Jobless recovery lasting longer than economists expected

[ima_sinnic]

By KEN MORITSUGU
Knight Ridder Newspapers, August 10, 2003

WASHINGTON - Many economists predicted a jobless recovery, but few expected it to last so long.

Twenty-one months after the official end of the recession in November 2001, the number of jobs in the United States continues to decline. Economists call it a "growth recession," in which the economy grows so slowly that it doesn't add jobs.

The underlying problem is that growth has remained subpar for an unusually long time. But economists also are focusing on two fundamental economic changes: the increasing use of technology to produce more goods and services with fewer workers and the movement of a greater variety of jobs overseas. These shifts suggest that economic expansions won't generate as many jobs as they have in the past and jobless recoveries may become the norm.

"The present recovery has upset the implicit assumption that jobs accompany growth," John Silvia, the chief economist at Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte, N.C., wrote in a recent analysis. "This break in the link of growth and jobs is quite distinct from the past." . . .

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/6497474.htm

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Is there no end to the euphemism?

"jobless recovery" and "growth recession" have got to win the prize for this year's award.

But in the stupid is as stupid does award, I nominate this statement: "But economists also are focusing on two fundamental economic changes: the increasing use of technology to produce more goods and services with fewer workers and the movement of a greater variety of jobs overseas."

Hello, out there in CEO Wonderland. You reduce jobs, you get fewer workers but you also don't produce many consumers in this economy to buy your friggin products. The only one that benefits is Sam Walmart.

[Flubadubya]

2. Oh, the irony in all this just reeks...

This one is especially poignant: "...jobless recoveries may become the norm."

Yeah, well, just how many "jobless recoveries" can the economy sustain and reamain "normal"? The "norm"? Sheez, how long will that be a "normal" economy before the whole ship sinks?

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Military spending will set us free -- or so they think

Right now, that's what's pushing our economy. We've gone from a consumer spending fueled economy to a government spending spree. And to think the Republicans were upset when government spent money on poor Americans! At least they were filtering the money to Americans on American soil.

So we now know our choices: We either vote for Democrats who will spend the government money on needy Americans, or Republicans who will spend the government money on the greedy military-industrial complex (which by now are multi-national corporations).

Gee, what would Jesus do?

[calimary]

35. I'd like to know where the "recovery" part of this is.

Nothing in the economy, MOST ESPECIALLY the numbers of people out of work, indicates that anything like a "recovery" is going on. "Recovery" implies that something is being recovered or is improving, or regaining lost ground. That isn't what we have here in this country now, or ever since bush TOOK office.

[union_maid]

46. I'd like more specifics from our candidates

Most of them have specifics regarding manufacturing jobs, which would help, but there are thousands and thousands of other jobs disappearing and not being replaced. I do believe that things would never have come to this under a Democrat, even and including the DLC. As much as they are all about globalization, they aren't totally stupid either and would probably deal with this before we lost 3 million jobs. However, I sure would like to hear exactly what they'd do about it.

[MadHound]

50. Beg to differ a little here

Democrats and the DLC under Clinton were the ones who really got this job flight going. What with NAFTA, WTO, the H-1B visa program and other corporate globalization measures brought in by the Clinton administration, the foundation for "jobless recoveries" was set. Now instead of competing nationally for lower labor costs, the average worker has to compete globally, and quite frankly the US worker loses every time. This is why they're saying that "jobless recoveries" might become the norm. Add to this mix the punative "welfare reform" brought about by the Clinton administration and you have set the stage for much human tragedy in the years to come.

The only real way out of this bind is for a complete repeal of NAFTA, WTO and other globalization treaties, along with laws enforcing the notion that corporations who do their primary business in the US must be based in the US. This will stop the flight of tax monies to the Cayman Islands and other tax havens. The only Democratic candidate who is pushing this is Dennis Kucinich, while the others simply tow the DLC line. If you value your job, you might wish to take this into account when you vote in the primaries.

