Just How Bad Is The Economy?
The second-quarter gross domestic product numbers came out. The newspapers in addition to Republicans pounced on depression growth in addition to anemic chore growth. The Democrats rebut growth is growth in addition to tell us of the steady chore gains. How bad is the economy?
Economists know that levels matter, in addition to that long-run growth matters to a greater extent than than anything else. I made a few graphs to emphasize these points.
Start alongside the degree (in logs) of existent GDP. (This is an update of a graph I saw on John Taylor's blog.)
Looking at levels yous come across the electrical flow awfulness amend than past times looking at growth rates. gross domestic product declined almost 5% inwards the recession, but thus started growing at a glacial pace, averaging 2.4% since the trough. We seem stuck inwards this boring growth trap.
If yous distrust tendency lines, yous are wise. But this 1 reflects a corporation historical pattern. Here is existent gross domestic product in addition to the 1965-2007 tendency through postwar history.
You tin come across that the economic scheme has quite reliably returned to the tendency describe afterwards recessions.The 1950s had a steeper trend, but at that spot besides the little recessions were followed past times catchup growth.
Here is what the recovery is supposed to await similar (Again, thought stolen from John Taylor, except I'm using trends rather than "potential GDP'' which I distrust.)
To live on fair, I check the tendency through 1980, thus I would non role ex-post information. You come across that afterwards the severe 1980 recession at the fifty-fifty to a greater extent than severe 1982 recession, the economic scheme recovered to trend, past times posting a few years of 6% growth.
The tragedy is poorly expressed inwards growth rates. By 1987, the economic scheme was dorsum on the prior tendency line. We are immediately 14.5% below the trendline, in addition to each twelvemonth that goes past times similar this nosotros lose simply about other one-half a percent. The average someone inwards the economic scheme is producing 14.5% less, in addition to earning 14.5% less, than if nosotros had followed the path next the 1982 recession.
That's a lot -- in addition to a lot to a greater extent than than the litany of quarterly growth rates suggest.
I used trends, rather than the CBO potential output. If yous read how they brand it, you're probable to produce that too. But hither is the same graph contrasting my tendency in addition to the CBO's potential
This is tragic. The CBO is giving upwards on us. The CBO potential, which goes towards a 2.35% long run growth rate, says that what nosotros are seeing immediately is the novel normal. All nosotros tin promise for is a little recovery, in addition to thus anemic, sclerotic growth forever afterwards that. The departure betwixt 2.3% in addition to 3.0% adds upwards fast every bit the years become by. (And the CBO has been bending the tendency describe downwardly steadily every bit the recession goes on. Back inwards 2005, it's "potential" looked similar my "trend." They didn't come across a permanent downward shift inwards degree or reduction inwards growth rates. Look for "potential" to maintain declining.)
Well, maybe the CBO is doing its chore every bit forecasters, proverb "here is what volition tumble out if yous locomote along downwardly the introduce policy path," non "here is where the economic scheme would live on if yous adopted growth-oriented policies."
What close employment? I detect employment to a greater extent than pregnant than unemployment. Unemployment agency chore search. It agency people respond a survey proverb they don't accept a job, in addition to are actively searching for a job. It does non count all the people who gave up, or went on disability (effectively ending their careers), early on retirement, or are simply living inwards Mom's basement in addition to playing video games. (I don't hateful to brand lite of it. That may live on the most tragic, every bit the peril to accumulate skills is lost.)
Here's a skillful summary measure, the ratio of employed people to the population
This is actually tragic. Employment declined past times close seven 1000000 people, from 63% of the population to close 58%. And it has stayed at that spot always since. The "job gains" yous listen close inwards the tidings are simply barely keeping upwards alongside population. As nosotros are close 14% below tendency in addition to slow losing ground, nosotros are seven 1000000 jobs brusque in addition to sitting at that spot too.
The link betwixt occupation in addition to output is productivity. To maintain the numbers elementary here, I made plots of output per worker. Output per hour, in addition to corrections for demographics in addition to uppercase role are better, but this is simpler in addition to plant close every bit well. Here is a graph of productivity.
I crammed a lot of information inwards this graph. The outset thing to notice is the behaviour inwards the recession in addition to now. There was a dip inwards productivity -- output barbarous to a greater extent than than the expose of workers fell. But it has since recovered.
