Nationalization. Nobody is sure exactly what the word means, but its mere mention sends shivers up the spine.

On Monday, the Dow fell 250 points after some top legislators said the government might have to nationalize banks, at least temporarily.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner tried hard to reassure investors they had no plans to nationalize the banks, but on Friday, the U.S. government moved closer to taking a major stake in Citigroup. After gaining some ground, the Dow still ended the week down 251 points.

“Nationalization is a loaded term for a lot of people. It’s seen as the kind of thing that European or more socialist governments do,” says Douglas Elliott, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

But what, exactly, does nationalization mean and what are its pros and cons? Here’s are some answers.

Q: What is nationalization?

A: There is no single definition. In its purest sense, the government would take complete ownership of a bank, including all of its assets and liabilities, and run it day-to-day, the way it operates the U.S. Postal Service. If the company operated at a loss, taxpayers would foot the difference. If the company was liquidated and its assets exceeded its debts, taxpayers would be on the hook.

A government could partially nationalize a bank without taking complete control.

Many people would consider a bank nationalized if the government owned at least 51 percent of its common stock.

The government could also take effective control of a company without buying any stock, as it has done with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, says banking analyst Bert Ely.

The U.S. government has bought preferred stock in the eight largest banks and hundreds of smaller ones under the Troubled Asset Relief Plan. This is generally not considered nationalization because the preferred stock doesn’t have voting rights.

On Wednesday, however, the Treasury unveiled a new Capital Assistance Program. Under the plan, large banks that can’t pass a “stress test” will have six months to raise additional capital from private investors. If they can’t, they must sell the government preferred stock that is convertible into common stock after seven years. The bank could convert the stock or buy it back before seven years. Some people see this as creeping nationalization.

On Friday, Citigroup said it will offer to convert almost $27.5 billion in preferred stock held by investors and up to $25 billion held by the government into common stock. If all shares are exchanged, the government would own 36 percent of the company. The government is already demanding that Citigroup overhaul its board. It’s hard not to see this as partial nationalization.

Q: Has the United States ever nationalized a bank?

A: Yes. In 1983, it took over Continental Illinois, at that time the sixth-largest bank. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has also taken over failed banks when it couldn’t find a buyer, as it did with IndyMac last year, Elliott says.

Although the FDIC sold IndyMac within a few months, it took the government seven years to wind down its stake in Continental Illinois.

Today’s banks in danger of nationalization are many times bigger and more complex

Q: Didn’t the government nationalize thrifts in the early 1990s?

A: Yes, but the situation was different from today.

The Resolution Trust Corp. took over failed savings & loan associations with the sole purpose of liquidating them.

“The government was the undertaker. We were burying the dead,” says Ely. “Today, we are dealing with institutions that have issues but many pieces are very viable.” The government would be more like a vet, “nursing the sick whales back to health.”

Q: Why do investors worry about nationalization?

A: If the government took over a bank, its common stockholders would get little or nothing. Although depositors would not lose money, other creditors, such as bondholders, could get hurt if their debt were restructured, as it would be in a bankruptcy.

Even in a partial nationalization, common shareholders would get hurt if the bank issued new shares to the government because their ownership stake would be proportionately less.

Q: What are the other dangers?

A: Taxpayers would probably lose money. There would also be political pressure to pursue social goals such as lending to low-income people.

Money will go “to sectors of the economy that are in trouble or those with the lowest rates of return. The government will direct funds to aid the poor, not to rebuild the nation,” writes Richard Bove, a banking analyst with Rochedale Research.

While some see this as a positive, it would probably hurt taxpayers.

Government ownership would also create “a competitive imbalance between banks that are nationalized and those that are not,” says Ely. “It becomes a rerun of the Fannie-Freddie problem.”

Although Fannie and Freddie were shareholder-owned companies with no explicit government backing, most investors assumed that the government – which set them up – would come to their rescue if times got tough. As a result, they could borrow more money, at lower rates, than other companies.

“They used the implicit guarantee of the government to take much riskier positions than they would have if they were (purely) private enterprises,” Elliott says.

It also forced them to serve two masters – politicians who wanted them to increase homeownership and shareholders who wanted them to increase profit.

“This was a big part of Fannie and Freddie’s undoing,” Elliott says.

Q: Why consider nationalization?

A: To prevent a run on a large bank and the chain reaction that would set off.

“Whether we like the banks or not … they are central to our whole economy,” Elliott says. “They are the main way we get money from savers to businesses, homeowners. If we let the existing banking system fall apart, it will cause immense destruction.”

Net Worth runs Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. E-mail Kathleen Pender at kpender@sfchronicle.com.

Job-hunting can be painstaking, discouraging and frightening in a state that has lost 155,400 jobs over the past year.

As Arizona’s unemployment rate has risen to 7 percent, the number of jobs available has shrunk. In sectors such as construction and professional and business services, the job loss has been dramatic. And opportunities have dwindled even in the strong health and medical field, where fewer people can afford elective procedures and more people seek free care.

Sometimes there are hundreds competing for one job. Employers who advertise are so swamped many have stopped posting positions. Fewer hiring managers are showing up at job fairs.

Even fallback jobs, such as truck driving or substitute teaching, are scarce.

But there are companies still hiring. It helps to have skills to market, a winning resume and flexibility. It also helps to know about the market you are entering.

Inside, we provide details on Arizona’s main job sectors, the outlook for each, and types of jobs they may offer. A14-15

It’s becoming more clear by the day that Obama is a president of stunning ambition. Some members of Congress reacted skeptically when Obama said he would halve the deficit by the end of his first term. Yet compared with the other challenges he set out, like saving capitalism and finding a cure for cancer, cutting the deficit is small potatoes. Opponents say he’s unrealistic or even dangerous. What everyone can agree on is that he’s cast aside the Reagan-era wisdom that the best and most successful chief executives focus on just a few big things. As befits a modern multi-tasker, Obama wants to do everything. For now, at least, he’s got the country behind him, even if voters are uneasy about bailouts and red ink.

It’s so quiet on the left flank of the Democratic Party that the Congressional Black Caucus may not draft an alternative budget this year. To put this in perspective: The CBC has done an alternative budget every year since the mid-1980′s—during the Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 presidencies. But after eight years of being iced out by the latest Bush administration, the CBC now has a friend in the White House. “It’s as though the dreams of a generation not just symbolically but substantively have been honored,” says Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a liberal-leaning think tank. “I have to believe that unless and until he retreats or compromises in a way that is unnecessary or unconscionable, [the CBC] will be his most loyal supporters.”

Maybe so, but the CBC won’t remain quiet spectators for long. “Their agendas are on the same page, but Obama should not assume he’s got them,” cautions David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which focuses on issues of particular concern to African Americans. In politics, impatient friends sometimes cause more problems than enemies. When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, he had strong backing from black voters. But six months later Vernon Jordan, then head of the Urban League, criticized Carter for betraying those voters because he hadn’t delivered on a jobs bill. “If there’s any group in the Congress that is cognizant that you have to manipulate, that you don’t always get what you want right away, that you have to keep maneuvering, it’s the Black Caucus,” says Bositis.

On foreign policy, there’s not a lot of slippage between the 16 months Obama promised as the timeframe to withdraw combat troops from Iraq and the 19 months announced this week. After everything the country has been through for the past six years, it’s hard to imagine a big fight over June versus September. The argument, if there is one, will be over Afghanistan, and Obama will hold his ground. He campaigned on the basis that Iraq is the wrong war and combating extremists in Afghanistan is a right, necessary and just war. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi frets that there’s no clear plan, but unless conditions in Afghanistan deteriorate even more rapidly than they have, a revolt from the left is unlikely. Obama is asking the same question: where’s the plan?

