It looks like an economic meme change is on the way, with some thoughtful columnists charting the course.
The Times’s David Leonhardt points to a recent run of bad economic news—and more to come with Friday’s jobs numbers—and raises the specter of a dreaded double dip. Sure, things can go up and down a bit. “But whatever you thought at the start of the year about the recovery—strong, moderate, fragile—you probably need to be more pessimistic today.”
This is especially troubling because the economy is still such a long way from being healthy. Lawrence Katz, the Harvard labor economist, estimates that 10.6 million jobs would need to materialize immediately to return the job market to its condition when the Great Recession began. For it to get there four years from now, the economy would have to add 316,000 jobs a month. That pace would be faster than in any four-year stretch of the 1990s boom.
The FT’s Martin Wolf took a different approach to the question last week. But his tone was equally grim.
Anybody who looks carefully at the world economy will recognise that a degree of monetary and fiscal stimulus unprecedented in peacetime is all that is prodding it along, not only in high-income countries, but also in big emerging ones. The conventional wisdom is that it will also be possible to manage a smooth exit. Nothing seems less likely. So let us consider the endgame, instead.
Like Leonhardt said, any recovery is sure to have its up and downs. And plenty of smart money has been cautious about just how rosy things are getting.
But, despite the snowy weather, there’s been no shortage of green-shoot spottings.
Just today, there’s private payroll data showing that layoff announcements dropped to their lowest level since 2006, and a prediction of “meaningful job growth in the private sector” over the next few months from JPMorgan Chase’s chief economist.
It’s a theme that’s been hanging in the air for a while now.
This Page One Journal story from a month ago seemed to reflect the then-gathering press consensus:
Data Hit Hopeful Notes for Economy
Of course, the optimism wasn’t coming out of nowhere. A lot of the data were positive.
Here’s Bloomberg, on February 9, on a Labor Department report:
Job openings in the U.S. rose in December for the first time in three months, signaling employers are gaining confidence in the economic recovery.
And Bloomberg, same day, on small-business optimism:
Confidence among U.S. small businesses increased in January for the first time in three months as the outlook for sales improved, according to the National Federation of Independent Business optimism index.
By mid-month, the meme had taken hold. On February 10, the Times declared:
“Healthy Jump in Chinese Exports Points to Recovery in World Trade”
China said Wednesday that its exports climbed 21 percent in January from a year earlier, while imports surged 85.5 percent, the latest sign that world trade is starting to recover from the global financial crisis.
Ah yes. Globalized masses stride confidently into glorious future.
Still, the better economic reporting we’ve seen looked below the big numbers, and the foreboding signs weren’t that far below, really.
Reuters, for instance, did a better job of keeping it real with the NFIB survey, just by quoting the trade group that put it together.
“Small business owners entered 2010 the same way they left 2009 — depressed,” the group said, noting its Small Business Optimism Index reading for January was still below the 90 mark, the dividing line between positive and negative outlooks.
And a few outlets found their way to an interesting new index that tracks how often truckers are filing their rigs with diesel. When it comes to the economy, more is better.
As USA Today put it back on February 10:
The latest government statistics say the economy is bounding back from a deep recession. The message from the nation’s truck stops isn’t so reassuring.
USAT added:
The truck stop index fell at a 36.8% annual rate in January after soaring 60.8% in December. The index’s less-volatile three-month moving average decelerated to 3.3% annual growth in January from 14.6% in December.
The findings suggest the economy cannot sustain the galloping 5.7% annual growth rate the government reported for the fourth quarter of 2009.
“Don’t put your party hats on yet,” says Edward Leamer, the UCLA economic forecaster who helped create the index. “We were hoping our index would be stronger, symptomatic of an economy powerful enough to start putting Americans back to work.”
The Journal also found the index worth a look, though with modest play:
The report comes at a time where most economists agree the economy is recovering, albeit without much vigor and with no job gains. Most also believe that, after inventory-related factors powered decent gains in the nation’s gross domestic product over the final months of 2009, growth will moderate, although they do expect job losses to soon give way to modest increases.
These days, as Leonhardt and Wolf make clear, what we really need is economic reporting that goes deeper than the headline numbers—ideally with shoe-leather reporting&mdash and reminds us that, while some big numbers might be good for the moment,and some long-term lines might even be headed north, the economy still has a ways to go, and, really, the current pace isn’t getting us there.

what we really need is economic reporting that goes deeper than the headline numbers—ideally with shoe-leather reporting--and reminds us that, while some big numbers might be good for the moment,and some long-term lines might even be headed north, the economy still has a ways to go, and, really, the current pace isn’t getting us there.
Don't you really mean that:
what we really need is economic reporting that goes deeper than the headline numbers—ideally with shoe-leather reporting--and tries to make sense of what the numbers really say, whatever that is, rather than trying to validate somebody's ideological bias or prior belief about which the way the economy is actually headed?
#1 Posted by A Cassel, CJR on Wed 3 Mar 2010 at 02:08 PM
Ryan,
I think the following is a central question, I have no idea of the answer, maybe you know ...
The second chart here
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/RD_RJShomes_PSav.html
convincingly shows sizable undersaving and sizable overborrowing by us the people during the last two-plus decades. Reversal of each surely figures to make sense, and is likely commenced ... LESS personal consumption results, with less related employment. Other economic activity RISES, with more related employment.
QUESTION: Is there a clear expectation for the NET effect on employment? (I'm thinking 'final' effect, rather than transitional.)
#2 Posted by Ed, CJR on Wed 3 Mar 2010 at 03:21 PM
Thanks, A. Cassel and Ed.
I work with Holly (she's the author, btw, new to the site; http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/holly_yeager_is_cjrs_first_pet.php).
I take Cassel's point that reporting should not be about validating reporters' individual biases or guesswork about where the economy is going. That said, If Leonhardt's figures are correct -- 10 million jobs needed, requiring 300,000 new jobs a month -- it doesn't strike me as much of a stretch to say that we've got a ways to go and the current pace is too slow.
Ed, I may be misunderstanding, but wouldn't any jobs projection want to project a net number, taking into account higher savings, lower consumption, and any number of other factors?
#3 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Wed 3 Mar 2010 at 04:36 PM
It seems a bit odd to call two articles a meme change, after all there were plenty of stories that questioned the case for war in Iraq. But the "meme" was slam dunk.
And if "Reuters, for instance, did a better job of keeping it real with the NFIB survey" by quoting the press release that accompanied the results of the survey why didn't they just print the press release? seriously we would all be better informed if we read the press releases which are carefully crafted to avoid outright falsehoods than we are by reading ill informed analysis of such. Though in this case Reuters accurately conveyed the meaning of the press release, in many cases journalist are simply not expert enough at the subject matter to be able to do so.
Nice use of hyperlinks in this post. It is rare to see, and it would have been nice if the aforementioned Reuters piece had some.
#4 Posted by timothywmurray, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 02:31 PM