In the brusque run, uppercase doesn't alter much, thus every bit a crude oil direct yous brand to a greater extent than output when yous hire to a greater extent than workers (or increase hours) in addition to vice versa. So, gross domestic product = Productivity x workers. To larn to a greater extent than workers, nosotros postulate to brand a lot to a greater extent than GDP. The lackluster gross domestic product growth is the other side of the terrible occupation coin.
There's to a greater extent than inwards the graph. In the long run, rise productivity is behind everything skillful inwards the economy. It's what gives to a greater extent than income per capita. Rising productivity is the exclusively promise for paying for entitlements in addition to getting out of our deficit trap. It's the chief promise for long-run gross domestic product growth, afterwards the empolyment-population ratio reverts to where it should be. Rising productivity comes from novel ideas, novel companies, novel ways of doing business. It isn't all pleasant. Lots of incumbents lose out. Rising productivity is the substance of a "growth" agenda every bit economists sympathise the word.
You come across inwards the graph that something terrible happened inwards the 1970s. Productivity, which was behind the large postwar boom, slowed downwardly to a glacial 1% per year. 1982 marked a suspension inwards that every bit well. Productivity started growing 1.69% per year, producing the smash of the tardily 1980s in addition to 1990s, in addition to incidentally producing large Federal surpluses.
OK, but the far right of the graph doesn't await thus skillful does it. Here it is, blown up, alongside a 2003-today tendency marked inwards every bit well.
This is an economists' horror movie. Yes, productivity did rebound. But it seems to live on growing slow every bit well.
The trends are an economists' horror movie. Real gross domestic product seems non to live on recovering at all -- no menses of swift growth to become dorsum to a trend. We seem stuck at 2.4% growth forever. The CBO is giving upwards on us too. Employment volition non recover every bit a fraction of population until the economic scheme recovers. We seem stuck at depression occupation forever. And immediately nosotros seem headed to a 1970s productivity slowdown every bit well.
I don't persuasion this every bit contentious, exterior of Presidential politics. Paul Krugman thinks the economic scheme is pretty awful too.
What to do? If exclusively it were thus elementary every bit to accept the Fed impress upwards simply about other 2 trillion dollars, or accept the Treasury borrow simply about other $5 trillion in addition to blow it on stimulus boondoggles. We're stuck inwards sclerotic growth, in addition to to everyone but a few die-hard extremists, that agency growth-oriented policies are the exclusively way out.
Disclaimer. Yes, I know at that spot are amend ways to stair out all this, peculiarly productivity. This is an examine to pigment the basic painting using the simplest numbers. The message is, await at the levels in addition to await at the trends. If yous produce that alongside amend data, yous volition accept gotten the message.
Data are from the St. Louis Fed's wonderful Fred database, serial GDPC96, GDPPOT, EMRATIO.
Economists know that levels matter, in addition to that long-run growth matters to a greater extent than than anything else. I made a few graphs to emphasize these points.
Start alongside the degree (in logs) of existent GDP. (This is an update of a graph I saw on John Taylor's blog.)
If yous distrust tendency lines, yous are wise. But this 1 reflects a corporation historical pattern. Here is existent gross domestic product in addition to the 1965-2007 tendency through postwar history.
You tin come across that the economic scheme has quite reliably returned to the tendency describe afterwards recessions.The 1950s had a steeper trend, but at that spot besides the little recessions were followed past times catchup growth.
Here is what the recovery is supposed to await similar (Again, thought stolen from John Taylor, except I'm using trends rather than "potential GDP'' which I distrust.)
To live on fair, I check the tendency through 1980, thus I would non role ex-post information. You come across that afterwards the severe 1980 recession at the fifty-fifty to a greater extent than severe 1982 recession, the economic scheme recovered to trend, past times posting a few years of 6% growth.
The tragedy is poorly expressed inwards growth rates. By 1987, the economic scheme was dorsum on the prior tendency line. We are immediately 14.5% below the trendline, in addition to each twelvemonth that goes past times similar this nosotros lose simply about other one-half a percent. The average someone inwards the economic scheme is producing 14.5% less, in addition to earning 14.5% less, than if nosotros had followed the path next the 1982 recession.
That's a lot -- in addition to a lot to a greater extent than than the litany of quarterly growth rates suggest.