[radfringe]

3. not a JOBLESS recovery

it's a Job-LOSS recovery, and I seriously doubt that any whimpy recovery that may or may not be occuring will be enough to re-coup the 3million+jobs and save AWOL's ass in 11/04

[salin]

22. Everyone repeat: JOBLOSS recovery... JOBLOSS recovery... JOBLOSS

this is the first administration SINCE HOOVER in which every month there has been a NET JOBLOSS. That is FAR different than a "jobless" recovery.

[snippy]

23. "That is FAR different than a "jobless" recovery." Very true.

[mikeytherat]

4. How can they say such things without busting out in laughter?

"But economists also are focusing on two fundamental economic changes: the increasing use of technology to produce more goods and services with fewer workers..."

This is a Fundamental Economic Change? Jesus H. Christ on a Crutch -- do these folks know about the Industrial Revolution? I know it was a few years ago and all, but it's fairly well documented (i'm sure there's at least one or two books available about it). Technology replacing workers is a NEW concept?

Question for these high-dollar "Luddite Economists":
If your economy is growing so slowly that it shows no signs of growth, is it really growing?

mikey_the_rat

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

33. Because they sport wood everytime the kiss G DUHbya's ass.

:puffpiece:

[Cassandra]

5. That economist is a fool

" "The present recovery has upset the implicit assumption that jobs accompany growth," John Silvia, the chief economist at Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte, N.C., wrote in a recent analysis. "This break in the link of growth and jobs is quite distinct from the past." "

Not at all a break from the past; all Bush recoveries are jobless.

Quote from Kevin Phillips in the LA Times:
" The Bush tax cuts of 2001-03, flagrant in their tilt toward investors and the top 1% of income earners, echo, albeit far more dangerously and at far greater cost, the elder Bush's insistence on cutting capital gains taxes for investors. Four generations of Bushes have been heavily in the securities, banking and investment business. They think that investment, however redundant or gimmicky, is the be-all and end-all of economics.

The result of this favoritism, in 1991-92 and again today, is a jobless recovery. Investors get some gains, but ordinary folk lose their jobs."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-phillips10aug10,1,824683.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Posted this op-ed in Editorials a well.

[hadrons]

6. these fool economists should be trolling here ....

this is old news here, we knew more than those idiots did what would happen

[Rose Siding]

8. Must be time for more tax cuts!

That's the ticket :silly:

[MrJones]

9. What about Bush's promise of 1.4 million new jobs?

It ain't looking so good now...

[treepig]

14. did you make this graph yourself?

if so, another data set to put in for comparison is the rate of growth under clinton of ~2,800,000 net jobs per year. by the end of the time period shown, that trend would further dwarf even the 'Predicted New Jobs' (falsely) anticipated as a result of the cure-all tax cut enacted by mr. bush and congressional co-conspirators.

[Buns_of_Fire]

10. I've decided to become an economist

It's the only job left where you can consistently screw up, revise your "statistics" a year after everyone else on earth KNOWS you were wrong in the first place, and STILL command a 5- or 6-figure salary.

[raifield]

11. Or President

nt

[Flubadubya]

12. As long as you're a Republican

Don't expect it to work if you're a Democrat, you'll get impeached.

[sendero]

13. oh to be an "economist"

Your predictions can be so wrong as to defy belief, you still get paid.

Your assessment of the causes of what is happening can be laughable, you still get paid.

Your ability to coin new phrases to describe well-known phenomena can be so lame they are ludicrous, you still get paid.

19 out of 20 economists out there could not find their own ass with both hands on a dare.

[InkAddict]

15. But just look at all the positive ramifications..

The elderly will die due to lack of $$ for their medications and adequate care as more and more programs are cut and caretakers' finances shrink.

Long-time marriages will become "endangered speices" and possibly break up, causing the formation of two households instead of one. Yes, THAT will cause economic upswing...apartment owners can look forward to greater occupancies and retailers to the sale of more blow up air mattresses, coffee pots, and TV dinners, until the next round leads to the shelters/streets. Yep, for better-for worse, sickness and health, richer and poorer--until financial Death... Hope those kids are grown and out of the nest where they're obligated to take care of their elders. Yep, that will help screw up their newly-hatched savings plans, tuff luck! Where are those fundie witnesses that promised to support and encourage the partners of those marriages? Hypocrites!

Couples can look forward to loss of their livihoods; the banks will enjoy employing low-wage foreigners to maintenance those previously-owned DIY homes until their new "marks (owners)" fork it over in the deals of the century, and the loss of dignity will make those losing homes to docilely come around to the correct "fundie" attitudes. Yes, those sacrifices here on earth will lead to a population explosion just past those "pearly gates." Can't you just
hear it, "So, blinded/looted/raped/pillaged by the Right, heh... - ENTER...oh, wait, you lose points for lack of skills/loss of faith/and failure of belief - SORRY, you'll have to wait--NEXT!"

Are long-married couples who have struggled to raise and educate families without the support of their daddy's portfolios 'cause there wasn't one, being targeted for destablization/annihilation?
This is Orwellian/Darwinian, but it's not about genes, just about grubbing more $$.

Just watched The Pianist last night, daughter paid for rental...'NUF SAID! A slower but surer course has begun in the new Amerika, and it's every bit as cruel and inhuman. Better wear your hearts on your sleeve for the America of the past--they're ensuring it and the jobs won't be back any time soon.

[ixion]

16. jobless recovery = no recovery

just because the defense industry has sucked off the budget surplus and then some, that doesn't mean that the economy has recovered. These people are fools. This paragraph shows their total complicity and ignorance:

"The present recovery has upset the implicit assumption that jobs accompany growth," John Silvia, the chief economist at Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte, N.C., wrote in a recent analysis. "This break in the link of growth and jobs is quite distinct from the past." . . .


It's amazing how every trend witnessed in the past 5,000 years of civilization suddenly becomes moot when the Bush cabal is in office. From election results to the economy. I think it simply speaks the truth. Elections were rigged, the econonmy is not in revovery, and people are lied to daily in order to ensure that the sheeple believe the opposite.

I really never thought I would see humanity reach such an intellectual low as we have witnessed with this malAdmin.

[Cassandra]

21. Spending on defence adds much less to the economy,

than spending on infrastructure because it doesn't ripple out through the economy nearly as far. Defence spending mostly consists of making things meant to be destroyed; they don't circulate throughout the economy.

[nolabels]

36. Other the inital money spent (borrowed), I heard it was counter productive

It actually sucks wind out of sails of the economy, by investing money in something that doesn't go value-added and in turn reciprocate through the different coffers and accounts. Hell even what was considered trash a few years back, recyclables, now reciprocates cash or resource flow.

[stickdog]

44. Not to mention the fact that defense contractors have nearly the lowest

payroll/revenue ratio of any segment of the national economy.

[FormerOstrich]

38. jobless recovery = downward spiral

or at least one of the two. No recovery almost seems to optimistic. Such as, the real recovery won't be jobless.

[JCMach1]

17. = Stagnation, not quite Japanese levels yet,

but wait until our Real Estate Bubble bursts.

[sendero]

19. a *very real* possibility

A long term economic stagnation ala Japan is not only possible, it is becoming more likely every passing month.

Maybe a year after it has clearly begun, "economists" will notice it. Nah, that is too optimistic, better give them 2 years :)

[ima_sinnic]

18. the outlook for the future (graphic)

by DU's own Billy Pilgrim

[JPace]

27. ima_sinnic ........

great picture of our future if the rethugs are still
in control. Wish this picture could go nationwide...
it is an eye opener.

I almost laughed....then it hit me that it is too
likely to happen for it to be humorous. Reminds me
of pictures of the great depression when only the
rich could be light of heart.

[webtrainer]

55. I'm in SoCal (Orange County) and I see . . .

lots of folks 'living' like this right now . . . a state beach nearby is now allowing self-contained RVs to overnight in the parking lot and I've even seen someone roll out of his VW Fox sedan after spending the night there. This is a change in policy and it takes some getting used to seeing the old beatup RVs almost across the street from $million homes and resort hotels. The people with the RVs are the lucky ones . . . working people certainly cannot afford a home within 50 miles of the ocean.

And we have a very low 4% 'official' unemployment rate.

