UNEMPLOYMENT GOING TO AT LEAST 12%

TuTu Monroe

A Realist
November 11th, 2009
12 reasons unemployment is going to (at least) 12 percent

Post a comment (56)
Posted by: James Pethokoukis
Tags: Uncategorized, David Rosenberg, Great Recession, Long Recession, Lost Decade, unemployment
Gluskin Sheff economist David Rosenberg, formerly of Merrill Lynch, thinks the unemployment rate is going to at least 12 percent, maybe even 13 percent. Optimists, Rosenberg explains, underestimate the incredible damage done to the labor market during this downturn. And even before this downturn, the economy was not generating jobs in huge numbers. If he is right, all political bets are off. I think the Democrats could lose the House and effective control of the Senate. I think you would also be talking about the rise of third party and perhaps a challenger to Obama in 2012.
So here is what I gleaned from Rosenberg’s latest report (bold is mine):
1. For the first time in at least six decades, private sector employment is negative on a 10-year basis (first turned negative in August). Hence, the changes are not merely cyclical or short-term in nature. Many of the jobs created between the 2001 and 2008 recessions were related either directly or indirectly to the parabolic extension of credit.
2. During this two-year recession, employment has declined a record 8 million. Even in percent terms, this is a record in the post-WWII experience.
3. Looking at the split, there were 11 million full-time jobs lost (usually we see three million in a garden-variety recession), of which three million were shifted into part-time work.
4.There are now a record 9.3 million Americans working part-time because they have no choice. In past recessions, that number rarely got much above six million.
5. The workweek was sliced this cycle from 33.8 hours to a record low 33.0 hours — the labour input equivalent is another 2.4 million jobs lost. So when you count in hours, it’s as if we lost over 10 million jobs this cycle. Remarkable.
6. The number of permanent job losses this cycle (unemployed but not for temporary purposes) increased by a record 6.2 million. In fact, well over half of the total unemployment pool of 15.7 million was generated just in this past recession alone. A record 5.6 million people have been unemployed for at least six months (this number rarely gets above two million in a normal downturn) which is nearly a 36% share of the jobless ranks (again, this rarely gets above 20%). Both the median (18.7 weeks) and average (26.9 weeks) duration of unemployment have risen to all-time highs.
7. The longer it takes for these folks to find employment (and now they can go on the government benefit list for up to two years) the more difficult it is going to be to retrain them in the future when labour demand does begin to pick up.
8. Not only that, but we have a youth unemployment rate now approaching a record 20%. Again, this is going to prove to be very problematic for employers in the future who are going to be looking for skills and experience when the boomers finally do begin to retire.
9. The gap between the U6 and the official U3 rate is at a record 7.3 percentage points. Normally this spread is between 3-4 percentage points and ultimately we will see a reversion to the mean, to some unhappy middle where the U6 may be closer to 15.0-16.0% and the posted jobless rate closer to 12%. This will undoubtedly be a major political issue, especially in the context of a mid-term elections and the GOP starting to gain some electoral ground.
10. But when we do start to see the economic clouds part in a more decisive fashion, what are employers likely to do first? Well, naturally they will begin to boost the workweek and just getting back to pre-recession levels would be the same as hiring more than two million people. Then there are the record number of people who got furloughed into part-time work and again, they total over nine million, and these folks are not counted as unemployed even if they are working considerably fewer days than they were before the credit crunch began.
11. So the business sector has a vast pool of resources to draw from before they start tapping into the ranks of the unemployed or the typical 100,000-125,000 new entrants into the labour force when the economy turns the corner. Hence the unemployment rate is going to very likely be making new highs long after the recession is over — perhaps even years.
12. After all, the recession ended in November 2001 with an unemployment rate at 5.5% and yet the unemployment rate did not peak until June 2003, at 6.3%. The recession ended in March 1991 when the jobless rate was 6.8% and it did not peak until June 1992, at 7.8%. In both cases, the unemployment rate peaked well more than a year after the recession technically ended. The 2001 cycle was a tech capital stock deflation; the 1991 cycle was the Savings & Loan debacle; this past cycle was an asset deflation and credit collapse of epic proportions. And economists think that the unemployment rate is in the process of cresting now? Just remember it is the same consensus community that predicted at the beginning of 2008 that the jobless rate would peak out below 6% this cycle.


