Take for example the U-3 unemployment number that you cite, what is missing from that is Workforce Participation, we have a pretty large drop-off in Work force participation which is leading to the false belief that employment is "fine", and the quote "mix signal" of being in a recession while still having lower unemployment.
Completely absent from most of these older metrics is the "gig-economy" which is really screwing with the data IMO.
Then you have U-6 Unemployment increasing while U-3 is dropping, I think U-3 is just a few months away from reversal and will start increasing soon
>>GDP has long been criticized for being a poor metric for the economy.
yes by MMT supporters that want to ignore the classic model of economics in favor of monetary manipulation for political purposes
>> yes by MMT supporters that want to ignore the classic model of economics in favor of monetary manipulation for political purposes
Huh?
Discussing the utility of and then issues with GDP has been a staple of Macro courses for decades. E.g., [1], but I'm really serious: every single macro textbook for as long as macro textbooks have existed has had some version of the question "Discuss the strengths and weaknesses (i.e., problems) of using GDP data".
On the other hand, the stock market is down this year, so if that's your definition, things are dire.
Honestly, this seems like stagflation to me, which has been historically known for breaking the definition of "recession".
Neither side wants to say that out loud, because it implies a decade-plus economic funk.
that sounds like a depression, not a recession
The biggest actual policy disagreement between MMT and mainstream economics is how to achieve full employment. Mainstream economics primarily reaches for monetary policy (tweaking the interest rate), MMT primarily reaches for fiscal policy (create/spend money to give everyone a job).
I don't feel particularly strongly about one side versus the other, but we end up doing both anyways and our current model of changing the interest rate (i.e. recent rate hikes) out of lockstep with corresponding fiscal spending (i.e. Build Back Better) is inefficient when the two need to be kept in balance.
No, we don't.
While the LFPR is still down from the point it was prior to the 2020 recession, it has been continuing to increase fairly consistently after it's sharp rebound from the trough of that recession.
https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-lab...
Sure, but the statement I made was job growth ways high AND unemployment remained low. The AND is important for the very reason you point out; U-3 is not a useful stand alone metric. Combining it with job growth data helps provide a better picture of the job market.
Employment still grew by 375,000 jobs last month. This was far above expectations.
> yes by MMT supporters that want to ignore the classic model of economics in favor of monetary manipulation for political purposes
It's been said that a cancer patient going through an expensive divorce is the best contributor to GDP.
You don't measure the health of a human by looking at their weight on a scale. When you go to the doctor for your annual checkup, they'll measure your BMI, blood pressure, body temperature, resting heart rate, and look at a few other indicators to get a very rough estimate of your overall health and how it compares to last year.
GDP is one indicator among many to measure the health of the economy. An important one, yes, but looking at GDP without also looking at employment figures, inflation data, the markets, etc. would be tremendously silly.
Everyone is still very desparate for employees, so I don't think Workforce Participation is low because there aren't enough jobs and people are discouraged from the work force. Baby boomers are currently aging out of the job market at a n accelerated rate, so that must be one of the reasons (U-6 doesn't include that though). I think the current drug disaster is another (a lot of people are simply unemployable), but I'm not sure how to measure that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in...
It’s not the result of decreased hiring due to economic slowdown. It’s the opposite entirely; this is a contributing factor to the labor shortage.
This isn't true, major retailers have been reporting falling demand.
I'd cite the WSJ but for some reason I can't paste the link in this box, just Google "falling demand Wal-Mart"
> enough to push prices and profits to record levels.
Adjust both for inflation
I think Walmart's story in particular is one of stupidly bad demand forecasting.
It is mostly discretionary spending that is down; Wal-Mart reported the largest fall in apparel iirc, but demand is demand. One would expect discretionary spending to fall first, and hopefully it stops there.
Again I apologize for not providing a direct citation due to my dumb mobile browser but these are days-old news stories and it should be easy to confirm
McDonalds et al. probably should've been investing a lot more in automating their kitchens. The fact that a huge percent of locations -- and all drive-thrus -- still use humans for the ordering process is, similarly, inexcusable.
Unless the US massively increases its low-skilled immigration quotes, robotics firms will be the FAANG equivalents of the 2020s-2030s.
For all the doom and gloom in the USA, it's still an incredibly rich country.
To be clear: I'm not making a moral statement here. This is a statement of fact, not a statement of ethical preference.
Suburb of top-tier cities? No. Cheapest suburb of a midwestern city? Absolutely.
Again, not saying it's reasonable. Just that it's possible.
Total household income. It is possible to accept a lower wage job if the rest of the family is making more. A spouse or older child can add to the family budget even if the primary breadwinner is making more.
Grants / subsidized housing of some sort. College students making a few extra dollars while living in the dorms where the major expenses are paid elsewhere.
Back to the older children and summer jobs. Getting a job to do something over the summer and get a bit of spending money of their own.
---
Yes, lower paying jobs within higher cost of living areas are going to be having trouble finding people to work there. This has been a thing for many years. Even in the before times, there were constantly places that had "help wanted" signs out and were paying minimum wage. The ones in higher cost areas of the city were more likely to close resulting in more expensive restraints that can be supported by the people who are living the higher cost of living.
