is job growth really coming?

#1

droski

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
21,914
Likes
3
#1
some excellent analysis from Meredith Whitney:

Meredith Whitney: The Small Business Credit Crunch - WSJ.com

Typically, government hiring provides a nice tailwind at this point in an economic recovery. Governments have employed this tool through most downturns since 1955, so much so that state and local government jobs have ballooned to 15% of total U.S. employment.

However, over the next 12 months, disappearing state and local government jobs will prove to be a meaningful headwind to an already fragile economic recovery. This is simply how the math shakes out. Collectively, over 40 states face hundreds of billions of dollars in budget gaps over the next two years, and 49 states are constitutionally required to balance their accounts annually. States will raise taxes, but higher taxes alone will not be enough to make up for the vast shortfall in state budgets. Accordingly, 42 states and the District of Columbia have already articulated plans to cut government jobs.

So the burden on the private sector to create jobs becomes that much more crucial. Just to maintain a steady level of unemployment, the private sector will have to create one million to two million jobs to offset government job losses.

Herein lies the challenge: Small businesses, half of the private sector (and the most important part as far as jobs are concerned), have been heavily impacted by this credit crisis. Small businesses created 64% of new jobs over the past 15 years, but they have cut five million jobs since the onset of this credit crisis. Large businesses, by comparison, have shed three million jobs in the past two years.

Small businesses continue to struggle to gain access to credit and cannot hire in this environment. Thus, the full weight of job creation falls upon large businesses. It would take large businesses rehiring 100% of the three million workers laid off over the past two years to make a substantial change in jobless numbers. Given the productivity gains enjoyed recently, it is improbable that anything near this will occur.
 
#2
#2
also important part:

Proposed regulatory reform—specifically interest-rate caps and interchange fees—will merely exacerbate the cycle of credit contraction plaguing small businesses.

If banks are not allowed to effectively price for risk, they will not take the risk. Right now we need banks, and particularly community banks, more than ever to step in and provide liquidity to small businesses. Interest-rate caps and interchange fees will more likely drive consumer credit out of the market and many community banks out of business.
 
#3
#3
hope and change.

toss in the current regulatory regime with cap and trade, card check, and amnesty, and you have an economy that will resemble Greece's in short order
 
#4
#4
Reducing gov't employment in the long run will help the economy. Gov't jobs do not create real wealth. A big part of our economic problem stems from the simple fact that too few wealth producing industries are carrying too many non-wealth producing jobs.
 
#5
#5
Reducing gov't employment in the long run will help the economy. Gov't jobs do not create real wealth. A big part of our economic problem stems from the simple fact that too few wealth producing industries are carrying too many non-wealth producing jobs.

agreed. the problem with hiring more govt jobs during a recession is that when the recession ends they now have the money to keep these people and it's far more politically popular to keep people rather than lay them off. so obviously when the next recession hits and the tax receipts drop again we are in a bigger and bigger hole. unfortunetly my guess is that the state and local governments aren't going to get major concessions from the unions unless they threaten bankruptcy which could really kill a lot of markets and retirement portfolios.
 
#6
#6
Job recoveries have come increasingly slower after the last few recessions. If the last one is any guide this one will be horrible.

job+losses.jpg
 
#8
#8
Job recoveries have come increasingly slower after the last few recessions. If the last one is any guide this one will be horrible.

job+losses.jpg

The data you posted says the exact opposite. If you look at how steep the recovery curves are, the three steepest recoveries are the most recent. In fact, the 01 curve is a V. The older, shallower recoveries suggest slow.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#9
#9
BPV, I must be seeing the colors differently. If I read the years off of the curves going right to left by endpoint (ignoring the 2007 curve), I was seeing 2001, 1990, 1981, 1958, 1953, 1948, 1960, 1969, 1974, and 1980. Obviously endpoint doesn't tell you the slope of the recovery portion, but if that order is right, then 1990, 2001, and 1969 had similarly slow recoveries while 1981, 1958, 1948, 1953, etc. were relatively fast. The 1948 and 1980 curves look more like a Vs to me.

Am I looking at something incorrectly?
 
Last edited:
#10
#10
BPV, I must be seeing the colors differently. If I read the years off of the curves going right to left by endpoint (ignoring the 2007 curve), I was seeing 2001, 1990, 1981, 1958, 1953, 1948, 1960, 1969, 1974, and 1980. Obviously endpoint doesn't tell you the slope of the recovery portion, but if that order is right, then 1990, 2001, and 1969 had similarly slow recoveries while 1981, 1969, 1948, 1953, etc. were relatively fast. The 1948 and 1980 curves look more like a Vs to me.

Am I looking at something incorrectly?

I be seeing what you be seeing.
 
#11
#11
I would say it looks like the recoveries take about as long as the initial losses took to bottom out.
 
#12
#12
Here's a link to an easier to read graph.

You can see the the last three recessions (81, 90, 01) took the longest for jobs to recover back to zero.

2001 took a year longer than any of the others. And arguably, what finished that one off was the start of the housing construction bubble.
 
#13
#13
BPV, I must be seeing the colors differently. If I read the years off of the curves going right to left by endpoint (ignoring the 2007 curve), I was seeing 2001, 1990, 1981, 1958, 1953, 1948, 1960, 1969, 1974, and 1980. Obviously endpoint doesn't tell you the slope of the recovery portion, but if that order is right, then 1990, 2001, and 1969 had similarly slow recoveries while 1981, 1958, 1948, 1953, etc. were relatively fast. The 1948 and 1980 curves look more like a Vs to me.

Am I looking at something incorrectly?

you're right. I was looking at that on my phone. Now that I see it on my laptop, I was definitely wrong. Steepest fix appears to be the 48 decline.
 
#15
#15
you're right. I was looking at that on my phone. Now that I see it on my laptop, I was definitely wrong. Steepest fix appears to be the 48 decline.

'53 and '81 were pretty steep too if I have the colors correct.
 
#17
#17
What I think is worrisome is that the 2001 model may be most reflective of where our economy is today.

It's the only post-Internet, post-globalization recession.

What is the driver for American job growth anymore? Manufacturing has either been mechanized or has gone elsewhere, the construction bubble has burst, and even some of our service jobs have gone overseas, thanks to advancements in telecommunications.

Unless we have another tech wave it's difficult for me to see hiring in any sector taking off.
 
#18
#18
I think that we can at least take some comfort in the apparent trend (as was noted by someone else earlier) that the recovery tends to take as long as the initial decline took.
 
#19
#19
And another thing I noticed is they seemed to be trending lighter and lighter... well until this one went way deep again.
 
#22
#22
wage deflation is the thing i'm worried about. personally i think the fed has no choice but to keep rates low until they see any sort of wage growth.
 
#23
#23
wage deflation is the thing i'm worried about. personally i think the fed has no choice but to keep rates low until they see any sort of wage growth.

They have to keep them low and make sure the market know they're low. It's the way Japan finally left the liquidity trap and a little of what FDR did in mid 30s.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 

VN Store



Back
Top