April 19, 2024

Economix Blog: Gauging the Storm’s Impact on Hiring

Just how big an effect will Hurricane Sandy have on employment?

That’s the question looming ahead of Friday’s announcement of the latest employment figures for November by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The consensus of economists surveyed by Bloomberg is that the report will show a net gain of 86,000 jobs last month, with the rate of unemployment remaining at 7.9 percent. But many widely followed economists are citing much lower figures for job creation.

Dean Maki, chief United States economist at Barclays, estimates hiring to have increased by only 50,000, a sharp drop from an average of 170,000 new positions added monthly in August, September and October. “This doesn’t dramatically change our outlook,” he said. “It’s evidence of just how powerful an effect Sandy had on the monthly figures.”

Ethan Harris, co-head of global economics at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, is slightly more optimistic, estimating 60,000 jobs were created in November. But he’s quick to point out that the underlying rate of job creation is healthier than the numbers suggest. If it were not for the storm, he estimates hiring would have jumped in November by 140,000.

“The labor market is very much in the recovery stage,” Mr. Harris said. However, he added, “It’s a long way from full health with workers having little negotiating power when it comes to raises.”

Mr. Harris said he would be watching the figures closely for hiring in the retail sector as the holiday shopping season begins. One danger is that consumers will hold back on spending in order to pay for home repairs in the storm’s aftermath, he said.

He is also waiting to see if worries about the fiscal impasse in Washington weigh on consumers. “Before the election, the fiscal cliff was a worry for the business sector,” Mr. Harris said. “Now it’s front page news.”

Economists are also looking for possible upward revisions in estimated job creation for past months, said Nigel Gault, chief United States economist for IHS Global Insight. In October, the economy created an estimated 171,000 jobs, with government statisticians revising their figures for September and August higher.

Article source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/gauging-the-storms-impact-on-hiring/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Unemployment Drops to Lowest Rate in Four Years

The nation’s employers added 146,000 jobs last month, in line with the average of 151,000 a month in 2012. But the pace was a substantial improvement from earlier this year, when job growth slowed sharply and many observers feared a double-dip recession.

The biggest surprise was that Hurricane Sandy created so little drag. Economists had estimated that only 86,000 jobs would be added in November, a decline from October largely because of the storm.

According to the monthly snapshot from the Labor Department, released on Friday, the nation’s unemployment rate dropped to 7.7 percent last month from 7.9 percent in October. Economists cautioned that this bit of seeming good news was the result of a shrinking labor force, rather than the addition of jobs. At the current pace of job creation, the unemployment rate will gradually decline to 7.1 percent by December 2013, said Dean Maki, chief United States economist at Barclays Capital.

“The underlying trend in unemployment is downward, and that’s what we continued to see in the November figures,” Mr. Maki said. “Over the past year, unemployment has fallen a full percentage point and is now down 2.3 percentage points from its high in 2009.”

Many economists worry that job creation will slow markedly, however, if President Obama and Congressional Republicans cannot agree on a plan to reduce the deficit by the end of the year, leading to more than $600 billion in government spending cuts and automatic tax increases in 2013. The Congressional Budget Office, as well as many private economists, warn that this path will lead to a recession in the first half of 2013 and push unemployment back up.

While it is encouraging that businesses seem to be hiring in spite of the uncertainty in Washington, that could change quickly, said Ethan Harris, co-head of global economics at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

“If the budget impasse can’t be resolved this month, it’s likely that jobs growth will weaken early next year,” he said. “The fiscal cliff is a very dangerous game.”

Even if both sides in Washington come up with a short-term solution on the budget, as many observers expect, the pace of job growth remains well below what is needed to push wages substantially higher or to significantly reduce the broadest measure of unemployment anytime soon. Factoring in people seeking work, as well as those who want jobs but have stopped looking and those forced to take part-time jobs because full-time employment was not available, the broad unemployment gauge dipped to 14.4 percent in November from 14.6 percent in October.

Average hourly earnings rose 0.2 percent in November, and are up about 1.7 percent from a year earlier — about half the annual rate of growth seen in 2007 before the recession hit, when unemployment was below 5 percent.

The size of the labor force, according to a household survey separate from the one showing how many jobs were added by businesses and government, shrank by 350,000 in November. Part of that drop can be explained by the number of baby boomers deciding to retire, but a significant number of workers remain discouraged, prompting them to drop out of the job hunt.

As a result, the labor participation rate, which represents the portion of the adult population that is either employed or actively looking for work, remains low by historical standards, said Nigel Gault, chief United States economist for IHS Global Insight.

At 63.6 percent in November, Mr. Gault said, this measure is near the low point in this economic cycle.

“We’re not at the point in which the jobs market is strong enough to pull discouraged workers back into the labor market,” he said. Although job growth in November exceeded expectations, the Labor Department revised downward its figures for the preceding months. For September, the Labor Department said the economy created 132,000 jobs, down from an earlier estimate of 148,000, and the figure for October was lowered to 138,000 from 171,000.


Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/business/economy/us-creates-146000-new-jobs-as-unemployment-rate-falls-to-7-7.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Sure Cure for the Debt Problem: Economic Growth

It seems remarkable now, with all the End Times talk of debt ceilings and default, but it was only 11 years ago that the owners of that electronic totem, the Durst family, simply pulled the plug. The clock, a fixture since 1989, went dark after the federal government ended its 2000 fiscal year with a record $236.4 billion budget surplus.

Today, well — you know. We face the largest budget deficit the nation has ever known: $1.6 trillion, the equivalent of about 11 percent of our economy. And, whatever Washington does, many economists say the situation will grow only worse, particularly as Americans age and Medicare costs spiral higher.

But there is, in theory, a happy solution to our debt troubles. It’s called economic growth. No need to raise taxes or cut programs. Just get the economy growing the way it used to.

Good luck with that. Growth is in short supply these days, as new, dismal numbers underscored on Friday. Revised data showed that the recession took an even bigger bite of the economy than we thought. And economists are sizing up the risks of another recession.

“The basic issue is that the U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal track,” says Dean Maki, the chief United States economist at Barclays Capital. “From that point, none of the choices are fun.” The most obvious choices, Mr. Maki says, are to reduce spending (ouch), raise taxes (yuck), let inflation run (gasp) or default (thud).

We wouldn’t need any of that if we could restore economic growth. If that happened, Americans would become richer and pay more taxes. Et voilà! — we’d pay down the debt painlessly.

Crazy as that might sound, particularly given Friday’s figures, the possibility isn’t some economic equivalent of that nice big farm where your childhood dog Skip was sent to run free. There are precedents.

Before its economy crashed, Ireland was a star of this sort of debt reduction. In the 1980s, Ireland’s debt dwarfed its economy. Over the next two decades, though, that debt shrank to about a quarter of gross domestic product, largely because the economy went gangbusters.

“Ireland went from being, you know, the emerging market in a European context, to a very dynamic economy,” says Carmen Reinhart, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and co-author of “This Time Is Different,” a history of debt crises.

The United States has done the same in the past, too. After World War II, gross federal debt reached 122 percent of G.D.P., the highest ratio on record. But over the next 40 years, it fell to about 33 percent. That wasn’t because some blue-ribbon panel prescribed austerity; it was because the American economy became much, much richer.

The same happened during the prosperous 1990s, which began with deficits and ended with surpluses. Former President Bill Clinton is often credited for that turnabout, as he engineered higher tax rates. But most economists attribute the surplus years primarily to extraordinarily rapid growth.

It would be lovely to repeat that experience today, and send our federal debt off to that farm with Skip.

But the structure of America’s federal spending is different now than it was in, say, the immediate postwar decades. Back then, growth helped to erase the debt. But remember that in the 1950s, the United States didn’t have Medicare. The population was younger, and Americans didn’t live as long.

Given the health spending obligations we face, and the debt overhang we’re already dealing with, growth rates would have to acquire something like Ludicrous Speed, as in the movie “Spaceballs,” to keep up. And, near term, even modest speed is unlikely.

Usually after a recession, growth snaps back quickly and the economy makes up for ground lost — and then some. That’s not the case this time, at least so far. In the 60 years before the Great Recession, the economy expanded at an average annual rate of 3.5 percent. In the second quarter of this year, it grew at less than half of that pace, putting us further and further behind where we would be if the economy were functioning normally.

These doldrums won’t last forever, but many predict that economic growth to come will be somewhat slower than it was before the recession, for many of the same reasons that our debt is growing so quickly — the aging of the population, for instance.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f7633028f99871bac6838a48fed93b06