click here





 
I don't see even 11.5%
Obama is not an inflexible turbo-lib, though I wish he were.
There are plenty things he can do and will do once the rate gets over 10.5
 
I don't see even 11.5%
Obama is not an inflexible turbo-lib, though I wish he were.
There are plenty things he can do and will do once the rate gets over 10.5

Such as????

also... if there are plenty of things he can do... why WAIT until it gets over 10.5?
 
Such as????

also... if there are plenty of things he can do... why WAIT until it gets over 10.5?

you can prob come up with more than me, with you being a professional financial analyst.

Here's my point, Obama is a pimp worried about power not a turbo-lib worried about his base.
1. Did he not steal the republican idea of huge tax cuts. 95% of us got a cut, that sounds more supply side to me than anything else.
what could he do.
1. Open Alaska drilling, Cali and east coast. you could get hundreds of thousands of jobs and shrink the fuck out of the trade deficit.
 
you can prob come up with more than me, with you being a professional financial analyst.

Here's my point, Obama is a pimp worried about power not a turbo-lib worried about his base.
1. Did he not steal the republican idea of huge tax cuts. 95% of us got a cut, that sounds more supply side to me than anything else.
what could he do.
1. Open Alaska drilling, Cali and east coast. you could get hundreds of thousands of jobs and shrink the fuck out of the trade deficit.

1) saying 95% got a cut is a joke. If you give people a $100 'cut' to 95% are you really doing anything? NO.

2) I agree with your drilling comments, but in no way would that be quick enough to hold off unemployment in the short term.

3) What they need is temporary full time jobs. We have a huge need for infrastructure build out in this country. We have to do it at some point in the future. What we should be doing is ramping up the spending in this area NOW, when the labor market is loose. Push infrastructure spending designated for five years from now up to 2010 etc... when the economy gets back on track and other sectors start hiring again, THEN those extra people working in infrastructure can shift back into the other sectors.

Simply giving money to states to protect public sector jobs is not going to cut it. Thus far, all Obama and the Dem Congress have done is hold off some union and government (public) job losses. There is a reason why the SEIU leader is the most frequent visitor to the White House.
 
how many of the people that are unemployed are really trying to get a new job? I bet some % of them are half assing it. I know some people looking for a job who sleep till 10, and do maybe 2hours of job hunting a day. Me personally 8hours a day every day till I got a job. Part of it would be learning new skills.
 
1) saying 95% got a cut is a joke. If you give people a $100 'cut' to 95% are you really doing anything? NO.

2) I agree with your drilling comments, but in no way would that be quick enough to hold off unemployment in the short term.

3) What they need is temporary full time jobs. We have a huge need for infrastructure build out in this country. We have to do it at some point in the future. What we should be doing is ramping up the spending in this area NOW, when the labor market is loose. Push infrastructure spending designated for five years from now up to 2010 etc... when the economy gets back on track and other sectors start hiring again, THEN those extra people working in infrastructure can shift back into the other sectors.

Simply giving money to states to protect public sector jobs is not going to cut it. Thus far, all Obama and the Dem Congress have done is hold off some union and government (public) job losses. There is a reason why the SEIU leader is the most frequent visitor to the White House.

totally agreed, I'm not arguing the success of those cuts just that he's not opposed to supply side solutions if he has to swallow them.
 
I think this is what happens when you artificially prop up the economy with eases in lending practices, manipulating the interest rates etc. What goes up MUST come down. How far down depends on how far up and how artificial the bubble was.
 
Back
Top