Sorry!! The article you are trying to read is not available now.
Thank you very much;
you're only a step away from
downloading your reports.

Bears Overly Pessimistic About Unemployment

By

The outcome is uncertain, but some factors are irrelevant predictors of growth.

PrintPRINT
And just in case you're wondering, taking into effect the adjustments through the much-speculated-about birth/death model would make no difference to the analysis. Most of the criticisms of BLS figures based on the birth/death model are bogus from a technical point of view. But regardless of this fact, what matters is the rate of change. And analyzing Birth/Death Model doesn't do a thing to alter the view that the unemployment situation is leveling out.

If one looks at what's happening in manufacturing industries and the incipient inventory correction, it seems likely to me that the economy will probably stop shedding net jobs by late this year. And if the inventory correction has legs, the net jobs should probably be growing at fast enough clip to begin to make a small dent in the unemployment rate by the second quarter of next year. (See: What Does Employment Mean For the Market?)

So, if this is the case, by April or May of 2010 the economy could be in the situation described above where the labor market is stable. This would allow overall consumption to grow by about 4.0%.

Conclusion

Many bears make the mistake of assuming that just because the unemployment rate is high -- or remains high -- the economy cannot grow. This is false. As long as the labor market simply stabilizes and unemployment doesn't rise any higher, the economy can grow.

Now, there are other factors that impinge on consumption other than employment. Too many people make the mistake of equating unemployment with consumption. This is a mistake because the vast majority of the workforce has a job. Thus, less focus needs to be placed on those that don't have jobs and more focus needs to be placed on this vast majority that do. We need to be asking what employed folks will be doing, going forward. In my mind, this is where there's the greatest uncertainty.

As I pointed out in my article from yesterday, Two Warnings for the Bears, consumers on aggregate do have the financial wherewithal to be able to increase consumption -- even above and beyond the growth of their income. The question is whether and to what extent they will. This is as much a psychological matter as anything else.

One view is that Americans are undergoing a radical psychological shift and that they're going to become frugal all of the sudden – indeed, that they'll be even more frugal in the next 12 months than they were in the last 12.

Another view is that Americans will at least partially revert back to prior consumption patterns. As I pointed out in yesterday's article, the vast majority of American households aren't overly constrained by debt. It's likely that these households will probably go back to living very much as they did previously -- i.e. consuming a roughly equivalent proportion of their income. This implies decreased precautionary savings, increased consumption, and renewed use of credit. At the very least -- in the case of those that won't go entirely back to their prior consumption patterns -- they won't be as frugal as they were in the past 12 months as the fear of doomsday isn't nearly as great.

Assuming a scenario of a stable labor market, the only way consumption won't grow nominally by at least 4% is if Americans change their consumptions habits radically and become even more frugal than they've been for the past 12 months. Let us take note of such a possibility.

But there's another possibility with very important implications: Americans could revert to prior patterns, at least partially. If that happens, nominal consumption growth could rocket into the 6%-plus range. For example, 1% labor force growth + 2.6% wage growth + 1.4% incremental growth from profits driven spending + a 2% reduction in the savings rate = 7.0% consumption growth.

I haven't made up my mind about which scenario will in fact play out. What I'm quite certain of is that bears are far too pessimistic, and that this pessimism is the product of a lack of understanding.
No positions in stocks mentioned.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PrintPRINT
 
Featured Videos

WHAT'S POPULAR IN THE VILLE