TPMCafe
« Premature Speculation Time | Home | Pakistian, Palestine and Israel »

The Labor Market Is Flashing Recession

user-pic

We interrupt the news from Iowa to bring you the following message: there’s bad news on the economic home front in the form of today’s jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Job growth stalled in December and the unemployment rate ticked up sharply. I’m afraid to say that we have an answer to the question as to when the overall economic headwinds will blow a chill on the labor market.

The unemployment rate jumped from 4.7% to 5% in December, and private sector payrolls fell by 13,000, the weakest month since July 2003, the end of the jobless recovery.

Though one month of particularly weak jobs data does not necessarily signal a new, negative trend, a broad set of indicators throughout today’s report suggest the weakening economy has finally reached the job market.

First, the jobless rate is up 0.6 of a percent over the past year, adding 895,000 to the jobless rolls. An uptick of this magnitude has historically been either a symptom or a harbinger of recession.

Second, though December’s net job gains were the lowest this year, and the lowest since the end of the jobless recovery four years ago, payroll growth has slowed since June, adding an average of 84,000 jobs per month, compared to 147,000 January-May of this year. While monthly values from the BLS Household survey (the numbers cited so far are from the payroll survey) are too volatile to be reliable, over the year, employment in this survey was essentially unchanged, up 0.2%.

Finally, hiring was weak across most industries. Less than half of private sector industries were expanding last month, the worst showing in over four years. The private service sector, the core sector of job growth in our economy, added only 62,000 last month, its lowest month since October 2005. Also, there was a very large jump—from 4.5 million to 4.7 million, the highest level in over four years—in persons working part-time who were unable to find full-time jobs.

The softening of the job market has predictably translated into weaker earnings growth for the 80% of workers who are blue-collar in manufacturing and non-managers in services. Hourly earnings, before inflation, were up 3.7% for the year, compared to 4.3% last year. Weekly earnings, which take into account hours worked per week, reveal greater deceleration, up 3.4% this year compared to 4.6% last year.

With consumer inflation running in the 4% range, this implies falling real wages for most workers. Given the decline in home values and the negative national savings rate, it is difficult to see how consumers will be able to provide the needed stimulus to keep the economy from falling into recession, if it hasn’t already.

While monthly payrolls can undergo significant revision, the negative findings from today’s report are consistent with the considerable slowing of the overall economy. The uptick in the unemployment rate alone, which won't be revised away, is flashing recession.

The most important course of action now is for policy makers to craft an economic stimulus package to jumpstart the stalled economy. Bush is already talking about it, and—surprise—it sounds like they’re thinking of using this as an opportunity to push for permanent tax cuts.

That’s exactly the wrong medicine for this ailment. Stimulative tax cuts are by definition temporary and the Bushies have a proven track record of targeting them at the wrong folks, anyway (i.e., rich people are not income-constrained, so you don’t get much stimulative bang-for-the-buck from them in this context).

What’s the right medicine? Again, based on the bang-for-the-buck criterion, it’s best to strengthen the Unemployment Insurance system and, especially in the light of the housing meltdown and the associated local revenue shortfalls, ratchet up Federal grants to the states. In coming days, EPI will be posting policy ideas in this area.


33 Comments

| Leave a comment

Though one month of particularly weak jobs data does not necessarily signal . . . .

While monthly values from the BLS Household survey (the numbers cited so far are from the payroll survey) are too volatile to be reliable . . . .

While monthly payrolls can undergo significant revision . . . .

Employment, Economist: Our company has recently experienced an opening for a one-armed economist. If you're one so enabled and think you can handle the job, please call . . . .

 

Sorry, Ellen...economists are congenitally programmed to give caveats on top of caveats. 

That's because you can never be sure about such things.  But I think we're likely looking down the barrel of a recession as we speak.

 

 

Therefore, too substance!

Even assuming that recessions can be forecast sufficiently far in advance to permit us to correct or ameliorate them by some application of fiscal or monetary policy, we must, before opting to administer the prophylactic, decide whether recessions are everywhere and always insalutary?

Are they? Everywhere? Always? The Volcker recession(s)?  The Recession of 2008?

Glum reality is always preferable to snarky happy talk.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

While Jared didn't answer my questions, Stephen Roach did.

. . . the US body politic is panicking . . . .

