Jobs = Growth: We Have Neither: Unemployment August, 2011

Real men (and women) want real jobs.  They want to provide shelter, clothing, and food for their families.  It is the 18th Century concept of the pursuit of happiness and some people who have loved and fought for freedom thought of it as a God given inalienable right of all free men.  What we have seen, since the beginning of the 1960's particularly, is the accrual of GDP growth primarily to the top 1% wealthiest in society at the expense of the remaining 99% of society.  We can talk about confidence --- and there appears to be less in the United States, Europe, and globally, but economic data on confidence is always past tense when received.  In the final analysis it comes down to real wages and personal income.  The myth that increases in the minimum wage increase unemployment has been repeatedly shown by economic studies to be false with moderate increases in the minimum wage having no appreciable effect on jobs.  Worker productivity has grown 80% since 1980 while real compensation has only grown 8% and real wages only 7% of which 23.5% of the income went to the top 1%.

The August, 2011 Unemployment report was unchanged (zero net job growth) with unemployment remaining unofficially at 9.1% and total official discouraged workers at 16.2% an increase of one tenth.  Using the older 1994 BLS calculation, Shadow Statistics estimates (this graph will change monthly) the total discouraged workers at approximately 22.8%.  The number of unemployed remained unchanged with no jobs added, because the participation rate went up to 64% and the employment-population rate went up to 58.2%.  The number of workers who could only find part-time work rose to 8.826 million from 8.396 million.  The average work week declined to 34.2 hours and the average hourly wage declined one tenth.  The participation rate is edging up for older age groups including those 55 years of age and older and it appears it will be getting older.  As for education, it appears that educational level is not significant in the ability to find new employment when unemployed and the diffusion index is at 52.2 (below 50 is contractionary) across all industries and is at its lowest level since last September.  For a full set of employment graphs at Calculated Risk go here.

Worse, the prior two months were revised down and the major indicators around those who have jobs are weak  The average duration of unemployment has dropped while the median has increased, which means that more people are dropping out of the labor force discouraged.  There is little remaining the Fed can do leaving the bulk of necessary action in the domain of the government's fiscal policy.  The continuing high unemployment is a direct result of the inadequate stimulus applied in 2009 and the destruction of education jobs will have a serious future effect on the ability of the United States to be competitive and to grow economically.

In an extensive analysis of the United States unemployment figures, the Australian economist Bill Mitchell finds a staggering loss of unemployment, increased under employment, a stagnant labor market, and declining economic growth heading towards recession as the result of the inadequate 2009 stimulus and political bickering which is abandoning U.S. workers to oblivion.

If you look at this link from the economist James Hamilton on the current economic condition with respect to the most recent economic reports, you will see that the United States has been making little meaningful progress in recovering from the global financial crisis and has only very slow growth to look forward to in the next six months.

In graphs from Calculated Risk, you can see several measures of recession and where we are in the terms of slow growth.  Using some different GDP per capita variations, Doug Short looks at recession indicators in a series of graphs and comes to the conclusion we have not yet fallen back into recession, but we are surely in the a second great contraction.  The Consumer Metrics Institute in their August 30 News, which has not yet been posted to their website, argues that the BEA deflators are not correctly portraying nominal GDP in real numbers.  By reverse engineering the BEA numbers, the Consumer Metrics Institute says, "When we recast the GDP growth rates using the BLS sourced deflaters we can build the following table showing the past 10 quarters of growth in "nominal" GDP, "real" GDP using the CPI or PPI tables (as appropriate for each individual GDP line item), the per-capita "real" GDP similarly calculated and the per-capita "real" disposable income (again most recent quarter on the left):

"Annualized GDP Growth Rates Past 10 Quarters

	2Q-2011	1Q-2011	4Q-2010	3Q-2010	2Q-2010	1Q-2010
"Nominal" GDP  Annualized Growth Rate	3.51%	3.09%	4.16%	3.86%	5.43%	5.52%
BLS Derived  "Deflaters"	4.69%	10.65%	2.90%	1.37%	0.36%	4.60%
BLS "Real"  GDP Annualized  Growth	-1.18%	-7.55%	1.26%	2.49%	5.07%	0.92%
BLS Per-Capita "Real" Annualized  GDP Growth	-1.90%	-8.29%	0.32%	1.54%	4.25%	0.11%
BLS Per-Capita "Real" Disposable  Income Growth	-0.60%	-3.62%	1.18%	1.46%	4.47%	2.83%

4Q-2009	3Q-2009	2Q-2009	1Q-2009
4.88%	1.94%	-1.14%	-5.23%
2.11%	-0.43%	8.15%	3.61%
2.77%	2.36%	-9.29%	-8.84%
1.82%	1.42%	-10.06%	-9.59%
1.29%	-3.99%	-4.38%	-10.97%"

                          

Consumer Metrics Institute provides several graphs in the August 30 News asserts the double dip has already occurred with this chart below, which is one of several in the August 30 News, and you can find a larger version of it at the Consumer Metrics link above:




The Consumer Metrics Institute bottom line is the revised data shows Q1 2011 was far worse than recognized but the data shows moderation in the contraction rate but the full effect of the contraction has yet to be felt and deflating commodity prices can have a sudden positive impact on the economy.

The failure of government to create jobs now, not just down the road, has become morally inexcusable.  



Print Page

Guest Blogger: Warren Mosler With Economic Speech for President Obama

Warren Mosler is an economist, former hedge fund manager, and institutional investment advisor with his own broker/dealer and investment management firms.  This article was first posted on his blog The Center of the Universe.  I have my own concerns and thoughts on what President Obama should do to create jobs and economic growth with less systemically dangerous financial activity which I intend to write this weekend.  Different opinions and analysis are always useful in developing one's own analytical conclusions.

                                        PRESIDENT OBAMA --- USE THIS SPEECH

This is the speech I would make if I were President Obama:

My fellow Americans, 

let me get right to the point.

I have three bold new proposals to get back all the jobs we lost, and then some.

In fact, we need at least 20 million new jobs to restore our lost prosperity and put America back on top.

First let me state that the reason private sector jobs are lost is always the same.

Jobs are lost when business sales go down.  

Economists give that fancy words- they call it a lack of aggregate demand.

But it's very simple.  

A restaurant doesn't lay anyone off when it's full of paying customers, 

no matter how much the owner might hate the government, 

the paper work, and the health regulations.

  

A department store doesn't lay off workers when it's full of paying customers,

And an engineering firm doesn't lay anyone off when it has a backlog of orders.

Restaurants and other businesses lay people off when their customers stop buying, for any reason. 

So the reason we lost 8 million jobs almost all at once back in 2008 wasn't because all of a sudden 

all those people decided they'd rather collect unemployment than work.

The reason all those jobs were lost was because sales collapsed.  

Car sales, for example, collapsed from a rate of almost 17 million cars a year to just over 9 million cars a year.

That's a serious collapse that cost millions of jobs.

Let me repeat, and it's very simple, when sales go down, jobs are lost, 

and when sales go up, jobs go up, as business hires to service all their new customers.

So my three proposals are specifically designed to get sales up to make sure business has a good paying job for anyone 

willing and able to work.

That's good for businesses and all the people who work for them.

And these proposals are bipartisan.  

They are supported by Americans ranging from Tea Party supporters to the Progressive left, and everyone in between.

So listen up!

My first proposal if for a full payroll tax suspension.

That means no FICA taxes will be taken from both employees and employers.

These taxes are punishing, regressive taxes that no progressive short ever support.

And, of course, the Tea Party is against any tax.  

So I expect full bipartisan support on this proposal.

Suspending these taxes adds hundreds of dollars a month to the incomes of people working for a living.

This is big money, not just a few pennies as in previous measures.

These are the people doing the real work.  

Allowing them to take home more of their pay supports their good efforts.

Right now take home pay is barely enough to pay for food, rent, and gasoline, with not much left over.

When government stops taking FICA taxes out of their pockets, 

they'll be able to get back to more normal levels of spending.

And many will be able to better make their mortgage payments and their car payments,

which, by the way, is what the banks really want- people who can make their payments.

That's the bottom up way to fix the banks, and not the top down bailouts we've done in the past.

And the payroll tax holiday is also for business, 

which reduces costs for business, 

which, through competition,

helps keep prices down for all of us, which means our dollars buy more than otherwise.

