol. if those people get out, and there's more roadblocks to getting them reintegrated into society, chances are they'll be back into prison. >> there's federal statues for discrimination on a lot of basis, gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. not based on having been a criminal or in gaol. >> there was a law on the books that says having a criminal record can't be the only condition which you'll look for a job. that is one that tips the scale. ageism, racism, they are hard to pinpoint and identify. especially when you tried the

legislation or the legalities of prosecution, placing it against discriminating. >> thank you very much. >> i'm talk it to a man that says a push to ban the box is nothing but a big waste of time, not to mention to mention

% ban the box is a movement that want to help those with criminal histories to not have to put it on a job application. employees are supposed to check if they have a criminal record. many oppose banning the box. they say it forces them to take unnecessary risks. a media director for the national federation of independent businesses. it's a lobbying organization. it represents

350,000 small businesses, joining us from washington. he lobbied against ban the box policies. tell me what is wrong with giving folks who served their time a fair shot at a job. there's nothing wrong with that. i think our members would agree with the sentiment. here is the problem - one, it's public information. a penalty conviction is information. what ban the box says is that small employers are not allowed to have the cover. they can't ask. and for a lot of our members, who are otherwise willing to hire people with a felony conviction, still won't have the conversation. ban the box says you can't talk about it after you made someone a job offer. consider that the small business owner is his own or her own department. no one else is doing it. >> is your mind changing.

>> it makes sense, and a few employees - if you don't employ someone else, maybe you outsource the payroll, you are not dealing with h.r., does that change for you. it's a larger company that has n an h.r. >> we don't represent the companies, i don't think the distinction matters. the set up piece reported the manying going on right now. conditions are responding on their own to what they think is right. i don't see what is wrong with the model. each of them have reasons for hiring their own peep. what is wrong with letting them find out for themselves whether chance. >> i hear when you say you made the decision, you said small department.

i wanted to know whether you thought if you had one, it makes a difference. let me give you an example. minneapolis found that it did not increase the amount of tractional work. -- transactional work. you can't have the conversation until you offered someone a job. if you offered someone a job based on everything else but the fact that they have a criminal record, does it mean that you found them to be a candidate. good for the job and you'd value them on the merit. and now on the basis of a criminal record for which they have served time? >> the idea of that having served time means never having to say you're sorry, that's silly. that is called a consequence where i come from. what you need to do is if you ask someone for a job, you ask that person to trust you and take the risk in hiring you, you need to explain to that person,

man to man, woman to woman, why you deserve a second chance. ban the box says employers may not apply their own judgment. there's nothing wrong with a young than that did something wrong saying listen, i'm sorry we did it, i know it was wrong, if you give me a second chance, i'll prove it. that's the conversation they ought to have. >> sometimes those people don't get the interview because there's a box in, it draws one's eye. they are a former criminal, the bin. >> let me put it a different way. you represent a lot of businesses. how about raising economic conditions for the millions of people with criminal records. is that ultimately your client. a 2011 study found putting 100 people back to work boosts their life-time earnings by $55 million.

that's a lot of money to spend on the economy. >> yes, no question. that's beneficial. no one is against hiring people with records. what we oppose is the government, lawyers and activists telling people who are taking the risks that they can't have the conversation, and they can't apply their own judgment. if you are talking to someone convicted of stealing, are you supposed to not wonder whether you can based that person around your customer, financial information. i mean, look, everyone deserves a second chance, but you have to be able to have the conversation in order to make the judgment. and what this does is they take away the rights to apply judgment from the employer. >> your sense that your clients who don't have an h.r. department. the companies that you represent, who don't have the h.r. departments are going to

then have that conversation even if they get application from someone who has collected the box. >> well i would assume that many of them would like the conversation and say "i'll trust you with this. they'll do this thing again. that's the kind of conversation people ought to have and banning the box, the information is sealed, it requires the owner to spend money and time that he doesn't have to go get it. it's a lot easier for everyone if the plant - by the -- one planet, one ocean & pharmaton, by the way, do you have a criminal connection, do you want to talk about that. our members are probably more strongly inclined to higher people from their communities who have criminal histories than bigger corporate cousins, it's not that they were opposed to the practice. >> thank you for joining us.

jack is the communications director of national federation of independent business. >> don't blame your bloker if your portfolio was hits s

>> the whole neighborhood was under 20 feet of water.

u.s. stocks rallied earlier today, but the dau ended the day 200 points lower, off 1.3%, a far cry from monday's 1,000 point drop at the market, or what happened on friday. investors have been responding to doubling prices worldwide.

most over fears about china. the shanghai index lost 40% of value in the past three months, triggering panic in china. the central bank responded with cash infusions, currency devaluation, interest cuts, and attempts to restore confidence failed. it's ripped beyond china because the country has the second-largest economy after the united states. the question we have including investors in the u.s. is how much the asset bubbles and gar gant uan debt affected the world. joining me here is the chief economist. now that things are coming -- calming down for us, it's not clear it was calming down for china just yet, how worried do we have to be about what this means. care?

>> we saw the point about it buying the second largest economy in the world. the second thing in the backdrop, this is happening to the chi. we, ourselves, have been stuck on a growth trajectory. that increases the magnitude of the imports to china, for the rest of the world. from o global growth perspective. we are going to double digit growth, and there's speculation. it's significant with the overall economy. that is having a problem. that is the big risk. japan struggling, europe almost inflation, china at a wholesale price level is deflating nor rapidly than japan. a slow down in china is not good, it damages the ability for companies to make profits around the world. >> let's play it out.

not everyone, and you may not realise why deflation is bad, prices are not going up. why is it a bad thing. it's a bad thing. they don't invest, they don't expand or higher. everything grinds to a stop. china is a sample. >> consumers sit back and say why do i buy today, i'll by more tomorrow. so consumers don't add to it, and you wind up in an historic stob in economy. we have to grow a population. it's a capacity of workers. it's creating jobs. we have started to see wages moving up. we have wage inequality situation. if we don't deal with the workers. wages go up. i'm not sure we are seeing wages going up. what we are seeing is a concentration of ways going up in certain industries.

not in a broad spectrum of industries. we have a deeper problem. it's a low level. prior to world war ii. these problems are significant. they are deep. and what happened in china reverberates through markets which are more closely integrated in economies, but in this instance they are integrated as well. >> this is not crisis proportions like 2008. there were real things going wrong. jobs lost, home prices falling. economies shrinking. global credit freeze. none of those fundamental problems were at play here. >> domestically you are correct. we don't know what is taking place in china. snoop it was transparent. >> it's limited transparency in china, even for that matter, the

transparency that you had. >> if we don't know what's going on, and they do things that resemble what mark could do in swathe. if they are worried about it, and they don't tell us about what is going on, that's a logical conclusion. >> that's why you are seeing the real effects around the world. the problem is greater. it may be a market price in the situation. they have to protect themselves. they have to protect their investors, that's why you see the ripple effect going across the market at once. >> when you stop things going bad in america, 2008. we had certain tools available, congress could do certain things, the fed could do certain things. we are largely a market driven economy. all the things designed to have market parr tit pants, regular people and businesses to hold on and have faith. china's economy - why can't you

fix it. >> the problem is whether you can get the people to goway you are asking them to do. in the environment where you are not sure what they are supposed to do. this is a new venture for them. they haven't been involved. they don't have the broad base of investor management. that we have here in the united states, lending confidence to it. it's largely a retail market. what we saw in 2001 and 2002. was the collapse of a retail market. it was a problem, but there wasn't much fundamental deterioration. we don't know if they are having a crisis of confidence. also reflecting the realities of thought. >> we'll have to wait and see how much information we get. >> steve is the chief economist. that is our show for today. we'll stay on top of the story. t

>> there's a line of police advancing toward the crowd here. >> ferguson: city under siege. >> it isn't easy to talk openly on this base. >> and america's war workers. >> it's human trafficking. >> watch these and other episodes online now at aljazeera.com/faultlines. [ ♪ ] if educators found out they were doing something that made it hard for kids to learn, you'd think they'd stop, right. years of research is piling spo pointing to the effects of early start times for high schoolers, greater chances of car accidents, but schools are still insisting on early starts.