No one wants recessions, asset deflation and rising unemployment. But this has always been the potential endgame of a bubble-prone US economy. The longer America puts off this reckoning, the steeper the ultimate price of adjustment.

And exemplifying that panic are our own Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker. Ah, well; as they say, ya get whatcha pays for.

:(

Welcome to the real world

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

I've never understood optimism regarding our economy especially in recent years (I knew there was trouble coming with another "bubble"). I'm made even more nervous whenever that brilliant economic mind George Bush does his best Bobby McFerrin to ease everyone's worries.

I might be over simplifying things but I just can't get the numbers to add up in my head and it's never made sense to me. With a tragically large number of homes being foreclosed, the cost of living continuing to climb, health care going absolutely nuts, personal debt levels approaching hopeless and with many of the jobs out there not particularly "career-builders" - how are the people supposed to support our economy? Consumption is our economy right? It needs people buying "stuff". In the past it was all kept rosy with the sound of an electric organ over the PA system coaxing the crowd into a hardy CHARGE!. Well when people have no more money and no more credit (not to mention no more homes) how are they supposed to buy "stuff"?

It just doesn't seem sustainable to me. I guess it's a good thing I'm a designer and not an economist. I'd obviously be terrible at it! ;-)

What kind of designer? I'm a graphic designer, and I think my fellows tend to be quite down to earth.

:)

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

LOL. As a matter of fact I'm a graphic designer too! I'm a partner in a boutique design firm out here in LA (design, marketing & promotions).

Of course Bush will use a recession as an excuse to permanently cut taxes for his rich backers. It's his and their last chance to do it. Since when did Bush/Cheney do anything to help anyone else?

Re: Of course Bush will use a recession as an excuse to permanently cut taxes for his rich backers.


He will do that how excatly? Last I checked only Congress can cut taxes.

Bush, Congress -- same thing. He demands, they accede. Examples:


  • War funding

  • USAPATRIOT Act

  • Kyle-Lieberman Amendment

  • FISA

  • AUMF

  • Health care

  • Military Commissions Act

  • Ad absurdum

Dems, Reps -- same thing. See list above.

Congress did not "accede" to Bush on healthcare. Like it or not, the President can veto any act of Congress and unless Congress can muster 2/3 in both houses to override, that's that. Given the division between the parties, I don't think you can fault the Democrats for being uable to pass the SCHIP expansion, or indeed for failing to pass any particular legislation that Bush opposes. (I am however heartened a bit that at least the Everglades restoration bill managed to override)
As far as taxes go however, that's a very different story. It's not a matter of Bush getting his way by vetoing legislation and having his party defend that veto in Congress. There's nothing Bush, or the GOP can do that will make get those tax cuts made permanent. Nothing. Sure, the Dems may allow a handful of middle class taxcuts to endure (e.g., the abolition of the marriage penalty) but the big boy stuff is history. The Democrats want that money too much for the programs they will pass once they also have a Democrat in the White House. Cynicism is not warranted here.

OK, I'll concede your point on health care.

I don't think you can fault the Democrats for...failing to pass any particular legislation that Bush opposes.
Why not? You bet I can fault them for it.

More importantly I fault them for now wanting to pass such legislation.

Still more importantly, they have had any number of opportunities to refuse to grant him his wishes, and they have almost cheerfully caved in every time on critical foreign policy -- particularly Iraq funding -- and civil liberties issues.

Cynicism is not warranted here.

It most certainly is.

No. It's not.

They do not have the numbers to override a veto, or a lockstep Republican (barely) minority.

Just stoppit.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

This is getting tiresome. Pay attention:

They don't need to have the votes to override a veto. They need to stop PASSING legislation that enables Bush's idiocy. Understand: Dems PASSING Republican legislation.

Oh silly me, I must have missed your link to Thomas citing all those REPUBLICAN BILLS the DEMOCRATS passed.

Any like this?

Democrats Chant "Shame" in Congress After Bills Pass Benefiting Big Businesses

Thursday, October 13th, 2005
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/13/1359253

In the weeks after Hurricane Katrina, legislation in the Senate and House has been criticized as beneficial to corporations while sidelining the victims of the disaster. Recently, House Republican leaders pushed through a bill to make it easier for oil companies to build new domestic refineries.