I used trends, rather than the CBO potential output. If yous read how they brand it, you're probable to produce that too. But hither is the same graph contrasting my tendency in addition to the CBO's potential
This is tragic. The CBO is giving upwards on us. The CBO potential, which goes towards a 2.35% long run growth rate, says that what nosotros are seeing immediately is the novel normal. All nosotros tin promise for is a little recovery, in addition to thus anemic, sclerotic growth forever afterwards that. The departure betwixt 2.3% in addition to 3.0% adds upwards fast every bit the years become by. (And the CBO has been bending the tendency describe downwardly steadily every bit the recession goes on. Back inwards 2005, it's "potential" looked similar my "trend." They didn't come across a permanent downward shift inwards degree or reduction inwards growth rates. Look for "potential" to maintain declining.)
Well, maybe the CBO is doing its chore every bit forecasters, proverb "here is what volition tumble out if yous locomote along downwardly the introduce policy path," non "here is where the economic scheme would live on if yous adopted growth-oriented policies."
What close employment? I detect employment to a greater extent than pregnant than unemployment. Unemployment agency chore search. It agency people respond a survey proverb they don't accept a job, in addition to are actively searching for a job. It does non count all the people who gave up, or went on disability (effectively ending their careers), early on retirement, or are simply living inwards Mom's basement in addition to playing video games. (I don't hateful to brand lite of it. That may live on the most tragic, every bit the peril to accumulate skills is lost.)
Here's a skillful summary measure, the ratio of employed people to the population
The link betwixt occupation in addition to output is productivity. To maintain the numbers elementary here, I made plots of output per worker. Output per hour, in addition to corrections for demographics in addition to uppercase role are better, but this is simpler in addition to plant close every bit well. Here is a graph of productivity.
In the brusque run, uppercase doesn't alter much, thus every bit a crude oil direct yous brand to a greater extent than output when yous hire to a greater extent than workers (or increase hours) in addition to vice versa. So, gross domestic product = Productivity x workers. To larn to a greater extent than workers, nosotros postulate to brand a lot to a greater extent than GDP. The lackluster gross domestic product growth is the other side of the terrible occupation coin.
There's to a greater extent than inwards the graph. In the long run, rise productivity is behind everything skillful inwards the economy. It's what gives to a greater extent than income per capita. Rising productivity is the exclusively promise for paying for entitlements in addition to getting out of our deficit trap. It's the chief promise for long-run gross domestic product growth, afterwards the empolyment-population ratio reverts to where it should be. Rising productivity comes from novel ideas, novel companies, novel ways of doing business. It isn't all pleasant. Lots of incumbents lose out. Rising productivity is the substance of a "growth" agenda every bit economists sympathise the word.
You come across inwards the graph that something terrible happened inwards the 1970s. Productivity, which was behind the large postwar boom, slowed downwardly to a glacial 1% per year. 1982 marked a suspension inwards that every bit well. Productivity started growing 1.69% per year, producing the smash of the tardily 1980s in addition to 1990s, in addition to incidentally producing large Federal surpluses.
OK, but the far right of the graph doesn't await thus skillful does it. Here it is, blown up, alongside a 2003-today tendency marked inwards every bit well.
This is an economists' horror movie. Yes, productivity did rebound. But it seems to live on growing slow every bit well.
The trends are an economists' horror movie. Real gross domestic product seems non to live on recovering at all -- no menses of swift growth to become dorsum to a trend. We seem stuck at 2.4% growth forever. The CBO is giving upwards on us too. Employment volition non recover every bit a fraction of population until the economic scheme recovers. We seem stuck at depression occupation forever. And immediately nosotros seem headed to a 1970s productivity slowdown every bit well.
I don't persuasion this every bit contentious, exterior of Presidential politics. Paul Krugman thinks the economic scheme is pretty awful too.
What to do? If exclusively it were thus elementary every bit to accept the Fed impress upwards simply about other 2 trillion dollars, or accept the Treasury borrow simply about other $5 trillion in addition to blow it on stimulus boondoggles. We're stuck inwards sclerotic growth, in addition to to everyone but a few die-hard extremists, that agency growth-oriented policies are the exclusively way out.
Disclaimer. Yes, I know at that spot are amend ways to stair out all this, peculiarly productivity. This is an examine to pigment the basic painting using the simplest numbers. The message is, await at the levels in addition to await at the trends. If yous produce that alongside amend data, yous volition accept gotten the message.
Data are from the St. Louis Fed's wonderful Fred database, serial GDPC96, GDPPOT, EMRATIO.
No comments