So a full payroll tax holiday means more take home pay for people working for a living,

and lower costs for business to help keep prices and inflation down,

so sales can go up and we can finally create those 20 million private sector jobs we desperately need.

My second proposal is for a one time $150 billion Federal revenue distribution to the 50 state governments 

with no strings attached.  

This will help the states to fill the financial hole created by the recession, 

and stay afloat while the sales and jobs recovery spurred by the payroll tax holiday

restores their lost revenues.

Again, I expect bipartisan support.  

The progressives will support this as it helps the states sustain essential services, 

and the Tea Party believes money is better spent at the state level than the federal level.  

My third proposal does not involve a lot of money, 

but it's critical for the kind of recovery that fits our common vision of America   

My third proposal is for a federally funded $8/hr transition job 

for anyone willing and able to work, 

to help the transition from unemployment to private sector employment.

The problem is employers don't like to hire the unemployed, 

and especially the long term unemployed.

While at the same time, 

with the payroll tax holiday and the revenue distribution to the states,

business is going to need to hire all the people it can get.

The federally funded transition job allows the unemployed to get a transition job,

and show that they are willing and able to go to work every day,

which makes them good candidates for graduation to private sector employment.

Again, I expect this proposal to also get solid bipartisan support.

Progressives have always known the value of full employment, 

while the Tea Party believes people should be able to work for a living, rather than collect unemployment.

Let me add here that nothing in these proposals expands the role or scope of the federal government.

The payroll tax holiday is a cut of a regressive, punishing tax, 

that takes the government's hand out of the pockets of both workers and business.

The revenue distribution to the states has no strings attached.  

The federal government does nothing more than write a check.

And the transition job is designed to move the unemployed, who are in fact already in the public sector,

to private sector jobs.

There is no question that these three proposals will bring drive the increase in sales we need to 

usher in a new era of prosperity and full employment.

The remaining concern is the federal budget deficit.  

Fortunately, with the bad news of the downgrade of US Treasury securities by Standard and Poors to AA+ from AAA,

a very important lesson was learned.

Interest rates actually came down.  And substantially.

And with that the financial and economic heavy weights from the 4 corners of the globe 

made a very important point.

The markets are telling us something we should have known all along.

The US is not Greece for a very important reason that has been overlooked.

That reason is, the US federal government is the issuer of its own currency, the US dollar.

While Greece is not the issuer of the euro.

In fact, Greece, and all the other euro nations, have put themselves in the position of the US states.

Like the US states, Greece and other euro nations are not the issuer of the currency that they spend.

So they can run out of money and go broke, and are dependent on being able to tax and borrow to be able to spend.

But the issuer of its own currency, like the US, Japan, and the UK, 

can always pay their bills.

There is no such thing as the US running out of dollars.

The US is not dependent on taxes or borrowing to be able to make all of its dollar payments.

The US federal government can not go broke like Greece.

That was the important lesson of the S and P downgrade, 

and everyone has seen it up close and personal and they all now agree.

And now they all know why, with the deficit at record high levels, interest rates remain at record low levels.

Does that mean we should spend without limit and not tax at all?

Absolutely not!

Too much spending and not enough taxing will surely drive up prices and inflation.

But it does mean that right now, 

with unemployment sky high and an economy on the verge of another recession,

we can immediately enact my 3 proposals to bring us back to 

a strong economy with good jobs for people who want them. 

And some day, if somehow there are too many jobs and it's causing an inflation problem,

we can then take the measures needed to cool things down.

But meanwhile, as they say, to get out of hole we need to stop digging,

and instead implement my 3 proposals.

So in conclusion, let me repeat these three, simple, direct, bipartisan proposals

for a speedy recovery: 

A full payroll tax holiday for employees and employers

A one time revenue distribution to the states

And an $8/hr transition job for anyone willing and able to work to facilitate 

the transition from unemployment to private sector employment as the economy recovers.

Thank you.

Print Page

Market & Economy: Hussman and Schiller

 John Hussman always publishes a weekly market and economy commentary on Monday.  In this commentary he is commenting on Fed policy, the current economy and state of U.S. financial institutions, market valuation in which he estimates the ten year S&P 500 total return is down to 5.1%, and changed his market climate to hard negative and he notes there seems to be less willingness to lend to corporations.  It is not a very pretty picture.  Read it here.
 
Robert Schiller, in an interview, discussed the economic malaise effecting investing and the general economy, cites current market volatility as unhealthy and possibly indicative of a potential equity downturn but definitely fragile.  He still finds equities expensive, that housing will remain under pressure, and tells why he likes TIPS. Watch it here.

These are two viewpoints.  Like all information, it should be read critically, which means that you do not have to agree with everything or every detail to gain value and knowledge.  Information is most valuable when it can be compared and evaluated through comparison and content for relevance.

Print Page

Is Buffett Feasting on Bank of America?

A reader has asked me to comment and explain Warren Buffett's purchase of Bank of America preferred shares in the amount of $5 billion.

Bank of America has a need to raise about $100 billion and has approximately $50 billion in overvaluation of its second loans as well as other mortgage and mortgage related legal exposure.  Like Yves Smith at naked capitalism, I have no love for Bank of America, because it is too big, systemically dangerous, and needs to shed the risks of combined commercial banking and investment banking activities.  I have asserted, that since the global financial crisis, U. S. banks have been allowed legally to present public accounting statements which, if presented by any other U. S. business entity, would be considered fraudulent.  It has recently been selling business segment, such as its Canadian credit card business, and other assets to raise money.

I have indicated when discussing European banks, and it holds true for all banks globally and in the U.S., that the recent market downturn has reduced bank stock prices and bank equity, which puts pressure on them to raise money to maintain Tier I and Basel III liquidity ratios.  Bank of America's stock has declined steadily from 1/14/2011 at $15.25 to $6.42 on 8/23 and then rose to $7.76 on 8/26 with the Buffett deal.


If you compare the Goldman Sachs deal Buffet made with this Bank of America deal, you will find it is not as good as the Goldman Sachs deal.  Both were for $5 billion in preferred shares, but the Goldman dividend was 10% while Bank of America is paying 6% (8% accumulation if it suspends dividend payments); Bank of America is callable at a 5% premium while the Goldman Sachs shares were redeemable at a 10% premium; with Goldman Buffet received $5 billion in common share warrants with a strike of $115 and exercisable over five years while Bank of America gave Buffett 700,000,000 warrants for common shares with a exercise price of $7142857 ($5 billion) for a seven year period.  Some sources have characterized this as a $3 billion gift to Buffett from Bank of America, but the correctly calculated amount of the gift is $1.435 billion with the total value of the assets received at $6.45 billion.  Buffett extracted a substantial "fee" from Bank of America. Warren Buffett got a 22.5% discount on total value.

Bank of America preference share class x (Tier 1 equity) had a 7% coupon and was trading at $21 with a $25 par value on the day of this deal for an 8.3% yield.  Buffett's Bank of America preferred shares are Tier 2 debt/loss reserves and should have had a market yield of 9%; he is getting 6%.  At the time of the deal Bank of America shares were $6.88 and his exercise on the warrants were higher at $7.14 rounded.  Linus Wilson, a finance professor, has calculated the market value of the warrants to be $3.17 billion and would be dilutive, of course, of common shares outstanding if exercised.

Since Bank of America needs to raise $100 billion or more, if this deal brings the Buffett imprimatur to Bank of America, it could able to lower financing costs.  If their financing costs would be70 basis points lower, it would save $1.4 billion.

With Goldman Sachs, Buffett took the deal on the fixed side and with Bank of America he is taking it on the equity side.  Does this make Bank of America an attractive stock?  There are hedge funds and mutual funds betting that Bank of America will never be allowed to fail and they are presently losing money.  If eurozone banks develop serious liquidity problems and eurozone austerity dries up the European economy with global ramifications as the U.S. economy continues to slow down with continuing high unemployment, because U.S. political leaders refuse to provide fiscal policy to stimulate aggregate demand, then the global, and that includes the United States, economy is going to contract and stay contracted for a significant period of time.  If that serious economic decline begins to manifest itself, one of the early signs will be bank liquidity stress.

This is not a market for individual investors to be in individual stocks.  Even mutual funds with high financial exposure should be evaluated for the risk of their investments and role within a given portfolio.  This is a time for a well diversified mutual fund portfolio individually consistent with age, assets, risk tolerance, income needs, and affordable quality of life.  All of the big banks are facing headwinds.

Print Page