The bill passed 212-210 but only because the house leadership extended the vote by 40 minutes, during which time two Republicans switched their vote. The legislation will streamline government permits for refineries, open federal lands for future refinery construction, weaken environmental protections, and offer subsidies to build refineries even though oil companies are making record profits. The bill would also limit the power of community or citizen groups because if they filed a lawsuit to challenge the location of a refinery they would be required to pay an oil company’s legal costs whether they win or lose the lawsuit.

In the initial vote tally, it looked as if the bill was going down to defeat two votes shy of approval. Democrats called for gaveling the vote closed to no avail. During the extra 40 minutes of voting House Speaker Dennis Hastert, majority whip Roy Blunt and former Majority Leader Tom Delay all pressured other Republicans to change their votes. After the vote, Democrat Henry Waxman asked from the floor, "Doesn’t this make the House a banana republic?"

The Louisiana Katrina Reconstruction Act was introduced last month by Louisiana Senators Mary Landrieu, who is a Democrat, and David Vitter, who is a Republican. The LA Times reported this week that lobbyists representing transportation, energy and other special interests dominated the panels advising the senators in crafting the legislation. Most of the lobbying firms are major campaign contributors and several have donated heavily to the campaigns of Landrieu and Vitter. The bill is estimated to cost $246 billion dollars and includes billions of dollars of business for clients of the lobbyists. The act has been criticized as a missed opportunity to begin creative and equitable reconstruction of the devastated region. Keith Ashdown of the non-partisan watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, said that the lobbyists were exploiting the catastrophe. “They are using Katrina to get funding they haven’t been able to get in the past. You want to help the region but the bill they put together has a lot of projects that aren’t needed. This is congressional looting at its worse.”

* John Walke, Director for the Natural Resource Defense Council in Washington DC.
* Ivor van Heerden, Deputy Director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Public Health Research Center and Director of the Center for the Study of Public Health Impacts of Hurricanes in Baton Rouge. Van Heerden oversaw Louisiana’s coastal restoration program as an official in the state’s Department of Natural Resources

http://tabacco.blog-city.com/democrats_chant_shame_in_congress_after_republican_bills_pas.htm

Now THAT would be a REPUBLICAN Bill. Any like that? Oh, and maybe you could provide at least a bit of thin gruel in the form of substance to back up your absurd claims, Thanks. Or perhaps accuracy and facts are too tiresome for you?

 

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Oh silly me. I guess I missed the fact that the Dems were in the leadership in 2005.

But no, that's not the kind of bill I was talking about. I was talking about, for example, the bills that continue to fund the Iraq war at levels that will bankrupt your grandkids. The bills that continue to give Mr. Bush the power to listen to our phone calls without a warrant. The bills that might have given him the power to expand his war into Iran. Those are the Republican bills I was talking about. Perhaps you recall them?

Feel free to continue shouting the company line about how the Dems are going to rise again on the third day to become the saviors of America. And be sure to keep your eyes tight shut and your fingers in your ears when someone points in in the direction of the truth, just as the Wingnuts do. It will make you feel SO very much better.

Re: I was talking about, for example, the bills that continue to fund the Iraq war at levels that will bankrupt your grandkids.

Please quit looking at the trees and try to see the forest. Bush is going to stay in Iraq no matter what Congress does. He'll find funding some other way if Congress does not vote for it. And while the voters want out of Iraq, they will not tolerate any action that endangers the US Army. Yes, the Democrats tried to attach various strings to the Iraq appropriations-- and Bush vetoed those bills. Give them credit for at least trying. The Democrats want to win this year and keeping the Iraq issue out there actually does help since the public understands that Iraq is a GOP war. Newt Gingrich learned the hard way that you can't govern from Congress and the Democrats have marked that lesson. There's no way we're getting out of Iraq until there's a Democratic president in the White House. Meanwhile I have not noticed bills to privatize Social Security or pass a federal FMA going anywhere, things which I personally caree about a lot more than that mess in Iraq. The Iraq War will end once Bush if the Democrats have the presidency again. Try having a little patience.

Once again, I cannot support most of your premises.

Bush is going to stay in Iraq no matter what Congress does. He'll find funding some other way if Congress does not vote for it.

Worse, the Dems will continue to enable him no matter what HE does.

