FedUpUSA

Archive for December 4th, 2009

The economy is so hot, that democrats in Congress are now moving with yet another stimulus package, this one for $170 billion, targeting bankrupt states and formerly surging unemployment (Obama has some TV appearances today; the BLS will be back to its previously scheduled job collapse next month). In other news, Japan did approximately 10 such small scale bailouts even as its market proceeded to keep probing new lows over the last two decades, and as reinvested 3x its annual GDP in comparable such one-time boosts to the economy without doing anything to prevent its current deflationary collapse.

From Dow Jones:

Congressional Democrats are moving ahead with a roughly $170 billion package to spur jobs growth and boost emergency  assistance to the unemployed, Democratic congressional aides say.

The two separate bills are taking shape amid an improving jobs picture, but with unemployment still at 10%. U.S. President Barack Obama will deliver a speech Tuesday at the Brookings Institution where he intends to lay out his own ideas for a narrowly targeted jobs bill, which will overlap with  Congress’s intentions but won’t be identical.

Both the administration and Congress will almost certainly pay for part of their program with some of the $115 billion that bailed out banks have repaid to the Treasury Department.

Some more details on Krugman’s wet dream:

The legislation will likely be split in two. The first part, at around $110 billion, would be considered emergency spending. It would again extend unemployment insurance, food stamp increases and a provision in the stimulus bill that subsidizes private-health insurance for the unemployed. This portion will likely be attached to a giant spending bill this month to fund the federal government, and will be added to the already huge U.S. budget deficit.

A second “jobs” bill would cost up to $70 billion, funded by the bank bailout. It would include more money for highway and bridge building, school construction and repair, and water and sewer projects. A second component would be direct aid to state governments cutting back services and raising taxes, moves that are hurting the economic recovery.

Finally, some repaid bailout funds will be lent back to small businesses directly from the Treasury.

Of course, nobody will have the brilliant idea of actually using TARP repayments (before they are needed to bail out the banking system again some time in late 2010) to actually pay back some of the debt which as of a few months ago has been classified as “unmanageable” by everyone including Mr. Bernanke. But why care about the sovereign default in 4-6 years when there are mid-term elections to be worried about. At least in the meantime, the abovementioned Fed Chairman can teach us all we need to know about Fiscal responsibility, courtesy of a completely “apolitical” and transparent Federal Reserve.

Ratigan cuts to the chase, bypassing the hollow rhetoric by Administration propaganda queen Christina Romer, who can’t beat enough drums on today’s pathologically ludicrous BLS numbers, yet is completely unwilling to discuss how the White House will proceed to recoup any of the taxpayer-subsidized windfalls at Wall Street firms. Any considerations of windfall tax, be they in the form of a Tobin tax, now openly supported by such people as Warren Buffett and John Bogle, or directly imposed, seems to not be on the White House’s agenda currently or any time in the future. How is it so difficult for Obama to understand that Main Street is demanding some quid-pro-quo of firms like Goldman, whose employees are covertly purchasing Ferraris even as excess bank reserves hit another all time record yesterday, and instead of lending money out the banks continue to collect a risk-free 0.25% on these excess reserves, thereby once again picking taxpayers’ pockets.

Yes, we all know they need the cash as they are well aware their balance sheets are in much more deplorable conditions than loose FASB regulations force them to disclose. However, the animosity is growing, and more and more the anger directed at Wall Street is becoming anchored at Obama and his Robert Rubin (i.e., Goldman Sachs) cronies, who despite their assumed ideological adherence, are seeminly much more pro-Wall Street than even previous Republican administrations. This will be a heated issue for the President, especially once details of individual Wall Street record bonuses become all too public.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In August, when it was reported that the July unemployment rate dipped slightly to 9.4% from 9.5% in June, I pointed out that the dip in unemployment was just monthly noise: Jobs and the Unemployment Rate

FAQ: How can the unemployment rate fall if the economy is losing net jobs, especially since the population is growing?

This data comes from two separate surveys. The unemployment Rate comes from the Current Population Survey (CPS: commonly called the household survey), a monthly survey of about 60,000 households.

The jobs number comes from Current Employment Statistics (CES: payroll survey), a sample of approximately 400,000 business establishments nationwide.

These are very different surveys: the CPS gives the total number of employed (and unemployed including the alternative measures), and the CES gives the total number of positions (excluding some categories like the self-employed, and a person working two jobs counts as two positions).
…
[T]he jobs and unemployment rate come from two different surveys and are different measurements (one for positions, the other for people). Some months the numbers may not seem to make sense (lost jobs and falling unemployment rate), but over time the numbers will work out.

Here are a couple of scatter graphs to illustrate this point …

The first graph shows the monthly change in net jobs (on the x-axis) as a percentage of the payroll employment, and the change in the unemployment rate on the y-axis.

The data is for the last 40 years: 1969 through July 2009.

Click on graph for large image.

Although these surveys are different measures of employment – there is still a correlation – in general, the more payroll jobs added (further right on the x-axis), the more the unemployment rate declines (y-axis). And generally the more jobs lost, the more the unemployment rate increases.

But the graph sure is noisy on a monthly basis.

Look at the two red triangles – those are the data points for the last two months.

Notice that the increase in the October unemployment rate was much higher than expected based on the number of payroll jobs lost. And the opposite was true for November (the unemployment rate fell even though payroll employment declined slightly).

The second graph covers the same period but uses a two month rolling average:

Now we see a much sharper correlation.

The red triangles are the for the last two data points, and the Sept-Oct point is above the curve, whereas the Oct-Nov point is on the curve. All this means is the jump in the unemployment rate in October was higher than expected, and the decline in November balanced it out.

This also suggests the economy needs to be adding about 0.13 percent of payroll employment per month to keep the unemployment rate from rising. That is about 170 thousand net jobs per month – this accounts for both population growth and an expected increase in the employment-population ratio.

Note that the trend line is a 3rd order polynomial (equation on graph). When the economy starts to add jobs, more people start looking for work – and the relationship between net jobs and the unemployment rate is not linear. (see next graph).

If we use a six month rolling average for the above graphs, R-squared rises to 0.8.

This graph show the employment-population ratio; this is the ratio of employed Americans to the adult population.

Note: the graph doesn’t start at zero to better show the change.

This measure was flat in November at 58.5%, the lowest level since the early ’80s. However once the economy starts adding jobs, more people will be looking for work, and the employment-population ratio will start to increase. This means the stronger the economy, the more net jobs required each quarter to lower the unemployment rate by the same amount.

The bottom line is the decline in the unemployment rate this month was noise, and the unemployment rate will probably increase further. If the economy adds about 2 million payroll jobs next year, we’d expect the unemployment rate to still be at about 10% at the end of the year.