Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

We're On Track for 14% Unemployment
Real Clear Markets ^ | 01/12/2010 | Louis Woodhill

Posted on 01/12/2010 3:58:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind

Six months ago I caused a bit of a stir with the statement, "Accordingly, we can expect unemployment to rise to about 14% within a year unless the downward slide of (private business investment) is reversed." Well, if the next six months are a replay of the last six, the unemployment rate in June 2010 will be the equivalent of 13.4%.

Before I go any further, I need to point out that, given the way the government's "headline" unemployment rate is calculated, it can never reach 14%. This is because the civilian labor force includes only people who are working or have looked for a job in the previous four weeks. When the economy gets really bad (like now), unemployed workers get discouraged and give up looking for jobs. This causes the civilian labor force to decline as fast or faster than total employment. This, in turn, has the effect of keeping the "headline" unemployment rate artificially low.

Unfortunately, the American people don't experience government statistics-they experience reality. And, the reality is that we are on a straight-line path toward the equivalent of 14% unemployment. Here is what I mean.

In June 2009, the "civilian non-institutional population 16 years and over" was 235.7 million. Of these, 65.7%, or 154.8 million, were in the civilian labor force. Of these, 90.5% had jobs, yielding an official, "headline" unemployment rate of 9.5%.

The reported unemployment rate for December was "only" 10.0%. However, if labor force participation had remained at June's 65.7% level, the unemployment rate would have been reported as 11.5%-almost halfway to my prediction of 14% by June 2010.

During the second half of 2009, total employment declined by 2.2 million jobs. However, so many people became discouraged about their job prospects that the "civilian labor force" was 2.6 million lower than it would otherwise have been. This is why the December unemployment rate was reported at 10.0% rather than 11.5%.

According to last Friday's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report, total employment declined by 589,000 jobs in December. This is considerably higher than the average monthly job loss for all of 2009, which was 450,000. Accordingly it would not be unreasonable to project that, in terms of employment, the first half of 2010 will resemble the last half of 2009. If this occurs, unemployment (adjusted to a labor force participation of 65.7%) will reach 13.4% in June and 14% in August.

Economists in and out of the administration are proclaiming that, "the recession is over". This may be, but it doesn't mean that hiring will resume. The economy grew at a 2.2% annual rate in the third quarter of 2009 while total employment declined by 1.3 million. It is quite likely that the economy also grew in the fourth quarter, when total employment fell by almost 1.0 million. This process-rising GDP and falling employment-could go on for a long time. Here's an example of how.

When Circuit City went bankrupt, 34,000 people lost their jobs. However, no one has had to go without a flat screen TV because Circuit City closed. They just go to Wal-Mart or Best Buy. Competitors have been able to handle Circuit City's customers while adding few, if any, additional workers. Lots of struggling retailers could close and throw their workers onto the unemployment rolls without impacting GDP at all.

The huge Federal deficits are squeezing capital out of the private sector. When Circuit City was liquidated, the capital that was liberated went to pay off its debts. The banks and bondholders did not turn around and lend this money to Wal-Mart. Incrementally, they bought government bonds with it.

News reports say that the big banks are not making loans. This is not true. They are lending to the Federal government. They are doing this, not only buy buying government bonds directly, but by parking their reserves (which have increased by more than $1 trillion since the economic crisis hit) at the Federal Reserve, which is paying above-market interest on them. This allowed the Fed to buy $900 billion of mortgage-backed securities from entities like PIMCO, who turned around and bought-you guessed it-government bonds.

At the same time that it extracts capital from business, the "stimulus" bond sales are squeezing jobs out of the private sector. Unfortunately, most of the policy actions being considered to "create jobs" involve doing more of this.

Government is force. All government can do is to point a gun at someone and tell them that they can't do something that they want to do, or that they must do something that they don't want to do. Given that free markets are always trying to direct resources to their most profitable uses, any direct government intervention in the economy will make things worse. This negative impact shows up most quickly in total employment.

For example, there is talk of a program to force banks to lend to small businesses. Unfortunately, the capital the banks would lend under such a program would have to come from somewhere. The "jobs created or saved" by the new program would be trumpeted on "recovery.gov", but the jobs destroyed by draining capital from other areas would show up as lower total employment. This is exactly what has happened since the $787 billion "stimulus" bill was passed.

Recovery.gov claims that "stimulus" has "created or saved" 640,329 jobs since February 1, 2009. During this same period, the economy has shed 4.4 million net jobs and the unemployment rate (adjusted to a labor force participation rate of 65.7%) has risen from 7.7% to 11.5%. If we don't change course, get ready for (the equivalent of) 14% unemployment.

-- Louis Woodhill (louis@woodhill.com), an engineer and software entrepreneur, is on the Leadership Council of the Club for Growth.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bhoeconomy; jobs; layoffs; unemployment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 01/12/2010 3:58:33 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Unemployment is already WELL OVER 14%.

The politicians decided some years ago that it was bad for their careers to have a fair count, so they have rigged the game.

Anyone out of work for over 6 months is no longer counted as unemployed.

Total BS.

Anyone without a job that wants one is unemployed in my book. Well over 14% already.


2 posted on 01/12/2010 4:00:44 PM PST by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The “official” rate is a ruse. Its at least 17% right now.


3 posted on 01/12/2010 4:00:44 PM PST by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards,com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

we’re already at 22% unemployment if we used the old way of job calculation


4 posted on 01/12/2010 4:00:47 PM PST by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
When Circuit City was liquidated, the capital that was liberated went to pay off its debts. The banks and bondholders did not turn around and lend this money to Wal-Mart. Incrementally, they bought government bonds with it

Why are they or banks buying government bonds?? Those bonds could easily become worthless.

5 posted on 01/12/2010 4:02:18 PM PST by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards,com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

Yep.


6 posted on 01/12/2010 4:05:22 PM PST by AzaleaCity5691
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane
we’re already at 22% unemployment if we used the old way of job calculation

That's what John Crudelle says in his New York Post column entitled : How nation's true jobless rate is closer to 22%
7 posted on 01/12/2010 4:05:58 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
"Why are they or banks buying government bonds?? Those bonds could easily become worthless."

They are under the misaprehension that government bonds are riskless.

It is absolutely true that government bonds are risk free. Until the very moment a Treasury Auction FAILs. Then all hell breaks loose, and we're Argentina.

8 posted on 01/12/2010 4:07:14 PM PST by Uncle Miltie ("Free" Healthcare + Citizenship for Lawbreakers = Democrats Forever! Buenos Dias!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

9 posted on 01/12/2010 4:08:10 PM PST by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Why are they or banks buying government bonds?? Those bonds could easily become worthless.

The banks don't think that way. They're still thinking that Uncle Sam's debt is rated AAA.

Interest rates from the Federal Reserve to banks are near zero. They're not near zero for you, at a mortgage or at a credit card, but the interest rate that exists between the Fed and the banks is zero, or pretty much.

So the banks can get free money by lending to the government. Now, the government has to borrow from someplace. What the simple explanation is, is that the government is borrowing money from the banks, there's zero interest on that. In exchange for it they're buying Treasury bonds, that's how you borrow or lend to the government, those bonds are a guaranteed 3% return. It's that simple. If you can lend to somebody that's guaranteed to pay you back 3%, as opposed to lending to somebody risky out in the private sector, who may not even be able to collateralize the loan, why would you do it? You got in trouble doing it once on the subprime mortgage business and you were forced to do that if you're a bank. So, if Obama really wants the banks to start lending to people in the private sector, the simple answer is to stop giving banks unlimited amounts of money for essentially free.
10 posted on 01/12/2010 4:09:39 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

11 posted on 01/12/2010 4:10:14 PM PST by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Read an article today. 22% unemployment.


12 posted on 01/12/2010 4:12:29 PM PST by mulligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots

If you count the college and high school kids needing part time work you can figure 14% like in California is very low. Wait until these kids graduate and find no jobs out there. June will be a real education.


13 posted on 01/12/2010 4:16:58 PM PST by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mulligan
Read an article today. 22% unemployment.

Do you really believe that's ONE in FIVE out there you see on the streets ?
14 posted on 01/12/2010 4:19:18 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The banks are borrowing from the government and loaning it back to the government?

whoa


15 posted on 01/12/2010 4:26:33 PM PST by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards,com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

The U-6 is 17.3 currently.


16 posted on 01/12/2010 4:29:58 PM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

http://www.shadowstats.com/

Shadow Government has us at 22% right now.


17 posted on 01/12/2010 4:34:48 PM PST by Bean Counter (Stout Hearts....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

17.3% sounds about right


18 posted on 01/12/2010 4:39:26 PM PST by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards,com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bean Counter

I would agree. We just got back from the Northside of San Antonio, there is a large Dillards there with an empty parking lot that had maybe 25 cars, don’t know how many were employees’.

My wife went through the store (to enter the other stores at the mall), said that there weren’t many folks at all shopping, mostly clerks. That’s not going to last, those poor folks will be looking for work soon.


19 posted on 01/12/2010 4:43:50 PM PST by brushcop (SFC Sallie, CPL Long, LTHarris, SSG Brown, PVT Simmons KIA OIF lll&V, they died for you, honor them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The U-6 rate is 1 in 6 as it is. Add in the early, forced retirements and it could easily be one in five. Just last month over 600,000 people ‘fell’ off the job rolls.

It is bad out there. There are few jobs in the middle and upper middle management and sales positions. The average unemployed worker spends more than six months finding a new job and most often accepts a significant cut in wages and benefits if he finds one at all. Outside of government services, which have been propped up by the stimulus, or whole sale created by O’bummer, there is little to no activity in the private sector. And as for ‘shovel ready jobs’ the only thing being shoveled is the B.S. the construction trade unemployment is now at 22%.

20 posted on 01/12/2010 4:58:42 PM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson