PDA

View Full Version : WSJ:Pre-recession levels of employment not likely until 2016



Winehole23
10-09-2009, 01:32 AM
Scarred Job Market Expected to Weigh on Economy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125494927938671631.html?mod=article-outset-box)



By PHIL IZZO (http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=PHIL+IZZO&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND)

The worst recession since the Great Depression has left a scorched landscape that will weigh on the labor market and the broader economy for years to come, according to economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

The 48 surveyed economists expect the economy to bounce back from four quarters of contraction with 3.1% growth in gross domestic product at a seasonally adjusted annual rate in the just-ended third quarter.



Economists expect a full jobs recovery may take years. Phil Izzo talks with Kelsey Hubbard and Simon Constable in the News Hub.


Expansion is seen continuing through the first half of 2010, though at a slower rate. But the massive downturn means the labor market will take years to heal. On average, the economists don't expect unemployment to fall below 6% until 2013; unemployment hit 9.8% in September.
"Never before has business shed so many workers so fast, so many people failed to find work who are looking for work, and so many dropped out of the labor force as in the current circumstance," said Allen Sinai at Decision Economics.


The labor market's tough road was underscored by Thursday's report on weekly applications for unemployment insurance. The Labor Department reported that initial claims fell 33,000 to 521,000 in the week ended Oct. 3. The number of people collecting unemployment insurance also fell, but remained above six million.
About the Survey

The Wall Street Journal surveys a group of 52 economists throughout the year. Broad surveys on more than 10 major economic indicators are conducted every month. Once a year, economists are ranked on how well their forecasts have fared. For prior installments of the surveys, see: WSJ.com/Economist (http://online.wsj.com/public/page/economic-forecasting-survey.html).


View Full Image


http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-EQ091_1008jo_D_20091008123921.jpg
Getty Images Job seekers wait in line to be interviewed at a job fair at the Chicago Family Health Center in August.

http://s.wsj.net/img/BTN_insetClose.gif
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-EQ091_1008jo_G_20091008123921.jpg



The decrease in continuing claims likely reflects people exhausting their unemployment benefits after several months of looking for work in vain.
"We expect the improvement to remain a very slow one, and therefore for the household sector to be contending with a weak labor market for quite some time," Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist with research firm MFR Inc., wrote in a note to clients.


On average the economists -- not all of whom answered every question -- expect the unemployment rate to peak at 10.2% in February. But even once the employment situation stops getting worse, economists expect recovery to come slowly. "It could take until 2014-15 before we see a 5% handle on unemployment again," said Diane Swonk at Mesirow Financial. Persistently high unemployment could prove a political hot potato not only for the 2010 midterm elections for Congress but also for the 2012 presidential election.

A job seeker fills out an application last week in Raleigh, N.C. Economists expect the unemployment rate to keep rising.





Senate Democrats on Thursday said they reached a deal to extend unemployment-insurance benefits to the nearly 2 million jobless workers in danger of running out of assistance by year's end. The agreement would give an additional 14 weeks of benefits to jobless workers in all 50 states. Workers in states with an unemployment rate at 8.5% or above would receive six weeks on top of that.


Democrats said they could try to bring the measure to a quick vote on the Senate floor Thursday evening, depending on whether Republicans demand more extended debate.


While nine of the 46 economists who answered a question on the subject supported tax cuts for employers and seven backed tax incentives for hiring, nearly a third said the government shouldn't do anything. Just four said the government should boost spending.


"It's time to let the business cycle take over," said Stephen Stanley of RBS.
The existing $787 billion stimulus has raised concerns about the deficit, with almost three-quarters of respondents saying taxes will have to be raised on those making less than $250,000 at some point in the next six years.


Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has to decide when and how to pull back from its interventions in the market and when to raise interest rates from their current level of 0% to 0.25%. The economists don't expect the central bank to raise rates at all until sometime around August 2010 amid continued high unemployment.


Some economists worry the economy will turn down again over the next 12 months, leading to a so-called double-dip recession.


http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BB073A_Surve_NS_20091008215728.gif


—Conor Dougherty contributed to this article.

MannyIsGod
10-09-2009, 01:45 AM
Whats going to end up costing us more? An economy that is slow to recover over the course of half a decade or a one time stimulus package that actually addresses the problem?

Winehole23
10-09-2009, 02:03 AM
What do you mean *one time*? There have been two stimulus bills in the last two years, plus massive socialization of private debts, and QE like it's going out of style.

Don't you mean yet another stimulus, Manny?

MannyIsGod
10-09-2009, 02:08 AM
What do you mean *one time*? There have been two stimulus bills in the last two years, plus massive socialization of private debts, and QE like it's going out of style.

Don't you mean yet another stimulus, Manny?

Well I meant more like getting it right the first time. The reason there have been many bills is because the political will is never there to throw out the real number.

I know what course we're on now and I've accepted it. I'm in favor of fixing things the right way, but the politics will simply not allow it. Who's going to go on the record and say that we need more money now and it will save us money in the future when you know what is going to be written up and said. Its extremely short sighted thinking being framed as just the opposite.

boutons_deux
10-09-2009, 05:46 AM
the stimulus (not TARP, not bailout) was seen by some to be too small (notice how trickle down from the financial sector is proven yet again to be a huge Laffer).

Although all of the stimulus funds have not been disbursed, it appears that it will be too little. More stimulus funds (not more bailouts) seem to be required.

Very simple Keynsian principle, when the economy (aka US consumers buying consumer crap) stops spending, then the spending must come from elsewhere, the govt.

If no govt spending, the out of work consumers continue to lose their homes, lenders inflow of capital dries up, people run out of unemployment benefits, spend a sustenance mimimum, stores can't pay their leases, commercial real estate owners can't pay their commercial mortgages, and it all will continue to get worse and worse.

But all the obstructionist, bloody-minded Repugs and conservatives scream about is the national debt (which they doubled under dubya with bullshit wars and tax cuts (which did no good)) which claimed to be worse than a long-term, deeply moribund economy.

SouthernFried
10-09-2009, 06:20 AM
Funny stuff.

I quit reading crap like this cuz it was always too stupid to take seriously. Now I realize it's just plain ol' funny.

Might as well say..."ASSUMING it's really, really cloudy, and assuming there's a tropical storm in the area and it's misting outside...we should have rain in march 2016."

Clandestino
10-09-2009, 06:32 AM
We don't need more money! We need fucking inept Congress to hand out the money they've already set aside. Less than 20% has even been given out...

NoOptionB
10-09-2009, 07:16 AM
Manny, your god didn't even try to stimulate the economy on his first shitulus bill.

That's a pretty dick move by el jefe. It's all good though. Dude will net at least $20 mil a year on his post-retirement tour.

NoOptionB
10-09-2009, 07:19 AM
lol keynsian.

coyotes_geek
10-09-2009, 12:58 PM
The stimulus bill wasn't too small. It was just poorly conceived in how, where, and when the money gets spent. Half of the money is devoted to stuff like medicare benefits for the unemployed, food stamps, green energy tax credits and other stuff that may very well be noble causes, but are not things that are going to put people to work. As a result we ended up with a bill that is as ineffective as it is expensive.