About Me

Name: Richard Larsen in...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Unemployment Headlines Belie the Seriousness of Job Situation

By Richard Larsen

Published - Idaho State Journal, 01/22/12

It’s too bad that we can’t rely on the headline numbers that our own government gives us. The headline numbers the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases each month obfuscate the real unemployment malaise across the country. Yet ironically, it’s in the BLS releases that we find a more complete unemployment picture, we just have to dig deeper for it.

When the BLS reported that the unemployment rate dropped to 8.5% with December’s year-end data, media pounced on the headline figure but almost none delved deeper into the official report. What they report is the demographic composition of the workforce as calculated in Table A-1 of their monthly report. Since 1994, these are the primary data for headline purposes. They also “tweak” the figures for “seasonal adjustment.”

For a more complete picture, however, look at the BLS monthly employment report, table A-15. U-6 on that table indicates as a percentage of the total civilian workforce, the number of unemployed (those included in Table A-1), those who have given up looking for jobs, plus those who are working marginal part-time jobs who need fulltime positions. In the latest report, that percentage is 15.2%. This is a much more accurate indication of the state of the economy relative to unemployment and job creation.

It’s easy to understand why those figures wouldn’t be reported in the headlines. They don’t look good. But to understand how current economic policies have failed so dramatically in job creation, it’s imperative that we look at the full picture.

Based solely on BLS data, for example, we learn the following. Over the past year alone, the civilian workforce population rose by 1,726,000. That means we need to add an average 166,000 jobs per month just to keep up with the demand of those who are entering the job market. Yet over the past year the number of people actually working fell by 67,000.

In November alone, when the headlines across the nation reported that unemployment dropped from 9.1% to 8.6%, job creation was not what caused the decline. The cause of the drop, which should’ve been the real headline, was that 487,000 fellow Americans stopped looking for work.

In the 30 months since the recession ended officially, according to BLS data, nearly one million previously employed workers have dropped out of the labor force. That means that not only are they not working, but they’ve become discouraged and given up finding a job, and aren’t even looking for a job anymore.

Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) reports that this anemic job growth is atypical in post-recession recoveries. Their research indicates that in the past nine recession recoveries the labor force “had climbed an average 3.5 million by this point.”  After the recession in 2002-2003, job growth exploded with over 4 million jobs created, culminating in an official unemployment rate of 4.4% by this point in the recovery.

Instead, we have a net job loss over the past few years. The participation rate, which is the percentage of the number of people either working or looking for work compared to the civilian working-age population, is now 64%, which is down nearly two points from when the recession officially ended in June 2009. The only time that figure was lower, according to BLS, was several decades ago when women began entering the workforce en mass. And total payrolls are still a whopping 6.1 million lower than when they peaked in 2008.

The nonprofit Employment Policy Institute tracks this data closely. They take the number of jobs lost since the recession began and add in the growth of the working age population. The resulting figure they report as a “jobs deficit,” and they calculate we have a current deficit of 10.8 million jobs, even factoring in the 1.4 million jobs added since the recession ended,

The anemic job situation has a pejorative impact even on those who are fortunate enough to still have one. According to Sentier Research, real median annual household income has declined 5.1% since the recession ended 30 months ago. That represents even more of a drop than what happened during the recession itself, which declined 3.2%.

Corporate profits have continued to improve over the past two years, but companies are still reluctant to start hiring again. Most small business owners and corporate officers cite the uncertain regulatory environment, high corporate tax rates, and new regulation implementation costs as obstacles.

If anything, it’s a testament to the resiliency of our private sector that we’ve had any jobs created in this hostile environment that Washington has created. What jobs have been added is in spite of, not because of what the administration has been doing to the private sector.

The only real hope for revitalizing America’s job market lies in policies emanating from Washington that are conducive to job creation, rather than punitive. Let’s hope November elections facilitate that most critical change.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How McCain, Obama, Stood on Freddie, Fannie

By Richard Larsen
 
Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/28/08

An article in the New York Times, September 11, 2003, outlined a proposal by President Bush that would have been “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal was for an agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Congressional Democrats and some defecting spineless Republicans eventually killed the proposal.

Senator John McCain joined with three other Republican senators in sponsoring the “Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.” The legislation (Senate Bill 190), was introduced in January, 2005, at which time, according to Congressional records, Senator McCain declared, “This week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were ‘illusions deliberately and systematically created’ by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.”

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's (OFHEO) report went on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoed the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also stated that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report came some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports for the past two years.

Senator McCain concluded his remarks in 2005, “For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) need to be reformed WITHOUT DELAY. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

Ironically, that same month, January, 2005, interim Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd gave special thanks to Barack Obama for his support of Fannie Mae, which is surprising since Obama had just been elected to the U.S. Senate. In that same swearing-in ceremony of the Democratic Congressional Black Caucus Mudd called those assembled the “family and conscience of Fannie Mae.” Somehow I don’t think that’s a compliment in light of facts today.

The 2005 statements by McCain provide a concise synopsis of some of the problems at Fannie and Freddie and now seem almost prophetic. His summation was accurate then, and as we can see now, the problems have grown exponentially. Like the President’s proposal two years earlier, his proposed legislation was defeated before it even got to the floor of the Senate, in large part because of intense pressure from Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Con.) and Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.). Not coincidentally, they are the chairmen of the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee respectively. The irony is unmistakable, that two of the individuals most responsible for our current financial dilemma are the ones charged with fixing it. Just for the record, the other legislators most influential in killing the legislation were John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Not coincidently, those three, along with Senator Dodd, were the top beneficiaries of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie and their employees.

As Charles Calomiris, Professor of Finance and Economics at Columbia Business School said this week in the Wall Street Journal, “The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it.”

Over the past ten years the two mortgage giants have dished out over $250 million for lobbyists and campaign contributions. With former Clinton administration officials like Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick leading the charge at Fannie, and with such deep pockets, the efforts at reform were effectively blocked. Raines and Gorelick made off with a cool $100 million and $75 million respectively, when they left the company.

Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie have been throwing money around like there was no tomorrow, which it appears there is none: for them, there is no tomorrow. They have been regular contributors to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition. Each year they donate $100,000 and $150,000 respectively at Jackson’s primary fund-raising event. Further, Freddie awarded $1 million to Jackson’s group for a financial literacy program, which Jackson turned around and charged participating churches and organizations $1,000 for.

The “blame game” is probably only of interest to historians, for we know none of these culpable legislators will ever be held accountable, even by the press, for their roles in our current financial crisis. But it is also relevant in the context of a presidential campaign where one candidate gladly accepted the campaign contributions from the failing GSEs and then fought legislation to reform them while the other saw the problems and abuses years ago and tried to reign them in, albeit unsuccessfully. Based on their judgment and their historically documented actions, you tell me which presidential candidate is more legitimate.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »