Why Job Growth Will Be Weak—And Painful—This Time

I debated where to post this-here or in Oil Slick. Decided this is one we'll want to track separately even tho there is a direct tie.

http://oilprice.com/article-there-w...-as-the-era-of-cheap-oil-comes-to-an-end.html

Two interesting news stories crossed the wire this week, which portend badly for the world’s #1 net importer, the U.S.
The first was a Reuters report that the last quarter of 2009 had “wiped out” the equity of Mexican state oil monopoly Pemex, leaving it $1.4 billion in the negative. Falling crude output, falling refining margins and a burgeoning dependency of the state on its revenues had squeezed it to death.
Not only did the report offer further confirmation that the oil export crisis has arrived, but it also confirmed my growing suspicion that the oil production everyone has assumed will come online in five to ten years might, in fact, fail to materialize. Negative equity companies have a hard time raising capital for new exploration.
The second was a Bloomberg report that Saudi Arabia had agreed to double its oil exports to India, to some 866,000 barrels per day. India indicated separately that its onshore production of oil may peak this year.
This adds to the pressure on Saudi Arabia’s exports, whose oil shipments to China have been growing at a rate of 11-12% per year and now stand at roughly 1 million barrels per day (mbpd). China has eclipsed the U.S. as the primary bidder for Saudi oil, while U.S. imports from the Persian nation have fallen to a 22-year low.
The last two years have seen the marginal buyers of oil shift decisively to the non-OECD countries. A gallon of fuel delivers so much value in China and India–think peasants on scooters–that even at $120 a barrel, remarkable economic growth rates are possible. In major oil exporting countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, where subsidized gasoline still sells for under 25 cents a gallon, the appetite for fuel grows steadily every year with little thought given to efficiency.
It’s a different story in the U.S. For debt-laden consumers, an extra $50 or $75 to fill up the tank on an SUV every month sharply reduced discretionary income and starved the economy of its most fundamental driver, consumer demand.

Two Questions for Recoveryistas
Those who would argue for economic recovery must answer two intractable questions.
The first is: Where will the energy come from, as more of the world’s net exporters become net importers?
Britain, Argentina, Indonesia, and others have become net importers in recent years. Mexico and Columbia are expected to follow suit within a decade. Clearly, we can’t all be net energy importers.
There is also the obstinate fact that aggregate net energy–the energy you get in return for investing energy in its production–has been dropping steadily. Oil net energy dropped from 100 in the early 1930s to 11 or less today. Net energy for natural gas is now in decline. We don’t have adequate data to know yet, but coal’s net energy is probably in decline too. Meanwhile, the net energy of all substitutes is low: wind, 18; solar, 6.8; nuclear, 5-15; all biofuels, under 2.
It is not surprising that a study of the Herold database (Gagnon, Hall, and Brinker, 2009) showed the amount of oil and gas produced per dollar spent declined between 1999 and 2006.
The second question is: If the creeping infection of sovereign default continues to spread to more countries, where will the money come from to bail them out? The answer has been, and continues to be, more aspirin. Without more cheap energy, monetary tactics to play the game into overtime will not only be futile, they will only draw us closer to the edge of the net energy cliff.
All of which begs a final question: If the answers are transition to renewables, and rebuilding our infrastructure for high efficiency, then where will the money and energy to do it all come from? And how long will it hold out?
Without cheap energy to fuel the growth that is hoped to pay off the accumulated debt, austerity will become an everyday reality, not a short-term fix. A reality that slowly sinks in for the rest of our lives, as net importers become progressively poorer.
The peak demand argument is a good one–but not for the nice reasons.

peak demand will be the result of a permanent state of increasing depression in which non-OECD countries not only more than make up for the loss of OECD demand, but outbid them for the marginal barrel.
As we enter the post-peak phase of global oil supply sometime around 2012-2014, the price that heavily import-dependent countries like the U.S. would have to pay for that marginal barrel will become increasingly intolerable. In a weakened economy, $100 a barrel (or less) could be the new $120.
The true import of peak oil, therefore, may not be sustained high prices, but economic shrinkage. Demand will be destroyed long before oil gets to $200 a barrel, but it will not be destroyed by improved efficiency.
From where we stand today, it’s hard to make an argument for economic recovery. Persistently high unemployment rates, broken state and federal balance sheets, and an inflationary depression will continue to cut into petroleum demand. We spent the last several decades offshoring the fundamental value-adding sectors like energy production and manufacturing, and now our FIRE economy (finance, insurance, and real estate) rests entirely on real value created elsewhere.
The reason is simple: Energy is the only real currency. Every dollar of fiat currency or GDP was ultimately derived from cheap energy. Trying to print your way out of energy decline is like prescribing ever-higher doses of aspirin for a headache caused by a brain tumor. Yet those at the levers of monetary policy are, by all appearances, completely ignorant (or in willful denial) of this fundamental fact.
The vogue prescription for the sovereign debtors at greatest risk of default (see a Top 10 list here) is “austerity measures.” The theory is that a period of belt-tightening will stanch the fiscal bleeding until economic recovery puts everyone into the black again.
Yet, if primary energy supply is declining, and the rising star of developing economies is inexorably cutting into the supply available to developed and indebted economies, then there can be no recovery.

There you have it, folks. Economy down-market up? sure thing.
 
The "U-6" includes two groups of people that the "U-3" does not:

1. "Marginally attached workers" - people who are not actively looking for work, but who have indicated that they want a job and have looked for work (without success) sometime in the past 12 months. This class also includes "discouraged workers" who have completely given up on finding a job because they feel that they just won't find one.

2. People who are looking for full-time work but have to settle on a part-time job due to economic reasons. This means that they want full-time work, but can't find it.

This is the number that is most important to me. I want everyone that wants full time work to get it. Part time work will not bring the economy back but it will cut down on benefit expenses.
 
Last edited:
My wife is Spanish and over there in their Socialist State it is almost impossible to get a permanent job! If they hire you they basically own you for life, lazy, sick whatever, so they don't it's a bad situation.:worried:
 
Welcome the the new world order. :(

Use of temps may no longer signal permanent hiring

Hiring of temps may no longer signal that employers will soon add permanent staffers

By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer , On Monday February 15, 2010, 1:19 pm EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's not the signal it used to be.

When employers hire temporary staff after a recession, it's long been seen as a sign they'll soon hire permanent workers.

Not these days.

Companies have hired more temps for four straight months. Yet they remain reluctant to make permanent hires because of doubts about the recovery's durability.

Even companies that are boosting production seem inclined to get by with their existing workers, plus temporary staff if necessary.

"I think temporary hiring is less useful a signal than it used to be," says John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo. "Companies aren't testing the waters by turning to temporary firms. They just want part-time workers."

The reasons vary. But economists and business people say the main obstacle is that employers lack confidence that the economic rebound has staying power. Many fear their sales and the overall economy will remain weak or even falter as consumers spend cautiously.

Companies also worry about higher costs related to taxes or health care measures being weighed by Congress and statehouses. That's what Chris DeCapua, owner of employment firm Dawson Careers in Columbus, Ohio, is hearing from clients.

DeCapua says corporate demand for temporary workers has surged. That's especially true for manufacturing-related jobs involving driving forklifts, assembling products, packing merchandise and loading it on trucks.

Yet that demand hasn't spilled over into a demand for permanent workers. And DeCapua doesn't see it turning around anytime soon.

"There is so much uncertainty, and when there is uncertainty, people and companies hold onto their checkbooks," DeCapua says.

Companies "don't want to hire permanent workers and then have to turn around and get rid of them six months later," he says.

DoubleStar Inc., a human resources firm based in West Chester, Penn., hired two temp workers recently to join its 60-person staff. CEO Harry Griendling says in normal times he would have hired two permanent employees.

But Griendling has doubts about the strength of the recovery. He's not ready to absorb the risk and cost of adding permanent staff.

"When I look ahead for the next three to four months, all I see is murkiness," Griendling says.

For years, economists have regarded increased hiring of temp workers as a bridge between no hiring and healthy job creation. It meant employers would soon expand their permanent payrolls to keep up with rising customer demand.

After the 1990-1991 recession, for instance, gains in temporary hiring starting in August 1991 led almost immediately to stepped-up permanent hiring. And after the 2001 recession, temporary hiring rose for three straight months in the summer of 2003. By September, employers were adding permanent jobs each month.

Now, because this recovery seems more tepid and fragile than previous rebounds, temporary hiring may have lost its predictive power, economists say.

"I think a lot of it is manufacturing," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "It may be that manufacturers are relying more on temps than in the past because they are more unsure about the ongoing demand for what they produce."

Employers added a net 52,000 temp jobs in January -- the fourth consecutive month of gains. Over that time, total U.S. jobs shrank by 106,000. Employers have managed to boost productivity by squeezing more work out of their existing staffs.

For the unemployed, temporary jobs provide a paycheck at a time when the unemployment rate remains near double digits. Still, these jobs generally offer few or no benefits.

Some of the jobless see temporary work as providing a foothold at a desirable employer. Yet it seems far from certain these days that a temp job will lead to permanent work.

Allen Moore, 26, said a temporary job was all he could find last fall after more than six months of unemployment. Jobs disappeared last year around his hometown of Peoria, Ill., after manufacturer Caterpillar Inc. cut thousands of positions.

Moore landed a temporary job in September through a staffing agency. He wanted a permanent position. But he found none. He earns $9 an hour making pallets and boxes for FCA Manufacturing in nearby Princeville.

He said he took the job with the hope that he'd be hired as a permanent employee within about three months. The three months have come and gone.

Moore figures the company is waiting for orders to increase before it expands its long-term payroll.

"They think it's going to pick up," he says. "I hope it does."
AP Business Writers Christopher S. Rugaber and Christopher Leonard contributed to this report.
 
Well, you'd have to de-hype it first. :cheesy: (Lucy's got the football!)

RATS!

:laugh:LOL not CNBC? Ya think so? whoda guessed :rolleyes:

But to be popular here I think Id be real good at de-hyping
:toung: - even if I cant win a ball game
 
how you're able to piece things together without a hint of blaming 'This President' - or this 'Fed Reserve Chairman' - or this 'Treasurer' is absolutely amazing; especially here.

You can't dance alone. But we see the blame game no matter who's in office.
 
THAT'S IT!!! :nuts:

I need to post CNBC quotes over on my page...

Then people will like me and think I am smart! :cheesy: - ?oh really charlie brown?
 
:worried: Dats what dey pay me da big buks fur. I get to hear, "Businesses are evil, they aren't hiring!" "We can't get any loans for further investment and no one's buying!" Then we get from China "The U.S. consumer needs to start buying, or the world will not recover! The U.S. needs to provide a stimulus for its consumers." And I'm supposed to keep my expression bland when I hear that last one, knowing no one's gonna buy if they don't have a job, and China really really really means they would love to see the "illusion" again. Yeahright, dotcom, Enron, CDOs, sorry not this time.
 
Before: "Welcome to the Grand Illusion"
Today: :blink:

--------
“People saying ‘When are we going to get back to normal?’ Tell me what’s normal?” says Jay Brinkman, chief economist and EVP at the Mortgage Bankers Association. “Look at what drove the growth in past years. Easy credit, low interest rates, a low-risk premium, a combination of refinance, cash-out financing.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/34752541

Silverbird,
You are amazingly intelligent !!

I say 'amazingly' simply because the depth of your understanding and how you're able to piece things together without a hint of blaming 'This President' - or this 'Fed Reserve Chairman' - or this 'Treasurer' is absolutely amazing; especially here.

Anyway I try to make a point of reading your posts but rarely let you know how much I appreciate them.
 

Silverbird

Well-known member
Before: "Welcome to the Grand Illusion"
Today: :blink:

--------
“People saying ‘When are we going to get back to normal?’ Tell me what’s normal?” says Jay Brinkman, chief economist and EVP at the Mortgage Bankers Association. “Look at what drove the growth in past years. Easy credit, low interest rates, a low-risk premium, a combination of refinance, cash-out financing.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/34752541
 
Back
Top