September Jobs: Some Numbers Bubblevision Didn’t Mention
By David
Stockman
The
September establishment survey showed a 248k job gain, but that was the
seasonally maladjusted, preliminarily guesstimated version which will be revised
in October and November, and then re-benchmarked several more times in the
coming years. So let’s take a pass on the enthusiasm with respect to this
fleeting monthly delta and consider a couple of trend points evident in this
morning’s release—-data points which
aren’t going to get revised away and which actually provide some fundamental
insight about the actual “employment
situation” and the true condition of the US economy.
My favorite number is right at the top of
the BLS table and it’s 155.9 million. That is the civilian labor
force number for September and it compares to 154.9 million reported
for October 2008 way back when the financial crisis was just
erupting. The reason that rather
tepid gain of 1 million labor force participants over the course of six years
is important is that during the same period the working age civilian
population (over 16 years) rose from 234.6 million to 248.4 million—-or by 14
million in round terms.
That’s
right, the labor force grew by only 7% of the gain in adult population. That explains, of course, why the labor
force participation rate of 66.0% back at the time of the crisis has plunged to
a 36-year low of 62.7% in September. Or
to put it another way, the employment-to-population ratio of 59.0% last month
compared to just under 62% six years ago and 64.2% in the year 2000.
Needless to say, that huge 500 basis point decline in the true jobs
ratio is dramatically more important than the monthly jobs delta—even if the later
did trigger a run-the-stops burst by the robo traders within seconds of
the release. The fact is, the plummeting rate of employment among the adult
population means that the effective rate of taxation on labor hours worked
has risen sharply, and will continue to do so as the baby boom ages.
So you don’t have to be a raving supply-sider to realize
that a rising tax rate on labor—expressed as either current taxes or
future debt service— as far as the eye can see is not a formula for the kind of perpetual
earnings growth that is being capitalized by today’s bubblicious stock markets;
and that’s especially true in a world crawling with cheap workers and
massive excess production capacity stimulated by 14 years of financial
repression and ultra-cheap capital by the world’s central banks.
Indeed, the
single most important number in today’s report is 102 million, which is the
rounded sum of adults either not in the labor
force or unemployed, and it amounts to 41% of the adult population. Stated differently,
that’s the number of adults who do not
contribute to current production and must be supported either by family
breadwinners or the state—-and nowadays especially the latter.
Indeed,
when these trends for prime age
workers (25-54 years) are viewed, the case is even more compelling. The
employment ratio for that group is at 1982 levels——a ratio that prevailed
when the female labor force participation rate was still climbing strongly. On
a sex-adjusted basis, the prime age
employment ratio has never been as low as it has remained since the end of the
Great Recession.
Among other
things, these dismal employment ratio numbers tells you why the Wall
Street patter about PE multiples being at or below historical norms is so
wrong-headed. The capitalization rate for the American economy should be
falling because the dependency burden faced by workers and entrepreneurs
is soaring at rates never before witnessed. Going back to September 2000, for example, there were only 76
million adults not in the labor force or unemployed, and that represented just
35.8% of the adult population of 213 million.
This means there has been a 26 million gain in the number of adults not
working—-even part-time—during that 14 year period. About 10 million of that
gain is accounted for by retired workers on social security—-a figure
which has risen from 28.5 million to 38.5 million during the interim. But where are the other 16
million? The answer is on disability (+4.5 million), food stamps
(+25 million), survivors and dependents benefits, other forms of public
aid, living in parents’ basements on student loans or not, or on the streets.
There should be no mistake about the
implications of these baleful trends as once again reinforced in today’s “jobs
Friday” report.
They do not
represent merely a social problem or the fact that Washington’s fiscal
calamity is going to get steadily worse in the years ahead. They also embody an endemic economic problem
and staggering challenge to the Keynesian money printing regime now incumbent in Washington.
In the
first place, the massive monetary
experiment since 2000—which has seen the Fed’s balance sheet grow from $500
billion to $4.5 trillion or by 9X—-has not caused macro-economic
performance to improve. The employment
ratio has plunged; full-time breadwinner jobs have actually shrunk; total labor hours employed have been
stagnant; real GDP has grown at only 1.8% annually for 14
years—compared to 4% annually between 1956 and 1970; and real net capital investment
is 20% below its turn of the century level.
So what is really embodied in today’s report is more evidence
that America’s dependency ratio is still rising and that the already crushing burden of the welfare state will
weigh ever more heavily on an economy that is visibly failing as
measured by any of the fundamental trends of performance. Indeed, it is well to recall that even
today—after what the clueless occupant of the White House claims as 10 million
new jobs when 90% of that number, in fact, represents “born again” jobs
relative to the 2007 peak—-there are 110 million Americans living in households
receiving means-tested benefits and 158 million in households that receive
transfer payments of all types.
Yet as the
burden of taxation and public debt resulting from these trends weigh ever more
heavily, it leaves the mad money printers resident in the
Eccles Building stranded in an impossible corner.
No comments:
Post a Comment