If Mr. Bush cares to continue killing our young men and women without a declaration of war or even funding, let him. If the Republicans in Congress support him in this crime, so be it. If the American people vote to continue that sort of criminality, we will have the government we deserve.

The Democrats want to win this year and keeping the Iraq issue out there

This is exactly the kind of cynicism to which I was referring. If dead soldiers = Dem victory, Dems will vote for more dead soldiers.

the Democrats tried to attach various strings to the Iraq appropriations-- and Bush vetoed those bills. Give them credit for at least trying.

More cynical behavior. The Dems knew he would veto those bills, but wasted their time passing them anyway, then folded like the poker player they resemble -- you know, one that does not have a pair. I give them "credit" for using the war for political gain. If that's doesn't qualify cynicism, I don't know what it would take to be cynical.

Further, in an area we have not yet addressed, the Dems continue to rubber stamp his unconstitutional, anti-civil libertarian, domestic snooping legislation.

What's really sad about this is that Dems were put in office to STOP this craziness, and their stubborn insistance that they must become Bush's accomplices may actually be a political mistake as well as a moral tragedy.

You speak of trees and forests. This forest is on fire and the Dems are fighting it with gasoline.

So what are you gonna do, Einstien? Elect Republicans?

Can you understand why you bad-tempered peevishness is not exactly productive or anything except empty ranting?

The Dems are nowhere as black as you paint them. Are you one of those "concern trolls?"

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

I don't see this debate as productive, or even actually a debate.

I started with an off-hand remark that since the Dems came to power they tend rubber-stamp every critical bad demand Bush makes. First, you attempted to change the subject to what they did when the Republicans were in power. When I pointed that out, your side tried the classic "it's OK to be an accessory to murder as long as it's purpose is to get re-elected" argument. I called that cynical, and now you are attempting to change the subject to a combination of my "peevishness," my being a concern troll (whatever that is), or whether we should elect Republicans.

If the Dems are indeed "nowhere as black as [I] paint them," then please point out my misstatements and I will have learned something. No one is learning anything from the approach you have taken so far. Otherwise concede my point and we'll move on. How's that?

BTW, I am not aware that Einstein was a political genius as well as a mathematical genius. Do you have information to share about that as well?

You are correct. This isn't a debate. This is me and others calling you on your "tiresome" BS and you trying to wiggle out of it.

You made outlandish claims. I am asking you to back them up, and to suggest what it is you think should be done.

Take the Democrats out? Vote Republican? What? There really aren't a lot of alternatives. What is it you suggest?

This ain't rocket science. Put up, or shut up.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Deliberation at such lofty heights requires more space. Continued here.

Oh silly me. I guess I missed the fact that the Dems were in the leadership in 2005.

 No, they weren't. They didn't have a slim majority until 2006.  Apparently facts and reality are too tiresome for you.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

So you are agreeing that there was no point to the bulk of your last comment. I commend you for the progress you have made in such a short time.

Oh, you were being willfully obtuse on that as well as about "Republican Legislation."

Why stop now?

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

I am still waiting for you to show me where my facts were incorrect or mischaracterized, so which of us is being "willfully obtuse?" The thrust of your argument so far seems to boil down to "Nuh-uh," which makes it difficult to debate.

Nonsense. You made the ridiculous assertion, dude. Let's see you back it up.

WHICH Republican Bills have the Democrats passed? So far you've made vague noises, but there's no there, there.

Try Thomas.

And stop whining. You were called on your BS, now back it up or STFU.

Thanks.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

I wonder how narrow these reply boxes can get.

The question should ask how narrow the replies can get.

Correction: ...I fault them for now wanting to pass such legislation...

Meant: ...I fault them for NOT wanting to pass such legislation...

I'm not sure how falling house prices are affecting the inflation measurements.

However, if someone's $200,000 mortgage adjusts from 4% to 6%, their monthly P&I jumps from $954.83 to $1119.10 (30-year amortization.) That's a 17% increase, and I'm pretty sure the inflation measurement doesn't count it that way.

Maybe it should. This is how real people experience economics. The same house suddenly costs 17% more than last year. I think if I were a liberal economics professor, I'd assign some undergraduates to crunch the numbers and calculate a new, "homeowners' inflation" that accounts for this.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »



Book Club Calendar


Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Kyle Krahel-Frolander



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address