Once he settles on a course of action, he’ll have to justify the escalation. The CBC, like the rest of the Democratic left, is strongly anti-war. CBC members voted uniformly against the October ’02 resolution to go to war in Iraq; California Rep. Barbara Lee, the current chairman, was the only lawmaker in either chamber of Congress to vote ‘no’ on a resolution three days after the 9/11 attacks giving President Bush authority to use “all appropriate and necessary force” against “nations, organizations or persons” deemed culpable or that “harbored such organizations or persons.” She quickly became a favorite target of right-wing radio. Now, almost eight years later, events have borne out the danger of placing too much faith in a president—any president—when it comes to war powers.

Lee did very few interviews at the time and backed out of a scheduled appearance on “Larry King Live.” An angry producer said, “No one cancels on King.” Prodded by veteran reporter Helen Thomas to tell her story before someone else did, Lee finally broke her silence and the result is a memoir, “Renegade for Peace & Justice,” that describes her singular vote and the passions and policies that drive her in the Congress. A person who cherishes her privacy to the extent that she omits personal data from her official biography, the exercise forced her to open up. She reveals for the first time that she was once on public assistance, and details a journey to the Congress as extraordinary in its own right as that of the president she aims to serve. “His agenda is our agenda,” she said as the CBC prepared to meet with Obama Thursday at the White House.

© 2009

The message seemed mixed. It was 3 o’clock on the afternoon of Sunday, Oct. 3, 1965, and President Lyndon B. Johnson had come to the foot of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor to sign the unsexily named Immigration and Nationality Act. It was a grand and sentimental stage for Johnson, who loved the grand and the sentimental. There he was, less than a year into a term he’d won in the greatest of landslides over Barry Goldwater, at the mythic gateway to America, Robert and Ted Kennedy in the audience, the eyes of the press fixed on him in the shadows of the nation’s most fabled icon of freedom. “Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers,” Johnson said, reaching for political poetry. “From a hundred different places or more they have poured forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide.”

But the president was openly ambivalent, too. “The bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill,” he said, defensively, almost as though to reassure white Americans that they had nothing to fear. “It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power.”

To borrow an old line about Winston Churchill, when Lyndon Johnson was right, he was right, but when he was wrong, well, my God. (See, for example, War, Vietnam.) On reflection, the bill LBJ signed on that October day was one of the most significant of his momentous presidency, and the virtually forgotten legislation played a key role in creating the America that made this week’s inauguration of Barack Obama possible.

Why exhume the long-dead Johnson on the occasion of one of the most engaging inaugurals since George Washington took the oath at Federal Hall in New York City in 1789? Because who we are now—a country in which traditional barriers of race and age and gender are crumbling—flows in many ways from what LBJ did then. His conflicting language on that October day, meanwhile, underscores the nation’s occasionally wary view of the changes wrought by immigration. We like to say we love the new, but the familiar, come to think of it, is awfully comfortable, too. So which will it be in the coming years: the America of the melting pot, or the America of resentments? The America of Lincoln’s better angels, or the America of Nixon’s Silent Majority?

The answer is almost certainly that we will be one or another of these Americas at different times depending on different circumstances. One reason to think that we might find ourselves with Lincoln more often than with Nixon, though, is that the “we” is getting ever trickier to define quickly and easily in terms of race, ethnicity and religion. We the People of 2009 are not the We the People of 1959 or 1969 or even 1979. And that is because of Lyndon Johnson.

There is something quintessentially American about a lumbering white man from Texas—a complex, gifted and ultimately tragic politician—transforming, however inadvertently, a largely Anglo-Saxon nation into a country which, in roughly the same amount of time that separates us from John F. Kennedy’s inauguration, will have more people of color than whites. (The shorthand for this milestone, projected to take place in about 2050, is the arrival of a “majority-minority” country, but if the minorities are actually the majorities, we should probably find a cleaner linguistic way to talk about the coming reality.)

