More

GDP Rises In 4Q -- But Growth Not 'Good Enough' To Fix Job Crisis

First Posted: 01/28/11 10:00 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:30 PM ET

Economy

The American economy sped up in the last three months of 2010, but economic growth is still dramatically short of where it needs to be to make a significant dent in the unemployment rate.

Gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by the American economy -- grew at a rate of 3.2 percent annual rate in the last quarter of 2010 according to the Commerce Department's report.

This is good news, but not, as Josh Biven, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, sees it, good enough. "The headline number -- the 3.2 percent growth -- if we sustain that rate of growth throughout 2011 that would do very little to push down the unemployment rate," Biven said. Three percent growth is what you need just to keep the economy stable.

To see any kind of real improvement, as Biven calculates, the GDP would need to be improving at a rate of 5 percent, month-over-month for an entire year -- and that would only lower the unemployment rate by one percentage point. "The growth is nowhere near fast enough to start pushing down the overall unemployment," he said.

Bart van Ark, chief economist at the Conference Board, likewise does not see much to celebrate. In a widely circulated email, van Ark wrote:

Continued woes in the housing market and weakness in the labor market will prevail throughout 2011. We anticipate a post-holiday pullback in consumer spending, a rise in the personal savings rate, further cuts in spending by state and local municipalities, and a deceleration in business investment in inventories in the current and next quarters. Consequently, economic growth will register only a sluggish 2 percent in the first half of 2011.

One positive sign inside the Commerce Department's report was picked up by the Wall Street Journal's Kelly Evans, who tweeted:

Wow. Excluding inventories, GDP up 7.1% in Q4 - most since 1984. Now that's more like a recovery!

(Evans was referring to "real final sales," which discounts the effect that increased inventory levels -- essentially unsold goods -- has on GDP.)

But Biven, at least, doesn't see that 7.1% percent as a very accurate indicator of economic recovery.

"The 3.2 percent is the better measure of the trend of the economy," he said. "I don't expect inventories are going to take away a bunch of growth again in coming quarters. There are reasons to think the 3.2 percent number is a little closer to what the economy is actually doing right now."

Steve Benen, at Political Animal, summarizes the situation nicely:

While better growth is obviously good news, 3.2% is still only modest growth. Under normal circumstances, this would point to a fairly healthy economy, humming right along. But given the severity of the Great Recession, our circumstances are anything but normal -- to have a robust recovery and make a real dent in the unemployment rate, we'll still need to do better than this.

Accelerating growth is encouraging, but if you hear policymakers and pundits today use this as an excuse to justify hitting the brakes, please know that they're completely wrong. We're slowly getting out of a ditch -- pursuing massive budget cuts, taking money out of the economy, and deliberately putting people out of work (i.e., the vision embraced by House Republicans) would very likely push us backwards in a hurry.


FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 626
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
photo
Independent66
www.linkedin.com/in/harveyring
10:38 AM on 01/30/2011
Private sector job growth should absorb the new entrants, but will only make a small dent in the number of unemployed people. I've see estimates of 1.5m to 2.5m. Public sector job loss will be significant at the State and local level. Virtually all States are facing billion revenue shortfalls and the cities and districts have the same problem. There will be some tax increases, but most of the shortfalls will be made up by cutting expenses. I expect to see about 1m public sector jobs lost this year and next. The entire country is suffering because we have increased our debts in all parts of government and our personal lives. We have been doing this for several decades, but the past 10 years it has accelerated. Americans are going to find that we must all suffer for our past sins. The sooner we recognize this and begin to get our balance sheets in order, reduce the debt not just reduce the rate of growth, the sooner we will then begin to create significant growth and prosperity. I'm thinking 20 years or so if we at tact the problem with vigor. Otherwise it will be much longer.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert SF
06:01 PM on 01/30/2011
There is significant growth and prosperity right now. The Dow hit 12,000 just a few days ago. Corporate profits are up, and everyone got their bonuses. John Poulson finished the year earning $5,000,000,000. I mean, seriously, there has never been a better time to be an American business executive.