[snippy]

20. Republican presidents are always bad for job creation.

Since Harding was president, the annual rate of job creation under republican presidents has always been lower than under democratic presidents. Since the depression, the best rate of job growth under a republican was 2.2% per year during Nixon's time in office. The worst rate of job growth under a democrat was 2.3% per year during Kennedy's time in office. Bush has a -0.7% annual rate which is the first negative number since the depression.

[Elidor]

24. Jobless recovery...that's a bit like dehydrated water, innit?

[salin]

25. and a JobLoss recovery is sorta like using a tool to accelerate

the dehydration.

[Guaranteed]

42. LOL or a compassionate conservative n/t

[TahitiNut]

26. The "recovery" is a sham.

First, the so-called definition of a "recession" is some number (2 or 3, depending on which economist you ask) of quarters of declining GDP. Even ignoring the fact that quarterly GDP figures are highly volatile and subject to repeated 'corrections,' it remains that when the GDP 'grows' at a rate equal to the increase in population, such 'growth' is merely staying even and not real growth at all. Thus, the posture that the GDP has to actually decline rather than be below the population growth ignores prolonged weaknesses in the economy. Put another way, it make "recession" the equivalent of intensive care but continued hospitalization can be called "recovery" when it's not.

So, the economy was diagnosed as a "recession" based on three quarters of declining GDP -- 2001:Q1 (-0.6%), 2001:Q2 (-1.6%), and 2001:Q3 (-0.3%).

What goes unnoticed in the general public is the six consecutive quarters of declining private domestic investment -- 2000:Q3 (-6.0%), 2000:Q4 (-3.4%), 2001:Q1 (-19.7%), 2001:Q2 (-17.6%), 2001:Q3 (-5.2%), and 2001:Q4 (-17.3%). This is a measure of investments in property (including commerical and residential) and equipment that would've been far worse if it weren't for sales (and refinancing) of (mostly higher end) residential property driven by declining interest rates. Real capital (not to be confused with the stock market migration of speculative equity risk from private wealth to public funds) has been fleeing this country and "investments" are being made in the second and third world. The wealthy people who've most benefitted from this nation's labor and government are the first to "leave it rather than love it".

If it weren't for the "borrow and spend" expenditures of the Federal government, as well as jingoistic "go out and shop" consumerism, the quarterly GDP would show a continuing decline, particularly in 2002:Q2, 2002:Q4, and 2003:Q1 when the GDP "growth" was below the baseline population (and workforce) growth.

This is nothing short of "cooking the books" by making both public and private expenditures on credit ... mortgaging our tomorrow for many tomorrows to come.

[ixion]

47. well put, TahitiNut

:hi:

[ProfessorGAC]

48. Extra Credit for TahitiNut!

The only valid measure of recessionary behavior is a statistically significant shift in the movement of several critical economic parameters, only one of which is GDP growth. This value is not good enough as is, either. It must be adjusted for changes in the valuation of a dollar and the growth in population, which means consumption will rise slightly.

The geniuses who use mathematically invalid measures of recession and recovery have not even noticed that the excessive spending of the Bush administraiton has added to the uptick in growth for the last 5 quarters. Since GS and TP are part of GDP, having the gov't go hogwild on new spending makes the GDP increase, but in an unsustainable way. (See 1982 - 1988)

The simple fact is that examining the economy as a series of 4 quarter moving averages since 1960 indicates that since 2Q01 the economy is statistically significantly below the mean of that 43 year period by at least 1.88 sigma. 5 of those points are more than 2.9 sigma below that mean.

Using an exponential weighting factor of 0.1, to increase the value of more recent quarters, the last 8 quarters have all been outside the mask of all years since 1975. So, anybody who says this is a jobless recovery hasn't a clue about macroeconomics and is revealing an abject lack of understanding of numerical analysis.

The parameters you display are very good ones on which to base an understanding. I use 9 indicators in my models, GDP and reinvestment being 2 of them.

Nice catch, TN.
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

54. Funny you should mention a "4 quarter moving average"

That's one of the views I use ...




The economic disasters called "Bush" are pretty clear.

They're the "anti-Wobegon" ... a family where, for multiple generations, "all the children are below average."

[Kathy in Cambridge]

28. Does that mean I can recover the job I lost in late July?

what bullshit....unemployment falls .2% and companies cut 45,000 jobs from the payrolls in June. What's wrong with this picture?

[Guaranteed]

40. It fell because 500,000 ran out of unemployment benefits...

They quit looking. Seriously...it sounds too funny, but that's what happened, and why the number dropped.

[BushHasGotToGo]

29. There's a reason for this

Productivity growth

[TahitiNut]

30. Also known as ...

... "casual overtime" or "working off the clock." :puke:

[stickdog]

45. Yep. Working off the clock, working without getting paid, subcontractors

lowering their hourly rates or number of hours bid, jobs going to cheaper labor overseas, and defense contractor money spent outside of the United States using foreign laborers.

Ah, chimproductivity is a wonderful thing if you're a cheap labor conservative!

[jamesinca]

31. I have to ask this

If the jobs are being reduced by machines etc and there are less human positions to be filled, why did Bush promise India to continue to outsource jobs? Why are call centers being sent over seas? The jobs are there they are just being outsourced? Why with the lack of jobs did Clinton have a 23 million job creation? did we suddenly become so advanced in the last 2 1/2 years tht we have lost 3 million jobs? This is a buch of horse shit and they know it.

[Skittles]

32. IT WILL LAST AS LONG AS THIS ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF THE WHITE HOUSE

IDIOTS

[dodger2371]

34. Whats so SAD is to see an Educated Economist! Lie !!

I'm losing all faith in education when an Economists uses
Growth Recession!

:bounce:

[Best_man23]

37. Figure the jobs will come back

In the spring-summer of 2005 when a Democratic president is in the WH.

[Guaranteed]

39. R.I.P. Bush

This shall be the downfall of the Bush administration. Funny how you can see this coming a mile away....even before the war I and a whole lot of other people were saying he'll get a short surge in popularity during the war....but, ultimately...it's the economy, Bush! I mean, STUPID!

[Rex]

41. I have a question!

When they say, "Twenty-one months after the official end of the recession in November 2001..."

Is that like when AWOL said, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

???

I'm jus askin...

[stickdog]

43. CLINTON: BLOW JOBS --- BUSH: NO JOBS

Cheap labor conservatives don't want no stinking employment recovery!

[PATRICK]

49. "distinct from the past"

Funny, they have been using that mystification ploy for years now. Lying, incopmpetent or confused? Why listen to the economists then? Just watch the unemployment lines and the thinning lines at the stores, the shrinking companies around your home.

The WH totally exploiting the economy, mismanaging it, ruining the state of the planet, that is "distinct from the past" too.

[indypaul]

51. Putting it in very simple terms

"jobless recovery" equivalent to a small dose of gonorrhea. "growth
recession" equivalent to being slightly pregnant. Again it is not
"the economy stupid" it is "the stupid economy."

[Doctor_J]

53. Slight corrections

== Again it is not "the economy stupid" it is "the stupid economy." ==

I think the current slogan is "It's Stupid's Economy"

[Danmack]

52. Landed a job this morning after being UE for 21 of the last 24 months...

Am I happy, sorta. More thankful than happy. Car had about 3 weeks before being repo'd.

Job pay is 1/3rd of what I was making 2 years ago. Same responsibilities too.

I don't blame the f'n pubs totally for this down turn but they haven't done enough to help make it a little easier on the people who are affected the most.

The biggest thing they have done is to refuse to extend UE bennies. When shrub1 was the pres during his reign and recession, they extended UE bennies 5 or 6 times for EVERYBODY that was affected. Now we have assholes like Tom Delay that says there are plenty of jobs and we are just lazy. This made the biggest hurt on me in the last 2 years. With beenies I just existed, making min payments, but not devastated. Without them, I now think it will take me 5-8 years to recover.

The F'n pubs could of helped, but the gave the unemployed the finger when they should have been giving a helping hand. They will never be able to convince me that spending 100 billion for war was more important than spending 20-30 bill to help the unemployed.

Fuk them:argh: