NP - The Myth of a Jobless Recovery

[alice wellintown]

When pressed to give a specific definition of recession, or depression,
economists often focus on employment. So, most would agree that the recent
recession was not a depression, but came close; if unemployment were 3-4
points higher...well...all else being equal, it would be hard to defend the
recession characterization. That phrase, all else being equal, is useful to
economists and they use it a lot to make simple models, and even complex
models, but, if unemployment were 3-;4 points higher, all else would no be
equal. The recovery or expansion phase of the business cycle is defined as
a rise in output and employment. But, we must consider, from what we are
recovering. When an economy goes through recovery after a financial crisis
recession, such as the late 2000 great contraction,it's recovery is slow
and weak. So, although we have output growth and a decline in unemployment,
it is, while not jobless, weak. We did avoid the double dip and are
actually in what is called a second recovery. With rates at zero, there is
little we can do from the Fed to improve employment, but, what has been
done is working, the economy is a coiled spring and, looks, though still
wounded, ready to spring into action. The natural rate of employment is
now, I suspect, about 6.5, so we are getting there. My point is that we do
not have a jobless recovery. We have recovery, second recovery with no
double dip recession, but it is common that recovery from this type of
recession is slow and weak, thus job creation does not recover nor does
output in the v pattern of normal recessions, but more in the long bottom u
pattern we are seeing. The good news, we are going up. Inflation is not a
concern. Money is cheap. Markets are on solid ground. Even housing is
improved. And, for the liberals with a conscience, the rich, the creditors
and investors in fixed securities are being taxed with low rates, financial
repression, the slight and, bursts of inflation, will bail out the debtors,
the poor and ordinary, are getting their bail out.

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, David Morris wrote:

> Common and uncommon are useless adjectives without definition, especially
> when arguing about subjects like Economics. Get Fcking specific! Otherwise
> you have no real point. Just diversion.  Part of the problem.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, alice wellintown wrote:
>
>> Agreed. one might define recovery as "I'm doing better" but this is not
>> very useful, so generally, people use the terms recovery and expansion
>> to mean employment and output are rising.
>>
>> From what?
>>
>> From a great contraction. This time, as the book by r&r makes clear, is
>> not different. It's great, it's a major financial crisis driven recession,
>> but unfortunately, not quite common when we look at the economies round the
>> globe through history.
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, Bekah wrote:
>>
>>> This is probably saying the same thing but it seems to me a person could
>>> define "recovery" any old way they wanted.   If you base the numbers on the
>>> stock market and GNP or a couple other indicators,   who cares about jobs
>>> and median family income?   Or you could count everything but assign
>>> different rankings to each factor.  Or you could use the numbers from the
>>> above to automatically project job creation with no evidence.
>>>
>>> And then too,   what does "recovery" mean in terms of end result -  are
>>>  we recovered back to where we were at some peak economic performance?  Or
>>> back to some kind of average for the last couple decades or century or
>>> whatever?
>>>
>>> I think we're still economically ailing.   What would we be if we had 1%
>>> unemployment (due to self-sufficient farming and handi-man/barter stuff or
>>> something)  and the stock market was crashing?  I'll bet there are those
>>> who would consider that a serious, serious depression.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bekah
>>>
>>> On Jan 9, 2013, at 10:22 AM, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > We can define and measure recovery, itz not rocket science, we simply
>>> > look at the charts and graphs and there it is;  or there it isn't.
>>> > itz so easy,  that even an economist can do it.
>>> >
>>> > But not all recoveries look alike because not all recessions look
>>> > alike. The one the US is now recovering from, while not unique, is
>>> > uncommon.  It is a major financial crisis recovery.
>>> >
>>> > And, it is common to have a slow, pathetic to moderate, recovery, one
>>> > that moves back to natural unemployment slowly, after such a crisis.
>>> > That's what we have.
>>> >
>>> > Some call it a jobless recovery and this phrase is not accurate,
>>> > although the nitty gritty splceres of date aind indicators may make
>>> > arguements about the particulars....but it does say something about
>>> > the recovery from these kinds of financial crises, that is, they are
>>> > not easily shaken off and they do damage to employment, damage that
>>> > takes up to a decade, in the best of circumstances (ours is not the
>>> > best but relatively very good), or longer to repair. Of course, for
>>> > some workers, and groups, the dmage can not be repaired. There are a
>>> > hundred variables, some of them singular and local, but the nutz and
>>> > boltz of it are simple enough.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > So, how tro avoid this next time? We can't. WE might try what the
>>> > Brits are doing, or whatever, but in America we like risk and we will
>>> > take the chances, de-regulate and find ways to make money.
>>> >
>>> > The good news is that those in debt are being helped and those who
>>> > have lotz of money are bing taxed to help them. A good policy, if kept
>>> > in check,  in the long run.
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130110/386f45ee/attachment.html>