No. Restaurants will continue to exist. Sit down in particular. In cases where you are paying for an experience; the economics will get worse, but they will continue to exist.
Fast food restaurants will even continue to exist. But the latter only with substantial automation. This has already happened at the front of the house -- kiosks and apps are the "happy path" ordering interfaces at every McD's in a major city. I'm merely projecting that the most cost-sensitive segment of the food services industry will push that automation into the kitchen, the checkout line, and a lot of the administrative work that happens at branches.
Not suburbs, just towns, but there will be services and a hospital and so on.
I think it's unrealistic to expect retail goods to maintain the same highs they had during the pandemic. For a big chunk of the last two years, people couldn't go to concerts, bars and restaurants operated at limited capacity, vacation destinations had travel restrictions in place, etc. This lead people to take the discretionary income they would normally spend on those things and put it into retail goods that improve their lives stuck at home. TVs, game consoles, what have you. Now that restrictions are essentially nonexistent in the US, people are returning to those pre-COVID activities.
As OP said,
>> and services.
> Wal-Mart
WalMart's issue is that they have a massive inventory/demand mismatch. They already have the headwind of a shift from goods to services, and then on top of that they also massively mismanaged a shift in consumer preference within goods. I have a feeling that they are also feeling the squeeze from Amazon. Many households treat Prime as a fixed cost but the 20 minute drive out to Walmart is a real expense that can be substituted with Amazon purchases. Tonight's earnings will be interesting.
Compare to eg Visa [1].
I expect that the "last hoorah" spending of this summer will grind to a halt in the winter and by Q2 2023 we'll be able to see a massive decline in consumer spending during Q4 in particular.
But we aren't there yet, at least in aggregate, because consumers are spending like mad on services.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/visa-quarterly-prof...
I'd rather not base my picture of the entire economy around a single retailer. What's going on with other retailers? Amazon, Best Buy, Target, etc? Have they more than picked up the slack that Wal Mart is seeing?
Or retailers in general. Retail spending is down because services spending is up -- people are going to the beach and buying plane tickets instead of buying TVs and patio furniture.
Regardless of whether we're in a recession, retailer numbers aren't a good indicator for the duration/depth/type. We spent all of 2020 hearing that demand was pulled forward. Well, it was pulled forward from somewhere, and now we are there.
> What's going on with other retailers?
Best Buy missed by a lot; sales down by over 10%; forecast was a 1% contraction.
Amazon tonight. Always complicated because of AWS, digital content, and now a substantial advertising business. If you want the retail details you have to go past the headline numbers.
Target in mid-August but expectations are similar.
My guess is that none of those companies will be hit has bad as Walmart because (1) Walmart was just particularly badly mismanaged, and (2) these other companies are just different in kind (particularly Amazon -- they could eg suffer retail losses while beating estimates on Advertising/Cloud)
>Regardless of whether we're in a recession, retailer numbers aren't a good indicator for the duration/depth/type. We spent all of 2020 hearing that demand was pulled forward. Well, it was pulled forward from somewhere, and now we are there.
All fair points.
>Best Buy missed by a lot; sales down by over 10%; forecast was a 1% contraction.
Ouch.
We could even enter a prolonged, severe recession with low unemployment. How? Labor force participation. If it is low enough, there aren't jobs to cut.
Your last point is very valid, and much is a matter of perspective.
As far as mixed data... the only data throwing a contrary signal is unemployment, previously discussed. Inflation, rising interest rates, low consumer confidence, home prices turning over (speculative market areas currently), supply chain issues, and loss of wealth effect (markets have lost approximately $30 trillion this year), are all VERY recessionary.
The data isn't mixed, people are just making an incorrect association.
Working more or longer isn't a good thing in its own right. In fact, it is bad it you are working more for less purchasing power.
employment growth has historically been associated with increased purchasing power, but the current situation is a deviation from this norm.
Talking about employment growth ignoring this fact is a bit of a bait and switch playing on this incorrect association.
The definition of "recession" doesn't depend on what other things people think happen during a recession.
No one would be making this argument if it had happened while Trump was in office.
It absolutely does depend on the factors that NBER has always looked at to judge recessions, like employment.
> No one would be making this argument if it had happened while Trump was in office.
That's a nonfalsifiable statement that does nothing but show your own political bias.
It's political bias to notice that people behave politically?
Is it political bias to notice Republicans complain about the deficit when Democrats are in power or is it only political bias to notice that that Democrats complain about the deficit when Republicans are in power ?
Yours truly, DIARRHEA_xd
>How did we get to a point where actual data can be outright denied or absorbed based on your political viewpoint?
Because the actual data is sending mixed signals. People equate recessions with job losses, but job growth is still high and unemployment remains incredibly low. Businesses equate recessions with reduced demand for goods and and services, yet demand remains strong enough to push prices and profits to record levels.
GDP has long been criticized for being a poor metric for the economy. But it's always been correlated enough with overall economic sentiment that it was Good Enough. It looks like we've finally gotten ourselves into a situation where the edge case issues with GDP surface.
Lastly, not everyone feels recessions the same. I was one of those people who benefited from the financial crisis, because I kept my job and lived in an apartment, so my income was going up while my costs went down. That doesn't take away from the devastation it caused to other people.