Stories about demography tend to be prospective and general, and it is all too easy to exaggerate this turn in the statistics or that tick in the projections. But this much is clear and certain: the nation over which Obama will preside is changing, rapidly, and history is likely to connect his political rise to the shifting nature of a country that was largely one thing in the wake of World War II and through the Cold War and into the opening years of the 21st century, and quite another as the Obama era began. Full Story

The message seemed mixed. It was 3 o’clock on the afternoon of Sunday, Oct. 3, 1965, and President Lyndon B. Johnson had come to the foot of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor to sign the unsexily named Immigration and Nationality Act. It was a grand and sentimental stage for Johnson, who loved the grand and the sentimental. There he was, less than a year into a term he’d won in the greatest of landslides over Barry Goldwater, at the mythic gateway to America, Robert and Ted Kennedy in the audience, the eyes of the press fixed on him in the shadows of the nation’s most fabled icon of freedom. “Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers,” Johnson said, reaching for political poetry. “From a hundred different places or more they have poured forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide.”

But the president was openly ambivalent, too. “The bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill,” he said, defensively, almost as though to reassure white Americans that they had nothing to fear. “It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power.”

To borrow an old line about Winston Churchill, when Lyndon Johnson was right, he was right, but when he was wrong, well, my God. (See, for example, War, Vietnam.) On reflection, the bill LBJ signed on that October day was one of the most significant of his momentous presidency, and the virtually forgotten legislation played a key role in creating the America that made this week’s inauguration of Barack Obama possible.

Why exhume the long-dead Johnson on the occasion of one of the most engaging inaugurals since George Washington took the oath at Federal Hall in New York City in 1789? Because who we are now—a country in which traditional barriers of race and age and gender are crumbling—flows in many ways from what LBJ did then. His conflicting language on that October day, meanwhile, underscores the nation’s occasionally wary view of the changes wrought by immigration. We like to say we love the new, but the familiar, come to think of it, is awfully comfortable, too. So which will it be in the coming years: the America of the melting pot, or the America of resentments? The America of Lincoln’s better angels, or the America of Nixon’s Silent Majority?

The answer is almost certainly that we will be one or another of these Americas at different times depending on different circumstances. One reason to think that we might find ourselves with Lincoln more often than with Nixon, though, is that the “we” is getting ever trickier to define quickly and easily in terms of race, ethnicity and religion. We the People of 2009 are not the We the People of 1959 or 1969 or even 1979. And that is because of Lyndon Johnson.

There is something quintessentially American about a lumbering white man from Texas—a complex, gifted and ultimately tragic politician—transforming, however inadvertently, a largely Anglo-Saxon nation into a country which, in roughly the same amount of time that separates us from John F. Kennedy’s inauguration, will have more people of color than whites. (The shorthand for this milestone, projected to take place in about 2050, is the arrival of a “majority-minority” country, but if the minorities are actually the majorities, we should probably find a cleaner linguistic way to talk about the coming reality.)

Stories about demography tend to be prospective and general, and it is all too easy to exaggerate this turn in the statistics or that tick in the projections. But this much is clear and certain: the nation over which Obama will preside is changing, rapidly, and history is likely to connect his political rise to the shifting nature of a country that was largely one thing in the wake of World War II and through the Cold War and into the opening years of the 21st century, and quite another as the Obama era began. Full Story

Becky Groom always wanted to volunteer, but she had little time for it during her 19 years in business operations at Washington Mutual. Then she got laid off last year, and she started helping out at Habitat for Humanity’s outlet store in Seattle.

The experience might have felt more fulfilling while she was still employed and eager to get away from her computer. Instead, it frustrated her, because it did nothing to forward her career and gave her no networking opportunities.

Now, she is in a new volunteer position, working pro bono as a project manager for a team of five professionals developing marketing materials for ElderHealth Northwest. She finds it an ideal situation: She’s using her professional skills, making new contacts and learning about health care, one of the few fields where there’s growth and hiring right now.

When you’re out of work, volunteering isn’t just about giving back to the community. It’s also a way to keep your professional skills sharp, beef up your résumé and make new connections. The right volunteer job can help you get back in the workforce.

