Three Months of Job Losses=Recession
I don’t like to be dismal, but recessions just bring me down. They also bring down the number of jobs in the labor market, down 80,000 last month, the third month in a row that employment contracted and the largest monthly loss in five years.
The unemployment rate jumped up from 4.8% to 5.1%, the highest jobless rate since September 2005,
Since employment peaked in December, payrolls have contracted by 232,000. Private sector payrolls were down 98,000 last month, and 109,000 in February. Since hiring in the government sector is less susceptible to cyclical swings in the overall economy, private sector job patterns provide a clearer signal of the weakening labor market. Since they peaked in November, private sector jobs are down 300,000.
It is often the case that once they get around to it, the official recession is declared to have started at or near the payroll employment peak. Thus, there’s a good chance that the recession will ultimately be recognized to have begun in December or January.
As is the case in a downturn, the increase in the unemployment rate was driven by too many people chasing too few jobs, as folks coming into the job market and laid-off workers competed for a dwindling stock of available jobs. As a share of the unemployed, these laid-off job seekers were 53.7% last month, the highest share in four years.
Demonstrating the pervasive nature of job loss, for the fifth month in a row, fewer than half of industries have added jobs. Construction employment fell both in residential and non-residential building and contracting, and unemployment in the industry has jumped from 9% to 12% over the past year. The loss of jobs in this sector is one likely factor behind the increase in Hispanic unemployment, up 0.7 tenths of a percent last month, and 1.7 points over the past year (2.1 points for men).
Despite positive developments in our export sector related to the weakening dollar, factories continue to shed jobs, and the pace of losses has accelerated in recent months. Last month’s decline of 48,000 was the biggest loss since October 2006. Moreover, the largest job losses have been in the durable goods sectors, including autos, a sector where jobs tend to be of higher quality in terms of wages and benefits relative to the non-durable sector (e.g., apparel, food).
The one sector that continues to steadily resist the recession forces is health care, which added 23,000 jobs last month and 363,000 over the past year. Health care services are generally considered to be “inelastically demanded,” i.e., spending on health is non-discretionary, and there is also considerable demographic pressure as the population ages. Also, health-care spending can be publicly subsidized, as with Medicare, or paid for by insurance, so it is less susceptible to paycheck pressures.
Another reliable recession indicator is the slight tick down in the employment rate—the share of the population with jobs—in March. Over the past year, this rate is down 0.7 tenths, from 63.3% to 62.6%. The decline in this highly cyclical indicator suggests weakening labor demand, but there is more to this employment rate story than just this cyclical development.
As EPI economist Josh Bivens points in forthcoming work evaluating the last business cycle (assuming the cycle peaked in December), the employment rate actually fell over this cycle, by 1.6 percentage points (March 2001-December 2007). This is the first cycle on record marked by a decline in the employment rate. It is also a potent indicator of the weakness of labor demand over the cycle, and one reason why workers’ bargaining power was never strong enough to create much real wage pressure during this period.
Turning to the wage results from today’s report, there is some evidence that the weakening job market is leading to slower wage growth. Hourly wages rose 3.6% over the past year, the slowest growth rate in two years, and behind recent inflationary readings, which have been around 4%. As weekly hours have also slowed over the past year (though they ticked up last month), another symptom of the downturn, weekly earnings are up only 3.3% over the past year, well behind inflation.
Thus, as the labor market appears clearly to have shifted into recessionary mode, working families are beset by a tough set of pressures. Jobs in general are less available, high quality manufacturing jobs are fading fast, and competition by an expanding labor force for a shrinking pool of jobs is putting downward pressure on wage growth. Price pressures, especially in energy and food, continue to absorb more than the nominal wage gains.
Policy makers need to continue responding to these stressors. The stimulus checks will help but are unlikely to be enough to get the private sector economy back on track. A second package, one focused less on rebates (which are too likely to be used to pay off debt or to leak out as spending on imports, like gas) and more on direct assistance to the jobless through extended unemployment insurance benefits should be crafted as soon as possible.















I was pissed when Bush "talked down the economy" in 1999. I'm pretty sure it made things worse.
Do lets talk it up.
With all due respect.
April 5, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Workerbee,
It wasn't talking that slowed the economy down in 1999 and 2000. Greenspan started increasing interest rates (to 5%) in June 1999, took it up to 6.5% by May 2000, and left it there until after Bush was elected.
In January 2001 as Bush was being sworn in Greenspan dropped the Fed funds rate to 6% (an unusual 0.5% decrease right after the election) then relatively quickly dropped the rate to the extremely low 1.75% by December 2001. This, of course, set off the housing bubble.
Greenspan then increased it back to the still very low 2% in November 2004 right after Bush was reelected, and in Feb 2005 started the regular increases of 0.25% for 17 increases, leading to 5.25% in June of 2006.
Those increases killed the housing bubble, and by February of 2007 CountryWide, the nation's largest mortgage broker, announced the sub-prime mess which they had known about internally since late 2006.
No one has to talk the economy down. The fed with its interest rates and the bush admin with its tax cuts, off the books financing of the unnecessary (except to the political futures of the Republican Party - its their war) Iraq War and its spend-and-borrow approach to government has already brought the economy down.
And Jared won't tell you this, but it's a demand-driven recession, and there is no place for consumers to get more funds to spend unless wages go up, and that will not happen if the government waits for the economy to recover on its own. (The Hoover - bush - McCain solution.)
No one can talk this recession up, and no one had to talk it down. This is the conservative ideology at work.
April 5, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
As they say a picture is worth a thousand words. Off topic the accompanying story is quite interesting, too.
April 5, 2008 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
the accompanying story is quite interesting, too.
Yes, thank you. Nice paragraph for example:
April 5, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yeah, as Richardxx suggestes, you've got a lot of technical aspects to the economy, like interest rates (that nobody fully understands) and the collapse of the housing bubble, but you've also got the fundamental fact that US government policies under both political parties and at all levels of government favor large, inefficient corporations over small business and workers. There are also other factors that are bad for workers: (1) The US government has encouraged the exporting of jobs overseas in the "global economy" that favors corporations, (2) Endless war, and (3) Huge Pentagon budgets draining technical expertise from productive enterprises into weapons systems.
The US Department of Labor is a big help: "Workers who are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), are entitled to a minimum wage of not less than $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007. . .The FLSA does not, however, require severance pay, sick leave, vacations, or holidays." As Elvis said, thank you very much.
If the fundamentals are bad the technicals can't cure the problem.
April 5, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
footnote: John McCain, the man who said he does not know much about economics, has been endorsed by Alan Greenspan. Barack Obama has been endorsed by George Soros.
April 7, 2008 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink