We had the elections, and nothing changed. Barack Obama was re-elected President. The Democrats kept control of the Senate. The Republicans kept control of the House. After all the accusations, attack ads, junk mail, robocalls, soaring campaign rhetoric, and lies, we can look forward to . . . more gridlock.
This election was the comeuppance of all the money bag men who nonymously or anonymously tried to buy their way into political power. Hiding behind secretive nonprofits, monied interests barraged users of every type of media with relentless harangues and unending fear mongering. While Democratic war chests were very large, Republican funding was Brobdingnagian. But all that spending, and counter-spending, produced very little change.
That's a great result. It shows that the American voter isn't a dumbo who can be cynically manipulated by unnamed puppet masters with zillions to spend behind the scenes to instill subliminal fears. Politicians and political parties must, however difficult it may be, offer something that is in the public interest. They need to demonstrate that they have something positive to say and do. The political process remains a means for societal concerns to be debated and resolved. The rich may not get richer. The poor may not get poorer.
Many problems lay ahead. The fiscal cliff approaches anon. The economy remains in first gear, and unemployment levels feel like the real bad hangover that comes from drinking the worm as well as the tequila. The federal deficit must be dealt with. As difficult as these problems may seem, the defeat of the monied interests is a sign of hope--hope that politicians may try doing something constructive for a change, rather than cater to those that offer to hand over the biggest checks.
Showing posts with label unemployment levels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unemployment levels. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Sunday, June 5, 2011
It's the Economy, Stupid, and Republicans and Democrats Are Stupid
Politicians make their livings bashing other people, so it's only right and fair to bash them. There's a lot of grist for this mill.
Republican Congressional leaders were quick to criticize the Obama administration on Friday, June 3, 2011, after bad unemployment numbers were announced. Total job creation in May was 54,000, and the unemployment rate rose from 9.0% in April to 9.1% in May. The weak job creation number wasn't surprising, given other recent data signaling stagnation. The unemployment rate increase naturally flowed from the economy's need for a net increase of over 100,000 jobs every month simply to keep up with population growth (which increases the labor force). In addition, some previously discouraged workers may have jumped back into the labor force to actively look for work. That expands the labor force and raises the unemployment rate when there aren't enough jobs for them.
How did the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot? The private sector increased employment in May by a net of 83,000 jobs. That's not a great number, but it shows hiring exceeded firing. The reason for the lower total of 54,000 new jobs was that governments laid off a net 29,000 workers. This is due to state and municipal governments cutting back to meet austerity demands from primarily Republican governors and legislators. Do we think these government workers who lost their jobs because of Republican policies will blame the Obama administration? (Hint: take a look at recent events in Wisconsin politics.) Government employment levels have fallen for seven months in a row, and that's not because the Obama administration is laying off federal employees. If unemployment trends continue like this, expect the growing numbers of unemployed government workers, and many among their family and friends, to vote Democrat. Republicans hoping to see their party do well in 2012 should be careful what they wish for because the jobless have plenty of time to vote.
As for the Democrats, the Obama Administration announced on Saturday, June 4, that it would make a renewed push for principal reductions on defaulting mortgages, in an effort to keep more homeowners in their homes. This is meant to help not only struggling homeowners, but also to keep more houses off the foreclosure and resale markets, where distress sales continue to nudge home prices lower. But principal reduction has been a fools errand. It hasn't worked well in the past and isn't likely to work well now. The people who need principal reduction the most--the jobless--won't qualify because of their lack of income. Banks aren't required to reduce principal, and have little incentive to do so. There may be arguments why banks and mortgage investors lose less from principal reductions than from foreclosure. But the legal latitude banks have to make principal reductions on mortgages they have sold to investors is less clear than proceeding with foreclosure, and banks may be stuck with some or all of the loss to lenders when principal is reduced. In other words, banks may be in a riskier position with principal reduction than they would be with foreclosure (where they can generally pass the loss onto investors because banks mostly sell mortgages they originate). So why would they put themselves at increased risk in order to give a defaulting borrower a break? Never forget that on Wall Street, money talks and bullswaggle walks.
A second, and more important point for political purposes, is that the neighbors are watching. Yes, they want to see if the person next door has a better big screen TV than they, or if the person across the street is having an affair, or if the teenagers two houses away are getting out of control. But keeping up with the Jones would become most urgent if neighbors got a reduced mortgage because they didn't keep up with their monthly payments. Talk about envy. The defaulting Jones would get, perhaps, the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars over time because they were deadbeats. Principal reductions could have a bandwagon effect--give one to the Jones, and others on their block will start defaulting so they, too, can get a principal reduction. After all, how can you tell your kid to borrow tens of thousands of dollars for college because you wouldn't stiff the bank like the folks next door? If entire neighborhoods start having mortgage default parties, bank earnings will fall and bankers contributions to the Republican Party will soar. Neighbors too proud or too protective of their credit ratings won't default. But they will likely vote Republican to assuage their anger.
So politicians are stupid. That's not news. The scary thing is they don't move up the learning curve. Governance failures are now in vogue. The Japanese government's dysfunction exacerbated its slow reaction to the nuclear crisis that followed the recent earthquake. The Euro bloc's weak governance structure makes bailouts without a true restoration of fiscal discipline the only way to cope with its sovereign debt crisis. This is not a solution, but a deferral of the train wreck to come. California's governance failure has pushed its budget crisis virtually beyond the realm of resolution. And, last but certainly not least, the mud-slinging, gotcha-politics in gridlocked Washington have imperiled the creditworthiness of the U.S. government and the strength of the U.S. dollar. The dumb thing about all this is that Japan, Europe, California and America are all very wealthy. They have the resources to solve their problems. But they can't make their political processes work in a constructive way. Forget all the predictions for the economy and the stock market you're now hearing. Politics has thrown a wild card into the game, and no one knows how things will turn out.
Republican Congressional leaders were quick to criticize the Obama administration on Friday, June 3, 2011, after bad unemployment numbers were announced. Total job creation in May was 54,000, and the unemployment rate rose from 9.0% in April to 9.1% in May. The weak job creation number wasn't surprising, given other recent data signaling stagnation. The unemployment rate increase naturally flowed from the economy's need for a net increase of over 100,000 jobs every month simply to keep up with population growth (which increases the labor force). In addition, some previously discouraged workers may have jumped back into the labor force to actively look for work. That expands the labor force and raises the unemployment rate when there aren't enough jobs for them.
How did the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot? The private sector increased employment in May by a net of 83,000 jobs. That's not a great number, but it shows hiring exceeded firing. The reason for the lower total of 54,000 new jobs was that governments laid off a net 29,000 workers. This is due to state and municipal governments cutting back to meet austerity demands from primarily Republican governors and legislators. Do we think these government workers who lost their jobs because of Republican policies will blame the Obama administration? (Hint: take a look at recent events in Wisconsin politics.) Government employment levels have fallen for seven months in a row, and that's not because the Obama administration is laying off federal employees. If unemployment trends continue like this, expect the growing numbers of unemployed government workers, and many among their family and friends, to vote Democrat. Republicans hoping to see their party do well in 2012 should be careful what they wish for because the jobless have plenty of time to vote.
As for the Democrats, the Obama Administration announced on Saturday, June 4, that it would make a renewed push for principal reductions on defaulting mortgages, in an effort to keep more homeowners in their homes. This is meant to help not only struggling homeowners, but also to keep more houses off the foreclosure and resale markets, where distress sales continue to nudge home prices lower. But principal reduction has been a fools errand. It hasn't worked well in the past and isn't likely to work well now. The people who need principal reduction the most--the jobless--won't qualify because of their lack of income. Banks aren't required to reduce principal, and have little incentive to do so. There may be arguments why banks and mortgage investors lose less from principal reductions than from foreclosure. But the legal latitude banks have to make principal reductions on mortgages they have sold to investors is less clear than proceeding with foreclosure, and banks may be stuck with some or all of the loss to lenders when principal is reduced. In other words, banks may be in a riskier position with principal reduction than they would be with foreclosure (where they can generally pass the loss onto investors because banks mostly sell mortgages they originate). So why would they put themselves at increased risk in order to give a defaulting borrower a break? Never forget that on Wall Street, money talks and bullswaggle walks.
A second, and more important point for political purposes, is that the neighbors are watching. Yes, they want to see if the person next door has a better big screen TV than they, or if the person across the street is having an affair, or if the teenagers two houses away are getting out of control. But keeping up with the Jones would become most urgent if neighbors got a reduced mortgage because they didn't keep up with their monthly payments. Talk about envy. The defaulting Jones would get, perhaps, the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars over time because they were deadbeats. Principal reductions could have a bandwagon effect--give one to the Jones, and others on their block will start defaulting so they, too, can get a principal reduction. After all, how can you tell your kid to borrow tens of thousands of dollars for college because you wouldn't stiff the bank like the folks next door? If entire neighborhoods start having mortgage default parties, bank earnings will fall and bankers contributions to the Republican Party will soar. Neighbors too proud or too protective of their credit ratings won't default. But they will likely vote Republican to assuage their anger.
So politicians are stupid. That's not news. The scary thing is they don't move up the learning curve. Governance failures are now in vogue. The Japanese government's dysfunction exacerbated its slow reaction to the nuclear crisis that followed the recent earthquake. The Euro bloc's weak governance structure makes bailouts without a true restoration of fiscal discipline the only way to cope with its sovereign debt crisis. This is not a solution, but a deferral of the train wreck to come. California's governance failure has pushed its budget crisis virtually beyond the realm of resolution. And, last but certainly not least, the mud-slinging, gotcha-politics in gridlocked Washington have imperiled the creditworthiness of the U.S. government and the strength of the U.S. dollar. The dumb thing about all this is that Japan, Europe, California and America are all very wealthy. They have the resources to solve their problems. But they can't make their political processes work in a constructive way. Forget all the predictions for the economy and the stock market you're now hearing. Politics has thrown a wild card into the game, and no one knows how things will turn out.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The Fed and Foreign Policy
The Fed's easy money policies have spurred inflation and rising real estate prices in China. China's informal link of the yuan to the dollar in effect imports U.S. monetary policy into China. Even though the slack in the U.S. economy from the Great Recession has held prices down here, the red hot Chinese economy reacted to excess liquidity by pushing up prices there.
The Chinese have a deep fear of inflation, having experienced far worse in their four millenia of existence as a civilization than anything Americans have seen. They're imposing monetary constraints, and even resorting to price controls. The Fed is meeting this Tuesday and Wednesday, and is expected to continue running its money printing press at full throttle. With its inflationary implications for the yuan, the Fed's current stance provides China a reason to de-link the yuan from the dollar. Once the yuan is de-linked, China can regain control of its own monetary policies.
The dissatisfaction of Chinese consumers with inflation has much more influence on Beijing's thinking than all the haranguing of the U.S. and European governments. Thus, the yuan is edging up in value, and is becoming more freely tradeable in international currency markets. Its continued rise against the dollar can be expected, albeit at a carefully managed rate. Among other things, a rising yuan makes it easier for China to buy oil and other commodities traded in dollars. Greater Chinese demand would push up the dollar-denominated price of those commodities.
This will be a mixed bag for America. As the yuan rises, U.S. exports to China may increase, creating jobs here. But a falling dollar also means a loss of buying power. America imports a lot from China, and as the yuan rises, those imports become more expensive. Cheaper substitutes may be available in some instances--Southeast and South Asia offer lower cost alternatives for manufacturing clothes. But the manufacture of high tech components that go into computers, cell phones, PDAs, tablet computers and what not can't easily be shifted to new suppliers. And rising oil and other commodities prices have obvious implications for American consumers. A rising yuan, bottom line, means falling wealth levels in America.
It may be that the Fed intends to engineer a drop in the dollar's value. That would be one way it can discharge its statutory mandate to foster full employment. America's wealth levels during the past decade were puffed up by the profligate borrowing that funded the nation's consumption. Debt-fueled "prosperity" can't go on indefinitely, and America's wealth was at risk for a fall.
As the dollar drops against the yuan, the Chinese government will take losses on its vast portfolio of dollar-denominated investments. It would likely be willing to take these losses in order to hold inflation in check and keep its citizens from becoming overly restive.
Many Americans would consider jobs for some of the unemployed at the expense of less buying power for all to be a fair trade. High unemployment has many social costs, ranging from increased government spending to discouraging consumption to familial distress and breakdowns. Fair or not, however, as the yuan rises, American living standards could be squeezed.
The Chinese have a deep fear of inflation, having experienced far worse in their four millenia of existence as a civilization than anything Americans have seen. They're imposing monetary constraints, and even resorting to price controls. The Fed is meeting this Tuesday and Wednesday, and is expected to continue running its money printing press at full throttle. With its inflationary implications for the yuan, the Fed's current stance provides China a reason to de-link the yuan from the dollar. Once the yuan is de-linked, China can regain control of its own monetary policies.
The dissatisfaction of Chinese consumers with inflation has much more influence on Beijing's thinking than all the haranguing of the U.S. and European governments. Thus, the yuan is edging up in value, and is becoming more freely tradeable in international currency markets. Its continued rise against the dollar can be expected, albeit at a carefully managed rate. Among other things, a rising yuan makes it easier for China to buy oil and other commodities traded in dollars. Greater Chinese demand would push up the dollar-denominated price of those commodities.
This will be a mixed bag for America. As the yuan rises, U.S. exports to China may increase, creating jobs here. But a falling dollar also means a loss of buying power. America imports a lot from China, and as the yuan rises, those imports become more expensive. Cheaper substitutes may be available in some instances--Southeast and South Asia offer lower cost alternatives for manufacturing clothes. But the manufacture of high tech components that go into computers, cell phones, PDAs, tablet computers and what not can't easily be shifted to new suppliers. And rising oil and other commodities prices have obvious implications for American consumers. A rising yuan, bottom line, means falling wealth levels in America.
It may be that the Fed intends to engineer a drop in the dollar's value. That would be one way it can discharge its statutory mandate to foster full employment. America's wealth levels during the past decade were puffed up by the profligate borrowing that funded the nation's consumption. Debt-fueled "prosperity" can't go on indefinitely, and America's wealth was at risk for a fall.
As the dollar drops against the yuan, the Chinese government will take losses on its vast portfolio of dollar-denominated investments. It would likely be willing to take these losses in order to hold inflation in check and keep its citizens from becoming overly restive.
Many Americans would consider jobs for some of the unemployed at the expense of less buying power for all to be a fair trade. High unemployment has many social costs, ranging from increased government spending to discouraging consumption to familial distress and breakdowns. Fair or not, however, as the yuan rises, American living standards could be squeezed.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Jobs Growth May Not Reduce the Unemployment Rate
The stock market eagerly awaits tomorrow's unemployment numbers. Economists, on average, predict that job losses will have stopped, but that jobs growth hasn't resumed. The unemployment rate, last reported at 10%, is expected hover around that level, with perhaps a minor increase.
This data, whatever it turns out to be, will probably tell us less than the stock market seems to think it means. Employment levels must be viewed in a dynamic context. The labor force keeps growing, whether or not there is a recession. Kids reach adulthood, and immigration continues (although it's now at a much lower level because of the recession). To deal with population growth, we need 100,000 new jobs a month or more simply to keep the unemployment rate level. It's been close to 2 years since the number of jobs in the U.S. has increased. Even if it turns out that job growth has resumed, the unemployment level could increase if the number of new jobs isn't enough to accommodate the entry of new workers into the labor force.
Aside from population growth, another confounding factor is the return to the labor force of discouraged workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics includes unemployed persons in the labor force only if they have actively sought work during the last 4 weeks. Those who want jobs but are too discouraged to look for them aren't counted in the labor force. In other words, increased despair lowers the unemployment rate. Conversely, as the economy swings back toward recovery, discouraged workers may become hopeful again and start actively searching for jobs. Those that do so are deemed to have re-entered the labor force, and their re-entry can worsen the unemployment rate by increasing the numbers of unemployed persons actively seeking work.
The stock market is always looking for short cuts, simple ways of telling if things are getting better or worse. But economies and financial systems are complex and sometimes opaque. Life is difficult. Monthly unemployment figures are sometimes revised in subsequent months. You need to look at a lot of data and information to figure out where the economy is and where it is going. Don't read too much into tomorrow's unemployment numbers. Invest for the long term.
This data, whatever it turns out to be, will probably tell us less than the stock market seems to think it means. Employment levels must be viewed in a dynamic context. The labor force keeps growing, whether or not there is a recession. Kids reach adulthood, and immigration continues (although it's now at a much lower level because of the recession). To deal with population growth, we need 100,000 new jobs a month or more simply to keep the unemployment rate level. It's been close to 2 years since the number of jobs in the U.S. has increased. Even if it turns out that job growth has resumed, the unemployment level could increase if the number of new jobs isn't enough to accommodate the entry of new workers into the labor force.
Aside from population growth, another confounding factor is the return to the labor force of discouraged workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics includes unemployed persons in the labor force only if they have actively sought work during the last 4 weeks. Those who want jobs but are too discouraged to look for them aren't counted in the labor force. In other words, increased despair lowers the unemployment rate. Conversely, as the economy swings back toward recovery, discouraged workers may become hopeful again and start actively searching for jobs. Those that do so are deemed to have re-entered the labor force, and their re-entry can worsen the unemployment rate by increasing the numbers of unemployed persons actively seeking work.
The stock market is always looking for short cuts, simple ways of telling if things are getting better or worse. But economies and financial systems are complex and sometimes opaque. Life is difficult. Monthly unemployment figures are sometimes revised in subsequent months. You need to look at a lot of data and information to figure out where the economy is and where it is going. Don't read too much into tomorrow's unemployment numbers. Invest for the long term.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Recession and Unemployment: Then There Are Statistics
You've heard the adage about there being lies, damned lies and then statistics. Plenty of statistics are tossed around in the discussions of the ongoing economic crisis. One such statistical claim is that unemployment levels are a lagging indicator of recession, and that rising unemployment is not a sign of a worsening economy. That may have been true in the relatively mild recessions caused in the past by the ebb and flow of the business cycle. The current recession, however, was caused by asset and credit bubbles that crippled the financial sector. Fixing the financial sector remains a critical step toward recovery. As long as the financial sector is burdened by toxic assets, it cannot revive.
Today, CNNMoney.com reported that high unemployment is a more important factor in mortgage defaults than escalating payments in adjustable rate mortgages. http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/13/real_estate/foreclosure_unemployment.reut/index.htm?postversion=2009041313. In other words, as unemployment rises, more mortgage defaults can be expected. This only stands to reason, since the loss of a job deprives borrowers of the income needed to pay the mortgage. It also means that rising unemployment is a leading indicator of worsening problems for the financial sector. When the unemployed default on more mortgages (and other consumer debt like credit cards and car loans), the toxic assets plaguing the financial sector (which are mostly derivatives of these debts) will fall further from their already depressed levels. The banks' problems--and the recession--may well worsen. The unemployed will also spend less, adding to the drag on the economy. Unemployment, therefore, exacerbates the recession and is a leading, not lagging, indicator of yet more bad times.
To be sure, the government's program for buying toxic assets from banks may reduce the impact of rising unemployment on crippled banks. Accomplishing that, though, requires that the program be implemented. To date, it has been very well announced, but nothing is operational. The devil, as always, lurks in the details and the weight of the available evidence indicates that the government and the banks remain seriously bedeviled.
We're not saying that the recession will definitely worsen or that the stock market will nosedive. We're saying that the conventional wisdom about unemployment levels and recessions probably doesn't work in our current unconventional circumstances. There are many factors that would affect the future direction of the economy. But don't, like too many supposed experts on cable TV, dismiss the significance of rising unemployment.
Today, CNNMoney.com reported that high unemployment is a more important factor in mortgage defaults than escalating payments in adjustable rate mortgages. http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/13/real_estate/foreclosure_unemployment.reut/index.htm?postversion=2009041313. In other words, as unemployment rises, more mortgage defaults can be expected. This only stands to reason, since the loss of a job deprives borrowers of the income needed to pay the mortgage. It also means that rising unemployment is a leading indicator of worsening problems for the financial sector. When the unemployed default on more mortgages (and other consumer debt like credit cards and car loans), the toxic assets plaguing the financial sector (which are mostly derivatives of these debts) will fall further from their already depressed levels. The banks' problems--and the recession--may well worsen. The unemployed will also spend less, adding to the drag on the economy. Unemployment, therefore, exacerbates the recession and is a leading, not lagging, indicator of yet more bad times.
To be sure, the government's program for buying toxic assets from banks may reduce the impact of rising unemployment on crippled banks. Accomplishing that, though, requires that the program be implemented. To date, it has been very well announced, but nothing is operational. The devil, as always, lurks in the details and the weight of the available evidence indicates that the government and the banks remain seriously bedeviled.
We're not saying that the recession will definitely worsen or that the stock market will nosedive. We're saying that the conventional wisdom about unemployment levels and recessions probably doesn't work in our current unconventional circumstances. There are many factors that would affect the future direction of the economy. But don't, like too many supposed experts on cable TV, dismiss the significance of rising unemployment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