Groom found hers through the Taproot Foundation, which places people in assignments based on their professional experience. It operates in seven U.S. cities in a variety of fields, including finance, marketing and information technology. Its volunteers work in teams of five (they can do so remotely) for at least five hours a week, for periods of five months.

Groom wanted to parlay her finance background into a new career in health care, so she asked to work with a nonprofit in that sector. She has gotten to know the members of the board of ElderHealth Northwest and a number of health care executives. Her new colleagues have reviewed her resume and helped her tailor it for health care jobs, removing finance terms that aren’t relevant. They’ve also gotten to see what a diligent worker she is and can recommend her for open positions.

That sort of thing is happening a lot, says Aaron Hurst, president of Taproot. “We’ve heard in the past that people were finding work from volunteering,” says Hurst. “If someone has experience working with a colleague on a project, they’ll be more likely to hire them because they already know them. It’s like interning at a company.”

Many unemployed Americans have already caught on. The Ronald McDonald House of New York has had a 10 percent increase in volunteers since this time last year; many say they were recently laid off. Applications to Taproot have increased a remarkable 171 percent, Hurst says. He attributes this partly to President Barack Obama’s national call to service, but he knows it’s also because of layoffs, since all applicants are asked why they’re signing up.

“The majority these days say, ‘I’m not unemployed and am looking for ways to stay engaged, to network and feel good about myself,’” he says.

The Ronald McDonald House of New York, which provides lodging for the families of hospitalized children, recently started making a computer lab available to its volunteers so they can network and look for paying jobs. They’re also encouraged to volunteer at Wall Street Pink Slip Parties, which bring together recruiters and job seekers. When they do check-in or other work at the parties, Ronald McDonald House pays for their admission, which normally costs $20.

One way to find a volunteer job is through volunteermatch.org, a national organization that finds gigs based on your interests and geographical location. Another is Boardnetusa.org, which places people on the boards of nonprofits. You fill out a profile of your interests and professional skills; nonprofits then choose whether to interview you for their board positions.

“It’s an excellent opportunity, as long as you’re not doing it just to meet people,” says Lynda Zakrzewski, national director of Boardnet. “The skills developed in being on a nonprofit board overlap the skills of leaders in corporate America —negotiation techniques, strategic formulation, recruiting talent, influencing.”

As for Becky Groom, she’s feeling a lot better about herself, even though she has been out of a job for a year. “This has really helped me feel more professional again,” she says. “Having been out of work so long, I was starting to feel down and worried that I’d lose some of my skills. It’s been a really good way to reengage and feel good about myself.”

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – American International Group Inc. will receive additional federal assistance of up to $30 billion as part of a revamped government bailout, according to media reports Sunday, citing unnamed sources.

The new funding, the fourth government rescue of AIG since September, is intended to support the New York-based insurer as it is expected to announce $60 billion in quarterly losses early Monday.

Once one of the world’s largest insurers, AIG has already received $150 billion in loans from the government. In return the government has taken an 80 percent stake in the insurer.

Under the new deal, the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve would provide about $30 billion in fresh capital to the insurer, lower the interest rate on a $60 billion loan and ease the terms of a $40 billion preferred share investment.

The $30 billion would not be injected immediately but would be provided as a standby line of equity that AIG could tap as its losses mount, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

AIG will repay much of the $40 billion it owes the Federal Reserve with equity stakes in two AIG overseas units — Asia-based American International Assurance Co. and American Life Insurance Co., which operates in 50 countries. Repayment was originally supposed to be made in cash with interest, the Journal reported.

In addition, AIG will securitize $5 billion to $10 billion in debt, backed with life insurance assets, to further reduce its debt burden. And the $60 billion Federal Reserve credit facility AIG received in November will be reduced to $25 billion, the Journal said.

AIG has already drawn down about $38 billion of those funds.

An AIG spokesman was not available for comment. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is handling the government loan, did not return requests for comment Sunday afternoon. Treasury Department spokesman Isaac Baker declined to comment.

The company’s board is scheduled to meet Sunday to vote on the revised bailout.

Major credit rating agencies have already signed off on the deal. Without the support of the credit rating agencies, AIG would have faced crippling cuts to its ratings.

AIG has been forced to seek more help because of a combination of factors including the recession and its falling stock price, now well under $1. Perhaps its biggest problem has been that asset sales that were supposed to help the company pay back government loans aren’t happening, in part because the credit crisis that initially landed AIG in trouble last summer is also preventing would-be buyers from getting financing to complete such deals.

As of Feb. 13, AIG had sold interests in nine businesses.

In November, the U.S. government restructured previous loans provided to AIG, giving the company about $150 billion in total as part of a rescue package to help the insurer remain in business amid the worsening credit crisis. That package replaced earlier loans, including the original $85 billion lent in September, after it became apparent the insurer needed more funds.

Problems at AIG did not come from its traditional insurance operations, but instead from its financial services units, and primarily its business insuring mortgage-backed securities and other risky debt against default.

Shares of AIG closed at 42 cents on Friday. The stock, which traded at $49.50 a year ago, has lost nearly all of its value since the market meltdown began in September.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – American International Group Inc. will receive additional federal assistance of up to $30 billion as part of a revamped government bailout, according to media reports Sunday, citing unnamed sources.

The new funding, the fourth government rescue of AIG since September, is intended to support the New York-based insurer as it is expected to announce $60 billion in quarterly losses early Monday.

Once one of the world’s largest insurers, AIG has already received $150 billion in loans from the government. In return the government has taken an 80 percent stake in the insurer.

Under the new deal, the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve would provide about $30 billion in fresh capital to the insurer, lower the interest rate on a $60 billion loan and ease the terms of a $40 billion preferred share investment.

The $30 billion would not be injected immediately but would be provided as a standby line of equity that AIG could tap as its losses mount, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

AIG will repay much of the $40 billion it owes the Federal Reserve with equity stakes in two AIG overseas units — Asia-based American International Assurance Co. and American Life Insurance Co., which operates in 50 countries. Repayment was originally supposed to be made in cash with interest, the Journal reported.

In addition, AIG will securitize $5 billion to $10 billion in debt, backed with life insurance assets, to further reduce its debt burden. And the $60 billion Federal Reserve credit facility AIG received in November will be reduced to $25 billion, the Journal said.

AIG has already drawn down about $38 billion of those funds.

An AIG spokesman was not available for comment. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is handling the government loan, did not return requests for comment Sunday afternoon. Treasury Department spokesman Isaac Baker declined to comment.

The company’s board is scheduled to meet Sunday to vote on the revised bailout.

Major credit rating agencies have already signed off on the deal. Without the support of the credit rating agencies, AIG would have faced crippling cuts to its ratings.

AIG has been forced to seek more help because of a combination of factors including the recession and its falling stock price, now well under $1. Perhaps its biggest problem has been that asset sales that were supposed to help the company pay back government loans aren’t happening, in part because the credit crisis that initially landed AIG in trouble last summer is also preventing would-be buyers from getting financing to complete such deals.

As of Feb. 13, AIG had sold interests in nine businesses.

In November, the U.S. government restructured previous loans provided to AIG, giving the company about $150 billion in total as part of a rescue package to help the insurer remain in business amid the worsening credit crisis. That package replaced earlier loans, including the original $85 billion lent in September, after it became apparent the insurer needed more funds.

Problems at AIG did not come from its traditional insurance operations, but instead from its financial services units, and primarily its business insuring mortgage-backed securities and other risky debt against default.

Shares of AIG closed at 42 cents on Friday. The stock, which traded at $49.50 a year ago, has lost nearly all of its value since the market meltdown began in September.

The United States shed 2.6 million jobs in 2008, with Arizona losing 115,000 jobs during that time – a higher percentage than every other state except for Rhode Island.

Companies are expected to keep cutting through 2009, especially as the economy contracts at its quickest pace in decades.

It’s easy to be gripped by the fear that your job is next.

“People’s productivity is being affected,” said Dean Newlund, president of Phoenix-based Mission Facilitators International Inc. “It’s hard to think clearly when you’re depressed, when you’re concerned about your job.”

But it’s a terrible strategy to hunker down in your cubicle and hope for the best.

It’s time to develop a strategy.

“Personally, I always feel better when I make a plan and take some action,” says Ginny McMinn, founder and president of Gilbert-based McMinn HR, a human-resources consultancy.

Here are 10 steps you can take to save your job, your sanity and move ahead:

1. Take on extra work.

This is not the time to cause problems at work. Arrive early and leave late. Get to the office before the boss and leave after him or her, even if it’s just a five-minute span. Try to solve problems before asking for help from your boss.

Take on extra projects. Go above and beyond your job description. If layoffs occur, you want management to realize you’re indispensable.

2. Figure out your place at work.

Stephen Viscusi, author of “Bulletproof Your Job: 4 Simple Strategies to Ride Out the Rough Times and Come Out on Top at Work,” suggests that workers meet one-on-one with the boss for five minutes.

Ask him or her: “I know there are no guarantees, but where do I stand if we have layoffs here?”

The boss might reply: “I’m just as nervous as you, and I don’t really know anything,” or, “Your performance hasn’t really been up to par and I’m concerned about you.”

Such a meeting will establish a baseline on where you stand. But keep it short.

3. Check your mental health.

Stress, in small amounts, can be good for people. It can provide the spark.

But try to avoid full-blown anxiety, which can show in the form of increased heart rate, sweating and shortness of breath.

Depression can take the form of a change in sleep habits, rapid weight loss or weight gain and decreased interest in activities a person once enjoyed. It also can come in the form of increased alcohol and drug abuse.

If eating better and exercising don’t seem to abate these symptoms, it may be time to seek out a professional. Contact your company’s employee-assistance program.

4. Help others.

Helping others who have less than you do can do wonders for your perspective.

One organization offering plenty of opportunities for busy people is Hands on Greater Phoenix (www.handsonphoenix.org). Volunteers can participate in a range of programs and time commitments.

5. Learn new skills.

Take advantage of any training offered by your company. Or check out the adult-education classes at a local community college.

What skills would help you advance your career? Web-page design? Learning Spanish? Taking leadership or management classes?

6. Put on a good face.

Look for the positive. This isn’t to say you should be a Pollyanna, you must be realistic. But being cheerful helps. Help create the plan to move your company forward. And, as your company cuts back, it’s a great opportunity to show your skills – maybe some you haven’t been able to use.

7. Update your resume.

Many people have been out of the job market for years and haven’t updated their resume. Others just add to the same resume they’ve had for years.

It’s time to start fresh with an updated, professional document that highlights your qualifications.

Don’t know where to begin? The Scottsdale Job Network offers a free resume critique on the first and third Tuesdays and Thursdays of the month. Details: www.scottsdalejobnet.com.

Other applicants have had luck with professional resume rewriting, although it can cost hundreds of dollars.

8. Project confidence.

You’ve heard the old adage, if you want to be a leader, act like one. Now is the time to do this. Go to meetings. Don’t remain holed up in your office. You need to talk to people, helping spread your confidence. Your staff is looking for leadership, bring it. That means looking for solutions, not simply pointing out the problems.

9. Network, network, network.

This means more than just reconnecting with old friends and co-workers. What professional groups can you join? Are you attending events regularly?

Also, consider joining LinkedIn, a free, business-networking site. It connects friends, acquaintances and current and former co-workers.

10. Create a Plan B or C.

Ask yourself, “If I was laid off tomorrow and could do anything, what would it be?”

What kind of training is needed to do that job? How long does it take? What steps can you take now to begin down that career path, while you still have a paycheck from a job? Does it entail going back to school part-time? Does it mean volunteering on weekends?

It’s all about getting your foot in the door so that you have a safety net if your job disappears.

(Corrects name of actor in fifth paragraph.)

Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) — Happy endings from “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” and Oscar winner “Slumdog Millionaire” are fueling a surge in ticket sales, providing studios and theater owners with a recession-era boost.

Attendance, which fell about 5 percent for all of 2008, climbed 21 percent this year through Feb. 22, according to researcher Media By Numbers. Box-office receipts are up 23 percent in the U.S. and Canada, lifted by $122 million from Sony Corp.’s slapstick “Blart” and $77.9 million from News Corp.’s “Slumdog,” about an orphan’s improbable rise from poverty in Mumbai.

The gap is projected to widen this weekend, as best picture- winner “Slumdog” expands to capitalize on eight Academy Awards, and Walt Disney Co.’s “Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience” makes its debut. Audiences are flocking to theaters in greater numbers to get a break from their financial problems, said Tom Sherak, a movie-marketing consultant.

“It’s the times,” said Sherak, co-founder of Revolution Consulting Services and former head of News Corp.’s domestic film unit. “You want to escape and forget about everything and have a good time.”

Four of the top five films released in 2009 are comedies, according to Media By Numbers. “Blart,” starring Kevin James as a Segway-riding security guard who thwarts bad guys at a New Jersey mall, spent two weeks in first place.

The romantic comedy “He’s Just Not That Into You,” from Time Warner Inc., is third with $72 million, followed by “Hotel for Dogs,” released by Viacom Inc.’s Paramount Pictures, and “Bride Wars,” from News Corp.’s Fox. The Fox action film “Taken” is second.

Life Story

A year ago, the top five films included only one comedy, News Corp.’s “27 Dresses.” The biggest movie from Jan. 1 through Feb. 25 was the horror film “Cloverfield,” about a giant creature that destroys Manhattan.

Including 2008 releases whose runs have continued into this year, a broader group of so-called feel-good movies including “Slumdog” have racked up $598 million in sales, versus $453 million in the same period a year earlier, according to Los Angeles-based Media By Numbers.

“Slumdog” has earned $101.9 million domestically since November. The film tells a young man’s life story in flashbacks through his appearance on the Indian version of the television game show “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” and subsequent detention by police. Director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Simon Beaufoy won Oscars. Fox Searchlight is expanding the movie by 699 theaters, or 31 percent, to 2,943 theaters this weekend, according to Box Office Mojo LLC.

Digital Funding

The larger audiences are lifting revenue for exhibitors. Regal Entertainment Group, the largest theater-chain owner, said last week that sales rose 19 percent in the fourth quarter. To date this year, industry box-office had climbed 15 percent, Chief Executive Michael Campbell said on a Feb. 19 conference call discussing the Knoxville, Tennessee-based company’s results.

Still, the credit crunch has delayed an industry effort to finance installation of digital projectors, potentially limiting the haul for major 3-D releases such as DreamWorks Animation SKG’s “Monsters vs. Aliens” next month, Disney Pixar’s “Up” in May and Fox’s “Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs,” in July.

“It remains a question as to when the credit markets will ease enough to allow this transaction to be funded,” Campbell said on the call.

Studios are fighting a separate battle to maintain DVD sales as viewers shift toward watching shows online.

‘Jonas’ vs. ‘Madea’

This weekend, “Jonas Brothers” is projected to lead the box office, displacing “Tyler Perry’s Madea Goes to Jail,” the filmmaker’s latest comedy about a pistol-toting matriarch.

“Madea,” from Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., took in $41 million its opening weekend. It may drop to $18.5 million this week, according to Gitesh Pandya, editor of New York-based Box Office Guru LLC. He anticipates “Jonas Brothers,” opening in 1,271 3-D theaters, may reach $40 million.

Overall this year, News Corp. leads studio owners with ticket sales of $372 million, followed by New York-based Time Warner with $319 million. Last year, Time Warner finished in first place with $1.9 billion, including $531 million from “The Dark Knight.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Michael White in Los Angeles at mwhite@bloomberg.net.