still looking

The Bureau of Labor Statistics offers this summary of unemployment measures:

The six state measures are based on the same definitions as those published for the U.S.:

• [WA: 3.2%] U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
• [WA: 4.8%] U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
• [WA: 8.0%] U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
• [WA: 8.4%] U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
• [WA: 9.2%] U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
• [WA: 14.7%] U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

And here are our data — this charts the U-3, “official” number:

At least that is the risk seen by the LA Time’s business columnist in this “Market Beat” column.

,,,the magnitude of job losses here and abroad in this devastating recession poses a huge risk to the future compensation of the still-employed: What if, for years to come, there are masses of qualified people willing to do what you do — but for much less pay?

The U.S. economy has lost more than 7 million private-sector jobs since December 2007, dwarfing the 3.3 million lost in the 2001 recession and its aftermath.

“Never has business shed so many workers so fast, so many people failed to find work who are looking for work, and so many dropped out of the labor force as in the current circumstance,” said Allen Sinai, head of Decision Economics Inc.

Petruno connects the dots: “downward pressure” on wages means a) working families earning less (and generating less revenue) possibly leading b) to deflation and our economy stuck in the bottom of a recession.,

Several expressed concern that the global stimulus, especially the flood of liquidity pumped out by central banks, could create asset bubbles. “What central banks did in the face of the crisis is just open the tap of liquidity,” the World Bank’s Mr. Zoellick said. The increased liquidity could lead to inflation, such as in commodities. Asset bubbles “could undermine confidence in 2010,” he said.

Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang said he was he was “scared” that the U.S. may be following the example of Japan — tackling its recession with overly loose policies that could, in turn, inflate asset bubbles.

Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said he wasn’t sure the recent surge in financial markets was sustainable. “In Asia, we have seen stock markets go up, we have seen property markets go up,” Mr. Lee said. “We have to live with it for now and manage the difficulties, but if it becomes a significant and broad, widespread bubble … this will become a serious problem.”

Meaning: we could be — indeed we seem to be — already climbing back up an “asset bubble.”  Where does this take us?  Right to the brink of another crash.  Time for exceedingly prudent state budget making since there is little we can do.

This article in London’s Guardian pushes the cost of oil back to center stage.  The news: the US government during the Bush administration (should we call it the Cheney-Bush administration?) apparently lobbied the International Energy Agency to underplay peak oil.  Result: IEA estimates show unlikely growth in oil production.  Note how much the forecast production relies on sources not yet known.

We’re not going to have to wait long.  As energy demand grows with economic recovery oil prices will climb, maybe into the stratosphere.

One more reason to expect an “L” of a recovery, one more reason for very cautious government budgets.

Update: study that chart for a minute.  Imagine what happens to us if the ‘not yets’ are not found.  We’re in for hard times soon.

I’m still the L-guy.

You?  You can have a “V” — quick, sharp recovery. Think basketball bouncing.  I don’t think so.

You can have your “U” — strong recovery, but a bit delayed.  Think yo-yo with a delayed spin at the botton.  I don’t see the recovery — nor do any of the major economists.

You can worry about a “W” — and I’ll worry with you: a bit of a recovery followed by a falter.

For the long run, I’m sticking with the “L” — years and years of very slow growth — no real ‘recovery’ at all.

Note the stock market seemed to agree — although let’s not get too tied to translating day to day market changes as strategic signals of anything.

London Times editors note that our economists are having a hard time forecasting — one more worry.

And click to continue to see a British comparison of this recession/depression with others since the 30s.

Here is the blog post with the chart — an example of what the hybrid newspaper can do to use on-line graphics on concert with a printed (and edited!) story.

Source: Dismal Scientist (economics blog)