Thursday, February 21, 2008

Stagflation Concerns Rising?

The excerpts below are from a WSJ cover story which says stagflation concerns are rising.

First -- before anyone hits the panic button -- here is chart from the same story that compares the unemployment and inflation rate of the 1970s and now. Notice we are nowhere near the problem levels we saw in the 1970s.



Remember -- it takes a long time to change the levels of unemployment and inflation; the fed can't just turn them around next month. As a result, when economists take current conditions and extrapolate them out the possibility of stagflation increases.

First, the article notes that inflation is not behaving itself (where have I read that before?)

Sara Lee Corp. this week told analysts it expects to recoup rising raw-material costs in part by raising prices, especially on bread. Company spokesman John Harris said Sara Lee's significant competitors had matched the increases, with consumers showing no sign of trading down to lower-cost brands. "With commodities reaching unprecedented levels," Mr. Harris said, "it is quite likely we will take pricing up again."

Goodyear Tire & Rubber raised the price of replacement tires 7% on Feb. 1, on top of two increases totaling 11% last year. Chief Financial Officer Mark Schmitz told analysts last week that the hike was the result of rising prices of key raw materials, according to a transcript by Thomson Financial. Mohawk Industries Inc. raised carpet prices in December and again in January because of rising material costs, even though sales have been hurt by the slumping housing market.

The declining dollar, while boosting U.S. exports, is adding to inflation pressure, as goods priced in foreign currencies become relatively more expensive. Prices for imports from China jumped 0.8% in January, the largest monthly increase since the Labor Department began reporting the data in 2003.


Two other price increases come to mind while reading this. FedEx announced a rate increase awhile ago and the airlines added a "fuel surcharge" sometime in the last 6-9 months. For those of you who missed it, here is an article I wrote on inflation on Tuesday. Short version: there are a ton of reasons to be concerned.

However, on the employment picture I'm not sure we're going to get really high unemployment. According to the NBER the last recession ended in November 2001. However according to the BLS, employment growth really didn't start meaningfully increasing until 2003. According to the BLS's employment level information, there were 137,778,000 jobs in January 2001 and 137,417,000 in January 2003 -- a decrease of 361,000. By January 2004 the total jobs numbers were 138,463,000. So the job market was seriously lagging after the end of the latest recession.

I have a working theory about the job market this expansion. Employers really held back on hiring this time around. Instead of mass hiring, they really worked at increasing their overall productivity and used that instead of a massive round of hiring. When it became more and more obvious that they needed more employees, employers added as few as possible, instead relying on the increase in productivity combined with fewer employees.

As a result, we now have a lot of employers who are wedded to a high productivity/low labor input model. But this model uses a very high level of employee/productivity interaction. That means any loss of employees will lead to bigger losses in productivity and therefore bigger losses in profit.

As a result, employers can't start a massive round of layoffs. Cuts to the labor force will happen very slowing if at all. As a result, we're not going to see sky high unemployment this time around, although we will see an increase.

6 comments:

orual said...

Your argument about unemployment sounds plausible as far is it goes, and if you are right we shouldn't see a big spike in unemployment due to layoffs.

What you have not mentioned here, however, is loss of jobs when companies go completely out of business (my primary fear for my own job), plus a lower rate of business formation. We apparently have not seen these factors in play yet, but if the economy as a whole implodes along with the financial sector, I should think it would be a real possibility, and could have a significant impact on the unemployment rate. Given the weirdnesses of the birth/death model, I'm not sure how long it would take to show up in the official unemployment rate, however. Any thoughts?

Anonymous said...

Do the charts from BLS give us a fair comparison of conditions in the '70s vs today? If the BLS today used the same formulas they used to measure unemployment and inflation in the 70's, wouldn't today's inflation and unemployment numbers be a lot closer to the stagflation numbers in the 70's?

Why do I feel like I am living in a George Orwell novel?

steve

ndd said...

This of course is where you and I disagree.

Look at your chart. Over what periods of time have BOTH unemployment and inflation been rising together? How long did each of those periods last? When in that scenario did recessions occur?

The answers: only a few times; for only a few months; right before and during the opening few months of recessions.

We've had rising unemployment and inflation for a few months now, and we are probably 2 months into a recession.

What has the future held in each of the prior periods after a recession had started a few months?

VizierVic said...

Let's recall that old Republican bromide they used to smear Jimmy Carter with - "the misery index." That's the combined percentage of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate. I can guarantee you that the Republicans will be applying it to the Democratic President in 2009 who inherits this poisoned, moribund economy from Bush.

bluestatedon said...

Given how long the GOP has been in control of the White House, the voters are far more likely to take it out on the Republicans when considering a misery index.

However, you're 100% correct that the GOP minority in Congress will attempt to hang this around the neck of a Dem president. There is no reason to think that the Dems are savvy enough politically to counter such assertions; a more incompetent Majority Leader than Harry Reid is hard to find. Pelosi ain't far behind.

sexy said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購

免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛

A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX

情趣用品,A片,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,色情網站,免費AV,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,成人影片,情色網



情趣用品,A片,免費A片,日本A片,A片下載,線上A片,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,微風成人區,成人文章,成人影城,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,臺灣情色網,色情,情色電影,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,麗的色遊戲,情色論壇,色情網站,一葉情貼圖片區,做愛,性愛,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,美女交友,做愛影片

av,情趣用品,a片,成人電影,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,aio,av女優,AV,免費A片,日本a片,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,聊天室,美女交友,成人光碟

情趣用品.A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,色情遊戲,色情網站,聊天室,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,免費A片,日本a片,a片下載,線上a片,av女優,av,成人電影,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,成人網站,自拍,尋夢園聊天室