Market Currents
February Nonfarm Payrolls: +236K vs. consensus +160K, 119K previous (revised from...
-
Friday, March 8, 8:30 AM ETFebruary Nonfarm Payrolls: +236K vs. consensus +160K, 119K previous (revised from +157K). Unemployment rate 7.7% vs. consensus 7.9%, 7.9% previous.
Other date
Latest Macro Articles
This news story has 110 comments:
"The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for December was revised from +196,000 to +219,000, and the change for January was revised from +157,000 to +119,000."
They have only moved jobs from december to january, and jobs from january to february to makes it look better then it is.
dec -23 k
jan - 38 k
feb + 61 extra jobs
Actuall jobs in feb: 236 k - 61= 175 k
Much worse then expected !! Need to creat at least 250 k jobes EVERT month 12 every month every year.
And a lot of temp works included, thats not good. http://cbsn.ws/13KRdFL
Clearly we aren't going gangbusters yet, and the drop in the rate was due in large part to a large amount of people dropping out of the labor force, but growing job at 200k a month for a few months should help consumer confidence, driving further jobs gains.
+23 Dec 12
-38 Jan 13
+61 Feb 13
----------------------...
+46 Net
But what "if" Feb is revised downward (~35?) like most all of the DOL reports since Obama been in the WH ?
Its flatter than a pancake and not nearly enough to make-up for all chronic (non-reported) unemployment. What are your thoughts ?
No, its
+236k in Feb
-38k Jan
+23k Dec
---------------
+ 221 k net
My thoughts are for people to understand the data releases.
http://on.mktw.net/WPXTuT
Non-farm payrolls are 3 million LOWER than Dec 2007.
Yeah, go back and look at BLS stats for job creation. From 1970 to 2008, the biggest loss for any period would only total about 2 million or so. From 1982 to about 1991, 18 to 19 million jobs were created. From 1992 or there abouts to 2001, about 20 million jobs were created. From 2002 to 2008, about 7 million jobs were created. So even though, we would loose 2 million jobs at the worst, that hole was filled pretty quick. In 2008 to 2009, we lost about 9 million jobs, and I think we have only made back about half of that in the last 5 years. That's why you don't see any inflation in CPI assets. People want to save. As such, they bid up savings assets like bonds and equities.
That's only true in a highly gov regulatory and tax environment. Regulations are taxes, and ultimately the real level of taxation is the extent to which gov price blind policies reduce your level of consumption and thereby your standard of living. In a free market, where noncoerced markets regulate production via price, technology allows people to be self employed. High taxation is a barrier to competitors. As such, the capital intensiveness allows bigger businesses to get bigger and current wealth to become wealthier. Its how you create an aristocracy.
In a noncoerced market, what would happen is that more and more people would become self employed. The machines become the heavy lifters, the cost of production goes down, so does the cost of products, but variety and choice goes up. Say you worked for GM, and you had ideas that GM was just too afraid to attempt. That's typical for a big business. Its just too risky to rock the boat, and that's why they hate competition. But if it were very easy and cheap to start a business, technology would allow you to go out and produce your product. Robots would get cheaper and cheaper, and thus you would have more and more creators.
The reason you don't get this are the same reasons why gov had to grant monopolies. A monopoly can't exist in a free market, and one never has, and that's why it took a gov grant to protect it. A monopoly can only survive with a grant of coercion behind it.
This is why we aren't seeing job growth now. We ramped up taxation via regulations from Obamacare and Dodd Frank. Regulations are just price fixing via clandestine taxation. The result is we have arbitrarily set our fixed costs of production higher than what our technology can compensate for (too expensive to start a new business), and the result is fewer economic opportunities that need help in getting off the ground.
2014 will see Obamacare and DF really ramp up, so expect more pressure on unemployment in 2014. Its hard to say when, but we could see the S&P hit 1600 before it happens and the 10 hit 2.30. When peoples' insurance premiums start to go up, then consumer spending will go down. That should hit earnings, and then we get some level of risk off. Maybe back down to 1400 and 1.50 on the 10 yr. Don't panic though, we will have to see if the Fed can reinflate.
No, that's a straw man, but let's fight about that another time.
Think about this. Why is the Fed attempting to keep interest rates low. They are supposedly trying to fullfil their dual mandate of employment and prices. The focus on the UE rate is part of their extra focus on jobs. They figure lower rates will eventually translate into jobs. Dodd Frank, especially the extraconstitutional Consumer Financial Protection Board, is just additional costs. How do financial institutions pay for higher costs? Ultimately they pay for them with higher rates or tighter credit. In other words Dodd Frank will do the exact opposite of what the Fed is trying to do. Obamacare will do the same sort of thing, but just through the medical industry. In other words, they will both be job killers. That means pressure on earnings in 2014, and thus more unemployment.
2013 doesn't really have these factors. Thus I could see 1600 on the S&P in 2013 and mabye 2.30 on the 10yr. 2014 we will have to start looking for the pullback. Then we will have to see if the Fed can reinflate.
One last question. What was the S&P in 2000?
An example is the New England Compounding Center, unregulated by the FDA by law. Sales increased so fast that corners were cut. Mold found its way into steroid injections and people died. Principles of the company cashed out at the tune of $16 million as the first deaths were made known. So far, no one has been charged, but with no regulations/laws, what can they be charged with? If they were regulated, production would have suffered due to down times for sanitation. Also, the recycling center the company owned and ran in the same complex would have been shut down, another blow to commerce. But people died, what price unfettered commerce?
Manufacturing things right often costs more money than cutting corners. If a company can make a bigger profit at the expense of the consumer, what is to stop them? It is not a perfect world out there - market forces alone do not work - humans are involved. And yes, re3gulaters sometimes know more about making a process safer than a manufacturer. Once again, you eye the world as if it is perfect - it is not.
I s over regulation a problem? I would be the first to agree. We have been fined because a dime sized puddle was found under a railcar. One quick tighten on the cap and the problem was solved - but we were still given a stiff fine.
The legislative process. You elect representatives to write laws and pass them. Then you have an executive that executes the laws. When the legislator gives the power of law creation to the executive via a law that says, "the executive will make all the rules" in some regulatory agency. The division of power is what keeps gov force in check.
Also, what level of gov should write the laws? The last one should be a central gov. The idea of federalism is a market of govs. Since we don't know what a gov should cost, we create a market for govs. The ones that get the cost right, get the benefit of immigration. Those states become the most prosperous, and the one's loosing, must come up with better approaches. That's why you don't want the central gov to mostly manage issues among the state govs and not among the individuals.
"And yes, re3gulaters sometimes know more about making a process safer than a manufacturer."
So the safest thing to do and the best thing for the consumer is for you to turn your business over to the gov. That's where all of this is heading anyway.
"Once again, you eye the world as if it is perfect "
Just the opposite. People make mistakes, that's why you don't want to give people with guns the power to make all the rules. When they make mistakes, there is nothing we can do to stop it unless we are willing to bring our own violence to bear. You don't want your market corrections to be bloodshed.
I'd rather have a regulator who actually went to school for food science develop regs than some politician being paid off by the food industry.
I believe you whole heartedly. I just think its interesting that when it comes to your ox being gored, that suddenly you loose faith in gov. So if the gov doesn't know enough to run your business, then why is it suddenly they have the knowledge to just run down the ones that don't give a "hoot". All you are talking about is a difference of degree and not of principal. In that case we can just redefine "hoot" up a bit and suddenly you are the one that doesn't give a "hoot". So, as you said before, bad things happen when gov doesn't regulate, as such, they need to take over your business. It becomes easy. All we have to do is ratchet up the level of standards, and suddenly you don't give a "hoot".
I realize you meant "ensure", but that's comments for you. We all do that.
Anyways, if the gov can ensure a safe product, then the gov should make all products. It needs to take over your company because it can ensure, whereas you cannot. The degree is just a matter of opinion, and since we are just assuming cost doesn't matter, then there by your logic, you should surrender your business. Of course, you are quite willing to offer all sorts of reasons why your rules shouldn't apply to you, which means you are willing to put others at risk for your own self interest. If you don't even believe what you claim to believe, I don't see why anyone else should.
Wow, I guess that all is well?
Not in my neck of the woods where we actually eat food and have to work for a living.
10.5 Real U/E rate here in N.E. Pa., but what the hell we can all get I-pads for a cheaper price ala Bill Dudley!
Please!
But its in a businesses best interest to have lots of employed people with incomes. That means you have more people with which to trade, though we trade through money mediums, they still need to be producing something that gives them income.
Zerohedge, where the bears come to die.....
Look at the charts and the recovery rate is about the same as in the past. It just has a much deeper hole to climb out of.
It's a lost lesson these days.
Its a lesson that deserves to be lost. He may as well just have given them the cars.
Anyway, way give someone bank notes so they can turn around and give those notes back to you in exchange for inventory? The effect on the financials is the same. Just give them the car and count that as part of their compensation. You haven't made your company any richer, all you have done is pass those overall costs to other consumers that buy those cars. In other words all you have done is raised your compensation expenses that have to be paid for by other customers. If higher compensation makes your company more profitable, then why stop with just one car? Just give them all the cars and see if Ford would make it then.
Right, Hoops?
That seems out of step.
Only report the bad news in the past.
most of the 236k are money printers and folders that are a result of the Bernanke printing presses working overtime, the rest are regulation related... jobs connected to enforcement
still doomed I tell you. doooooomed
run for your lives, save yourselves,
P
my god that subscription has been money well spent...
keeping me out of the market and safe while the rest of you like lemmings rush on towards your doom
P
SWEET!
P
Do the math.....annulaized, that 's about $1.4 MM per job.......
We're doing fine.
You want fries with that?
exactly
wow, you are like an economic savant.
do you work for ECRI? are you Lakshman? nice to meet you
you are a savant, I am sure people tell you that all the time.
thank-you for your insight, thank-you, thank-you, thank-you
P
My God, where these people come from??
"The unemployment rate fell two tenths to 7.7%, though not for reasons that will make the Fed happy. The household employment survey rose just 170k, while the labor force fell 130k. The household survey has been weak since October. "
If the FOMC means what they've said about their UE target, and given the volatility in the employment numbers (another discussion), we could be waving BYE BYE QE any month now.
Hee hee.
Still, though, I've been reading quite a bit of what the Fed has said about their UE target, and when you dig deep into their comments, they have indeed left themselves quite a bit of flexibility.
I'm trying to watch carefully, because QE transfers a lot of wealth my way, so if they stop, I have to be ready. Of course stopping can mean a lot of things. QE wouldn't really stop until they actually shrank their balance sheet back to where it was before they substantially started growing it.
The Kenyan socialist in the WH is making such a big mess. Only GWB and Dick Cheney can clean it up.
From the Household Survey, the number of full-time jobs declined by 77K from 115,918 to 115,841. A jump in part-time workers which rose from 27,467 to 27,569, or 102K.
I'd say that by the end of 2014, we should see housing starts of at least 1,200,000 per year, and the unrate should be down to around 6%.
http://bit.ly/13LfxaM
There are some brief periods when the correlation doesn't hold up as well, such as the small 2001 recession which was not related to housing. But for the current environment the trend is pretty clear.
http://bit.ly/10hIYwi
The household formation rate jumps around a lot. Six months ago, the rate was around 2m/year, which is more than enough to support my prediction. Source: http://bit.ly/16gctCN
1% population growth is also plenty. This would add around 3.1m people/year. A "typical" value for housing starts is roughly 50% of the annual increase in population:
http://bit.ly/YKZTHi
Spencer:
1.2m is still below average. The number went from 600k-900k from 2011-2013. And the vacancy rate is lower now, everything is picking up - we should see at least 1.2m before 2015.
And I don't expect to see major corrections in the housing market because the vacancy rate is at a fairly healthy level of 1.9%.
Clinton gets a lot of Economic credit, but most neglect that his Dem admin and the Repub Congress fought so much and agreed on so little that the gov was shut down for a while. During those good economic years when we last lived gridlock.
In my opinion the American citizens are the engine of America’s growth, not the American Government. A stable even (gridlocked) Government and a dynamic activist citizenry produce wealth. Activist Government (I do not believe) produces wealth for the citizenry.
Your brain must be now be a huge pretzel right after so many contortions to which you had to subject it in order to pretends that it's all to Republicans' credit all along.
Amazing.
Obviously my contortions sent you in the wrong direction (my apologies).
Let me be clear, I give credit to the American people, not to either party.
A stable non activist government, and an engaged activist citizenry are the growth engine.
All other "developed" countries have lower growth and that will hold the US back for the next 2 years.
The only reason why it is even this high is due to Asia
Feb's changes look smaller than last years, not sure what is so great about that. I think any of the private sector policy-fear weakness worries were probably ill-founded GOING INTO the report and more of the public slashing will be coming forward.
Overall think that this report has been greeted with amazingly unanimous optimism in the press, and think the positive effects have already been priced into the market.
I was wrong in thinking the recovery would stall about now and pick up later after the tax increases and spending cuts were digested. It turned out the cuts were too small and the private sector recovery too big. I still think we should hold off on further cuts and let the market take us where it wants to go. Deficits are shrinking and will continue to shrink, but let's really nail this one down and cut the payroll tax again. Somebody get Ben a helicopter! Yeah baby!
Do you think that is a good thing?
So what does this mean? Does it mean they plan to have sailors land-based for the long haul? Not good. Sailors are meant for out-at-sea all the time except for very scanty scheduled returns to port, by definition.
Here's a chart of the "recovery"
http://bit.ly/uosUSn
If you look at key industries, like Construction, you'll see improving growth. I think any private sector gains will be offset by public sector losses due to budget cuts, sequestration, furloughs, etc, so even the total unemployment rate won't be a good measure of the private sector recovery.