the best way to address retirement security is to continue reforming 401(k) plans and to expand Social Security—but only for low-income workers. Middle-class workers are generally doing reasonably well, and certainly as well as they did in the past. We don’t need a massive and expensive expansion of Social Security for everyone, but we do need to make Social Security more generous for the bottom quarter or so of the population that’s doing poorly in both relative and absolute terms. This is something that every liberal ought to support, and hopefully this is the bandwagon that President Obama in now on.
Last week I promised I would repeat an exercise I first undertook in 2012 when Superstorm Sandy disrupted the initial claims data: estimating what the initial jobless claims would have been, but for the hurricane.
In 2012 I created that adjustment by backing out the affected states (NY and NJ) from the non-seasonally adjusted data. That gave me the number of initial claims filed in the other 48 states. I compared that with the same metric one year earlier, and multiplied by the seasonal adjustment.
What that does is give me the number if the affected states had the same relative number of claims during the given week, as all of the unaffected states. In 2012, it showed that Sandy was not masking any underlying weakness in the economy.
The state by state data is released with a one week delay. So what follows is the analysis for the week of September 2, the number for which was reported one week ago. This week I only had to back out Texas. Next week I will undoubtedly have to back out Florida as well.
Here is the table for the Week of September 3 in 2016 vs. September 2 this year:
Metric 2016 2017
Seasonally adjusted: 257,000 298,000
Adjustment for total: 1.18% 1.19%
Not seasonally adjusted: 217,715 250,621
Texas claims: 15,707 63,788
NSA claims ex-TX 202,008 186,833
TX as % of total: 7.2% n/a
2017 w/ TX adjustment: n/a 201,405
If we use the 2016 weekly seasonal adjustment of 1.18% for the adjusted 201,405 total, this gives us ~238,000.
If we use the 2017 weekly seasonal adjustment of 1.19% for the adjusted 201,405 total, this gives us ~240,000.
Thus the hurricane-adjusted initial jobless claims number for the week of September 2, 2017 is 239,000.
The underlying national trend in initial jobless claims remains very positive.
Initial jobless claims for last week were reported at 298,000 this morning, a jump of over 50,000 from recent levels.
As most people probably already know, this huge jump had everything to do with Hurricane Harvey shutting down southeastern Texas, including the entire 7 million Houston metro area. Undoubtedly, the effect will last for weeks.
Fortunately, if we want to know what jobless claims would be ex-Harvey, there is a way to figure that out. Although I haven’t felt the need to dwell on weekly claims for several years now, I’ll start to calculate this again next week.
I did this before, in 2012, after Superstorm Sandy. Here’s how I described the process then:
I wanted to try to find out how much of this morning’s initial claims number was still due to Sandy. To do so, I checked the BLS breakdown of initial claims by states, which gives the unadjusted state-by-state initial claims numbers. I deducted NY and NJ, the two states most hit by Sandy, and compared the number as deducted with the unadjusted number minus NY and NJ this week one year ago. Since the seasonal adjustment should be almost identical, that should give me the “real” ex-Sandy initial claims number, assuming NY and NJ would, ex-Sandy, have layoffs at a similar rate to all the other states.
To do the same thing for Harvey, I’ll simply calculate the number for all states except Texas. Because the state by state data is reported with a one week delay, that won’t be until next week.
Of course, I might have to account for Irma and maybe even Jose in the next few weeks as well. But, one bridge at a time . . . .
As promised, here is my abbreviated and late take on this morning’s employment report.
While the additions to temporary positions (a leading indicator for jobs overall), and construction, and manufacturing jobs were welcome, this report sure looked like late cycle deceleration.
The YoY% growth in jobs – a very un-noisy metric – declined again slightly:
Those who are involuntarily part-time went sideways:
Since the turn of the Millennium, a torrent of corporate tax cuts has resulted in a trickle of investment growth.
This morning Dean Baker objects to:
the argument … that reducing corporate taxes will lead to more investment and thereby greater wage growth in the future. The data from the last seventy years show there is no relationship between aggregate profits and investment.
As can be seen, there is no evidence that higher corporate profits are associated with an increase in investment. In fact, the peak investment share of GDP was reached in the early 1980s when the after-tax profit share was near its post war low. Investment hit a second peak in 2000, even as the profit share was falling through the second half of the decade. The profit share rose sharply in the 2000s, even as the investment share stagnated. In short, you need a pretty good imagination to look at this data and think that increasing after-tax profits will somehow cause firms to invest more
I was a little puzzled why Dean didn’t differently scale the two series so it would be easier to see any leading/lagging relationship. Further, since corporate profits are a long leading indicator, and nonresidential fixed investment is more of a coincident indicator, I was pretty sure that there would be a correlation.
Notes on Harvey: if Karma could bring her litter to visit the Texas GOP
First of all, as many of you already know, the M.I.A. proprietor of Bonddad blog, Hale Stewart, resides in the Houston area. I traded messages with him on Saturday, and as of then, he was doing OK.
Secondly, when Superstorm Sandy hit New Jersey and New York, Texas Republicans were prominent among those who opposed aid. Ultimately aid was provided — but not until 75 days after the storm.
There were two Sandy-related aid bills.
The first bill granted FEMA a $9.7 billion increase to borrow for the National Flood Insurance Program. It passed the Senate on a voice vote, but the following Texas GOP Members of Congress voted against the aid:
Mike Conaway (Midland)
Bill Flores (Bryan)
Louie Gohmert (Tyler)
Kenny Marchant (Coppell)
Mac Thornberry (Clarendon)
Randy Weber (Pearland)
Roger Williams (Austin)
The second bill provided $17 billion emergency funding to the victims and to affected NY and NJ communities. Both Texas Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn voted agains the bill. In addition to all of the above Representatives, the following Texas GOPers also voted against this aid:
Ted Poe (Humble)
Sam Johnson (Plano)
John Ratcliffe (Heath)
Jeb Hensarling (Dallas)
Joe Barton (Arlington)
Kevin Brady (The Woodlands)
Michael McCaul (West Lake Hills)
Kay Granger (Fort Worth)
Lamar Smith (San Antonio)
Pete Olson (Sugarland)
Michael Burgess (Lewisville)
Blake Farenthold (Corpus Christi)
John Carter (Round Rock)
Pete Sessions (Dallas)
Now that it is Texas suffering a catastrophe, of course some of these same politicians will be at the front of the line braying for help. While with the GOP in control of the entire federal government, Karma will not be paying a visit with her litter, in a just world aid would be provided immediately — on the same day they all visit NY and NJ, apologize, and abjectly beg forgiveness.
Of course, the “better angels” will prevail this time. But rest assured, the next time a disaster befalls anywhere in the Northeast, these same Texas politicians will once again vote against aid. In the meantime, above is the Roll Call of Shame for posterity.
Interest rates are a vital determinant of longer term growth. While the economy has remained on autopilot for the last several years, with almost no political stimulus or disruption — though that may well change next month — the Fed has to steer a course between the Scylla of an interest rate spike and the Charybdis of an inverted yield curve. The Presidential election spike in long term interest rates has been enough to cause growth in the housing market, whether measured by permits, starts, new or existing home sales, to stall out. Meanwhile the several hikes in the Fed funds rate has cause a slight flattening of the yield curve.
So while it is somewhat welcome that longer term interest rates have fallen back below 2.20%f and mortgage rates below 4%:
that just means that there is less of a spread between longer term and shorter term yields.
(Update…Dan here…I erroneously posted this post under Barkley”s name but it is NDd.)
On the erection of Confederate memorials: in which I have to get this off my chest
Below is a photograph of the World War Two Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
Keep it in the back of your mind. I’ll return to it.
I am a data nerd, and leaping to conclusions about data is a pet peeve of mine. I really hate it when anyone, and particularly my own side, falls for groupthink, jumping to instant conclusions which then become the only acceptable opinion. In the last 48 hours, without consideration of other possibilities, or looking for contrary vs. corroborating data, it seems that just about everyone on the center and left has become an instant expert on the fact that Confederate statues were erected because of Jim Crow.
In support of that, a number of graphics, such as this one, have been used:
So, has it occurred to nobody that there might be a more straightforward reason why there would be a huge spike in Memorials (cough, cough, hint, hint) ***50*** and ***100*** years after the Civil War?
Yes there were a number of racial incidents that occurred in the 1910s. But before the last 48 hours, the general consensus was that there was a resurgence in violence associated with white supremacy in the 1920s, not the 1910s.