Employment, a Lagging Economic Indicator: Comparing U.S., California, and Orange County Employment Numbers

employment-us-1890-20081

NEW YORK, August 20, 2009The Conference Board Leading Economic IndexTM (LEI) for the U.S. increased 0.6 percent in July, following a 0.8 percent gain in June, and a 1.2 percent rise in May.

Says Ken Goldstein, Economist at The Conference Board: “The indicators suggest that the recession is bottoming out, and that economic activity will likely begin recovering soon. The Coincident Economic Index was flat in July - the first time it did not register a decline since October 2008. The Leading Economic Index, which has increased for four consecutive months, suggests that the CEI will turn positive soon.”

In a recent post, I wrote that Chris Thornberg, principal with Beacon Economics, see improvement in construction, finance, and retail not occurring until sometime after the recovery is underway. In other words, they are lagging indicators. The employment numbers are another indicator that Thornberg see  as a lagging indicator in this recovery. Lagging and leading indicators are not the same in every recession. However, improvement in the employment numbers is seen by most economist as a indicator that lags in most recessions.

As I wrote previouslyPeter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, agrees that improvement in the employment numbers is a lagging indicator in recessions, including this one. However, he sees the current unemployment numbers as 1.5% higher than is normal for this stage of recession. He sees two reasons for this.

First, the losses in stocks and, therefore, the reduced amount in retirement accounts is making it necessary for many to delay retirement. Previously, pensions, not stock numbers, determined the amount in a retirement account. So the ups and downs of the stock market have a bigger role in this recession. Second, he says the fall in home prices to below the amount owed makes it difficult for many unemployed to relocate to other areas to accept a job offer. This has not been true in other recent downturns.

After a slight downturn in July, the U.S. unemployment number rose in August to 9.7%.  In a few weeks, the California and Orange County numbers will come out. For now, here is a look at the July and June unemployment numbers:

  • U.S–July: 9.4% (June: 9.5%)
  • California–July: 11.9% (June: 11.6%)
  • Orange County–July: 9.5% (Jun: 9.3%)

For more information on why unemployment remains high, see “Why is U.S. Unemployment so High?“. Also see, “The Conference Board’s August 2009 Global Business Cycle Indicators” and Unemployment in O.C., state buck U.S. trend.

Note: For Beacon’s economic forecast, see Beaconomics.

GRAPH COURTESY WIKIPEDIA

Personal Debt to Income Ratio Rose to Over 100%–How Did This Happen?

household-debt-ratioPreviously, I wrote that  Americans 65 to 74 had been increasingly taking on a large amount of housing debt. Another indication of our unhealthy reliance on debt is the numbers from the Federal Reserve that compare our disposable income to our personal debt. It’s not a pretty story.

Keep in mind these numbers are for our individual debt, not the national debt. (The national debt is a story for another time.)

1975:

  • Personal Consumer Debt–736.3 billion
  • Consumer Disposable Income*–1187.4 billion
  • Personal Debt as Percent of Disposable Income–62.0%

1990:

  • Consumer Debt–3592.9 billion
  • Consumer Disposable Income*–4285.8 billion
  • Personal Debt as Percent of Disposable Income–83.8 %

2000:

  • Consumer Debt–6960.0 billion
  • Consumer Disposable Income*–7194.0 billion
  • Personal Debt as Percent of Disposable Income–96.8 %

2005:

  • Consumer Debt–11496.6 billion
  • Consumer Disposable Income*–9039.5 billion
  • Personal Debt as Percent of Disposable Income–127.2%

*Disposable income is the income after paying taxes.

As I look at these numbers–over 100% of disposable income is consumed in debt–I can’t help but wonder why organizations like the Federal Reserve weren’t sounding the alarm: DANGER-Cliff with steep drop ahead. Surely, these organizations that deal with financial matters every day should have seen this coming.

And what about the media? Especially the financial media. Why wasn’t this information plastered over every newspaper’s front page? And then there is the rest of us? Were we sleeping? Was this information available to us, and we just didn’t see what we didn’t want to see?

In hindsight, it is easy to see that 100+ percent debt to income ratio is not sustainable. But the numbers are so blatant that it should have been obvious in foresight.

Sources: Monthly Review/Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Flows of Funds Accounts of the United States, Historical Series and Annual Flows and Outstandings, Fourth Quarter 2005 (March 9, 2006). Available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/.

GRAPH: SEEKING ALPHA

Update: To see the 2007 personal debt to income ratio as well as the current ratio, see “Personal Debt to Income Ratio Rose to Over 100%–Revisited.”