March 8, 2010
The most recent report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics concerning non-farm payrolls for the month of February has surprised most people and it has left a number of commentators feeling upbeat. Reuters had reported that “The median forecast from the ten most accurate forecasters is for payrolls to fall by 70,000.” Nevertheless, the BLS report disclosed a figure of approximately half that much. Only 36,000 jobs had been lost and unemployment was holding at 9.7%. One enthusiastic reaction to that news came from the Mad Hedge Fund Trader:
While the employment rate for those with no high school diploma is 16%, the kind of worker who lost their manufacturing jobs to China, the jobless rate for those with college degrees is only 4.5%. This is proof that the dying sectors of the US economy are delivering the highest unemployment rates, and that America is clawing its way up the value chain in the global race for economic supremacy. It is what America does best, creative destruction with a turbocharger. There is a third influence here, which could be huge. The BLS only contacts existing businesses for its survey.
* * *
The bottom line is that payroll figures are much better than they appear at first glance.
Prior to the release of that report, many commentators had been expressing their disappointment concerning the most recent economic indicators. I discussed that subject on March 1. On the following day, John Crudele of The New York Post focused on the dramatic drop in the Consumer Confidence Index, released by The Conference Board — a drop to 46 in February from January’s 56.5. Here is the conclusion Mr. Crudele reached in assessing what most middle-class Americans understand about our current economic state:
Even with the stock market still bubbling and media trying its damnedest to convince us at least a million times a day that there’s an economic recovery, the American public isn’t buying it.
* * *
The economy has stabilized since then, helped greatly by the fact that some wealthy people feel wealthier because of an unbelievable snap back by the stock market during 2009. (And by unbelievable in this context I mean that what happened shouldn’t be believed as either legitimate or sustainable.)
Don Luskin of The Wall Street Journal’s Smart Money blog articulated his dissatisfaction with the most recent economic indicators on February 26. One week later, Luskin presented us with a very informative analysis for understanding the true value of one’s investments. Luskin spelled it out this way:
Consider stocks priced not in money, but in gold. In other words, instead of thinking of stocks as investments you make in order to increase your wealth in dollars, think of them as something to increase your wealth in gold. After all, you don’t want to make money for its own sake — you want the money for what you can buy with it. Gold is a symbol for all the things you might want to buy.
* * *
It’s easy to track stocks priced in gold because the price of the S&P 500 and the price of an ounce of gold vary closely with one another. As of Thursday’s close, they were only about $10 apart, with the S&P 500 at 1123, and gold at about 1133.
How about a year ago, on the day of the bottom for stocks on March 9? That day the S&P 500 closed at 676.53. Gold closed at 920.85. That means that one “unit” of the S&P could have bought 73% of an ounce of gold.
Today, with stocks and gold each having risen over the last year — but with stocks rising more — one “unit” of the S&P can buy 99% of an ounce of gold. All we have to do is compare 73% a year ago to 99% now, and we can see that stocks, priced in gold, have risen 34.9%.
A 34.9% gain for stocks priced in gold is pretty good for a year’s work. But it’s a far cry from the 69.1% that stocks have gained when they are priced in dollars. Do you see what has happened here? Stocks have made you lots of dollars. But the dollar itself has fallen in value compared to the real and eternal value represented by gold.
Here’s the most troubling part. The entire 34.9% gain made by stocks — priced in gold, that is — was achieved in just the first five weeks of rallying from the March 2009 bottom. That means for most of the last year, since mid-April, while it has appeared that stocks have been furiously rallying, in reality they’ve just been sitting there. All risk, no reward.
* * *
So why, then, did stocks — priced in dollars, not gold — continue so much higher? Simple: We experienced inflation-induced growth. Throw enough stimulus money, an “extended period” of zero interest rates from the Fed, and a big dose of government debt at the economy, and you will get some growth — and, eventually, lots of inflation.
Luskin concluded the piece by explaining that if stocks move higher while gold moves lower, we will be seeing evidence of real growth. On the other hand, if gold increases in value while stocks go down or simply get stuck where they are, there is no economic growth.
Luskin’s approach allows us to see through all that money-printing and excess liquidity Ben Bernanke has brought to the stock market, creating an illusion of increased value.
Everyone is hoping to see evidence of economic recovery as soon as possible. Don Luskin has provided us with the “x-ray specs” for seeing through the hype to determine whether some of that evidence is real.
The Employment Outlook Debate
March 10. 2010
The February non-farm payrolls report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics boosted the optimism of many commentators who follow the unemployment crisis. Nevertheless, predictions about the employment outlook for the remainder of 2010 are extremely conflicting. Surfing around the web will give you completely divergent prognostications, usually depending on the locale. Here are some examples: Los Angeles job outlook expected to improve (Los Angeles Times); Atlanta employers expect to hold payrolls steady — neither hiring nor firing (Atlanta Journal-Constitution) Boston employers expected to add jobs (The Boston Globe — quoting a Manpower report); Employers still skittish on hiring (CNNMoney.com); Columbus hiring prospects for upcoming quarter weaken slightly (ledger-inquirer.com).
In an essay for the istockanalyst.com website, Ockham Research began by pointing out that 8.4 million jobs have been lost since the recession began in December of 2007. The fact that the S&P 500 has advanced 70% during this time has encouraged pundits to believe in a jobless recovery. After noting Senator Harry Reid’s odd reaction to the February non-farm payrolls report: “Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good” — the piece continued:
The Ockham Research piece again emphasized that many of the optimistic views are based on the addition of census workers to the rolls of the employed, despite the fact that these are temporary positions, eventually disappearing in mid-summer. Ockham Research was also dismissive of the inclusion of workers added to payrolls simply because of summertime seasonal employment opportunities. They concluded on this note:
The Seeking Alpha website featured a posting by David Goldman which began with these remarks:
Mr. Goldman focused on the February Small Business Confidence report by Discover Card, which revealed that America’s small business owners remained cautious about the economy during February as they expected economic conditions to stay largely the same during the coming months. At the close of the piece, we are reminded of its title, “Where Will the Jobs Come From?” —
Two economists for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Mary Daly and Bart Hobijn, recently published a research paper addressing the surprisingly high unemployment rate for 2009, based on a principle known as Okun’s Law. They explained it this way:
I will now fast-forward to their conclusion:
So there you have it. Pick your favorite prediction and run with it. The Manpower Employment Outlook Survey seems to have a reasonable take on expectations for the second quarter of 2010:
Let’s just hope the road ahead doesn’t have any sinkholes.