What has happened is that the link between business growth and general prosperity has been broken. This is because, over time, business has cut its need for labor more and more. For some time, increases in demand allowed business to hire more people, but a greater amount of demand is increasingly needed for a dwindling employment effect. Every 10% reduction in labor needs a corresponding 11.11% increase in demand to cancel each other out. At some point, demand can no longer rise fast enough to re-employ people.
photo
Independent66
www.linkedin.com/in/harveyring
06:49 PM on 01/30/2011
You are so right. I am most upset about the concentration in the financial sector. These are the guys that helped us go into the ditch and got enormous bonuses for doing it. Now our government is helping them fix their balance sheets by leveraging zero cost money and the same guys are making rediculus bonuses on the backs of Americans as they refund their balance sheets. It is costing savers $350B a year in lost interest and they have no interest in loaning business money. Small and medium size businesses are starving for capital. This is wrong. Thanks for your comments.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rtx47
06:25 PM on 01/29/2011
Economists have not told us why today's America needs a two-income family. Despite what many write, need for two-incomes in a family are priorities and life-style. If we solved this issue - or rather made it easier (tax incentives if needed) to survive on a one-income family, we would:

1. Solve the unemployment crises.

2. Solve the education dilemma with a high (50%) school drop-out rate.

3. Shrink the healthcare crises caused by lack of illness-prevention and end-of-life care; costing 50% of all healthcare costs; which is 2 trillion dollars and added to the cost of bussiness.

4. Reduce the cost of managing chronic illness and nursing home which accounts for 75% of healthcare costs and 70% of deaths.

5. Reduce the 50% divorce rate.

6. Reduce the high incidence of depression in adults and children.

7. Reduce the high incidence of stress and stress-related disorders.

8. Decrease the consumption of junk, fast-foods, prepared foods and alcohol.

9. Rediscover the value of family, (near and extended), neighborhood and society.

10. Rediscover the importance of cultural values and ties.

Any one of the above should give us pause to realize what we are doing to ourselves; and how history will judge and evaluate present civilization. Yet long before history judges us, our children and grandchildren will judge us by the type of America we leave them; including the massive debt.

Single earner may be the woman who commonly is the higher earner.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert SF
07:10 PM on 01/29/2011
While I can certainly agree with most of your ennumerated points, you're calling for the bulk of America to accept a lowered quality of life. Why should Americans have to do that when our social inequality is already at its highest since the 1920s? That would only worsen the situation as the poor got poorer and the rich got richer.

It's true that the two-income family started in the 70s partly from feminism but also partly from little-G greed. People wanted to maintain the lifestyles they had enjoyed during the 50s and 60s. And why were people's lifestyles dropping? Because adjusted for inflation, wages stopped growing in the 70s. Instead, money that would have gone to wage increases went to profits, which were then shared by stockholders and executives. The rise of executive compensation is no secret.

What we need is a fairer system, and I don't think we can base one on sacrificing ourselves while those who benefitted from the unfair system are left unaffected.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rtx47
08:17 PM on 01/29/2011
Thanks for responding and agreeing with most of the enumerated points. But ...

Why "lowered quality of life"?
That's precisely what we have today -Expensive, depresing, Low Quality Life.

Why expensive? Becase we had more (two-earner) money chasing the same goods and services - housing, cars, college education, etc, etc.

Our 50% divorce rates have meant from a macro-economic perspective, the need for two houses, two mortgages, two insurances, two jobs.

The only people who profitted from the high divorce rates are home builders, bankers, real estate agents, insurance agents, those in entertainment, and the army of support services in schools and healthcare institutions including mental-care places.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SeanMMasters
centrist
01:21 PM on 02/01/2011
"adjusted for inflation, wages stopped growing in the 70s"

Obviously, then, the solution is? Increasing real wages.
05:39 PM on 01/29/2011
The fed is raising prices because they say money is flooding the streets. How so? Most people I know are cash starved and do not make much money.
Will we be another Egypt with high costs and sky-rocketing unemployment.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rtx47
02:58 PM on 01/29/2011
Most thoughtful commentato­rs attribute the unemployme­nt to lack of appropriat­e job skills among job-seekers. Mid-level management jobs have been decimated by IT and computer technology­. And manufactur­ing jobs have been eliminated by robots on the assembly line.

Many IT and computer tech companies' HR people that I have spoken to, inform me that getting Americans with IT and computer skills is difficult; and right now even H1-B visas quotas are far from filled. Hence many US companies keep their overseas operations­, near where the appropriate skill-sets are located.

So most bloggers complainin­g about off-shorin­g of jobs, are presenting sour grapes, repeating the same old mantra, do not know the facts or all of the above.

Similarly there are lot of technical / clinical jobs in the healthcare field.

Its my understanding there are openings in the teaching profession, specially in math and science.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBadExample
Friends call me ‘exampleicious’
03:17 PM on 01/29/2011
Horse-puckey.

The starting salaries for US IT personnel in helpdesk support roles has fallen by some 25% since I was recruiting for these jobs ten years ago. There are some other IT specialties that may be hard to fill, but that's because the employers want both training and experience with technologies that have only recently been deployed widely. And the one-two punch of both off-shoring and H1B competition are murder. It also doesn't help that someone with a broadband connection can manage a server anyplace in the world. My last company outsourced its e-mail services and had huge problems with technical support--and all of those calls went to Chennai in India. In universities, students are being steered away from computer careers that have been 'bangalored'.

Paul Craig Roberts has written extensively about off-shoring and has even testified to Congress about it. He's an economist and former Reagan Treasury official, and he's broken out the numbers in articles like this:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09302006.html

As for all those 'technical' jobs opening up, the BLS predicted the job growth for the US over the next ten years, and most of it is in 'hospitality' (waiting tables and tending bar) and retail. There will be some nursing jobs (as the boomer generation retires), but many of those will be filled by H-1B's. And teachers will get jobs as the boomers retire from education. But there will be no net job growth in fields like IT, and most of the growth in medicine will be in low-level jobs. Companies are now off-shoring xray and blood analysis, for example.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122123729
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert SF
07:00 PM on 01/29/2011
Research is already working on patient monitoring via computerized "sight." They're developing software that can "tell" by "looking" through a camara if a patient (who is not hooked up to monitors) is ok or not. Once they have that working, there will be a bust in healthcare, not a boom.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert SF
06:15 PM on 01/29/2011
The problem is simpler: there are simply not enough jobs. There is in fact not a single industry with a pressing need for labor.

What happens in IT is that a specific set of skills is needed for a specific time for a specific project. That's how the search starts. It's not "We need someone who can drive," for example, but "We need someone who has driven 13,554 miles on a blue 2002 Honda Civic EX with a ding on the left fender and a missing passenger side floor mat. And we only need him for three months."

You are right that automation has eliminated millions of jobs, and what was once something that affected only blue-collar workers is now affecting even mid-level management in the white collar world. But the focus on skills misses the fact that the number of jobs is shrinking precisely because of automation. It also misses that fields that look promising now will also be automated.

You should look deeper into this since you have strong feelings about it. Consider Martin Ford's "The Lights in the Tunnel" as well as Marshall Brain's articles on robotics. American retail will go 80% self-checkout within a decade, putting another 10 million out of work. Sure, the more skilled will always find work, but life is not supposed to be the olympics, where the three best win and everyone else loses.
06:26 PM on 01/29/2011
"American retail will go 80% self-check­out within a decade, putting another 10 million out of work."

This is why I make a point of never using the self-checkout lines. Why should I do the retailers work for them and put someone out of work?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinotter11
Spinning through life and trying to understand it.
09:14 PM on 01/30/2011
I have started to read "The Lights in the Tunnel" and will continue to read it. The author sounds like an idealist to me so far. But I'm just starting. Will let you know how I find it. Certainly a well-written and thought out work.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
02:34 PM on 01/29/2011
I'm going to shock some people!

Free trade and current regulations are destroying our manufacturing base!

We all understand how large corporations have moved their manufacturing off shore to avoid EPA regulations.

Did you realize that one large retail chain made the decision not to buy U.S. manufactured garments because one supplier here was using (sweat shop practices) not conforming .

This had nothing to do with labor cost and with automations many cut and sew operations can be competitive particularly at a time when retailers want to keep minimum inventory and fast delivery.

The large retail chain being only a buyer was afraid of the negative publicity and the threat of possible law suits and damages knowing all they were was a customer and had very limited control over this independent company!

So this large retail chain buys from sweat shops off shore where the scrutiny is much less!

We have to change the system! Free trade coupled with our government regulations means high unemployment! How could it mean anything else?

Maybe a system of environmental and social taxes and tariffs would work because it would be fair for everyone!
02:19 PM on 01/29/2011
oh and inflation is 1.5 percent (excluding necessities)
02:17 PM on 01/29/2011
GDP Rises In 4Q -- But Growth Not 'Good Enough' To Fix Job Crisis
or the housing collapse
or the state budget implosion
or the national debt catastrophe
or the inflation problem..

We knew this already.. sheesh

It's obvious they are trying to "talk" us down.. into feeling good about the financial system
11:29 AM on 01/29/2011
Zeitgeist Moving Forward
is on Youtube
peace
photo
guveqzero
Inventor and Innovator
10:28 AM on 01/29/2011
So, why does rhetoric from business and politicians indicate everything is well? There is not much difference from being criminal and ignorant.
10:39 AM on 01/29/2011
Depends on your pov, if you are not one of the unemployed, things are looking good especially if you are well off or rich, if you are unemployed, things are bad, and will be bad for a while longer
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stewart Goss
10:42 AM on 01/29/2011
The government is holding down interest rates. This hurts the poor the most.

The government is printing too much money, again the poor are hurt.

So stop asking for government to run our economy.
06:51 PM on 01/29/2011
The rhetoric from Big Business and politicians indicate everything is well, because for them it is. Corporations made record profits last year. For everyone else, things aren't going so well.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stewart Goss
10:18 AM on 01/29/2011
I think it is really unfair to blame the lobbyists. If you own a company and do not have representation in Washington you will get trampled by those who do. It is a fact that politicians hand out favors to their constituents whether they be corporate entities, unions or special interest groups.

What kind of society states that a person who is corrupted by others is not to be held accountable? If your kid steals from a store for his friends is he allowed to blame the "lobbyist" gang.

Been trying to hammer this message home but it falls on deaf ears in this forum. Very simply:

If you have a system of government where everyone is not equal under the law then by definition it will be driven by special interests. You cannot stop this process no matter how many "rules" you put in place. If you want to kill corporatism then you must also stop government programs that redistribute wealth otherwise both will co-exist and there is nothing you can do about it.

Name me any government program and I'll show you who is behind it. I find this all very un-American. We are supposed to be equal, yet under programs like Obamacare preference depends in what state you live in, what company you work for or what union you belong to. This isn't equality, it is corruption, patronage and buying votes. Both parties do it and it is sickening.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert SF
06:43 PM on 01/29/2011
Well, the thing is though, politicians are supposed to do things for their constituents. The problem is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Commercial interests can afford to ask their representatives for things but the average person on the street doesn't have the time or money to do that. I mean, we can write a few letters, but we just don't have the werewithal to place ongoing, relentless petitions before our representatives.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tiggerchick
if your view is myopic, go get Lasik
09:47 AM on 01/29/2011
I don't know. I'm still looking for the hammock I supposedly received. Maybe they mailed it to the wrong address.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
09:44 AM on 01/29/2011
The Republicans won't be the only ones wanting to "put on the brakes". The President has already, for several weeks...maybe months....been talking about the recovery taking place and there are plenty of Democrats who want to believe that is happening. The assessment of jobs is due next week and is expected to tell us that 100,000 jobs have been added. Again, this minuscule number is not going to do one damn thing about solving the unemployment problem, but the politicians and the corporatists will send up fireworks acknowledging that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
James Fisher
09:34 AM on 01/29/2011
The products that created this growth wouldn't be produced on wall street? would they?

How about some jobs please.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stewart Goss
10:41 AM on 01/29/2011
Less regulation = more jobs. Eventually this will become clear.

The law protects us, we don't need additional rules. Some businesses spend 25% of their labor costs on compliance instead of generating revenue, how is this productive?
10:56 AM on 01/29/2011
You mean like the less regulation at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia? How about with the Oil industry?

Less regulation equals more abuse of employees and the environment. And if "the law" protected us, regulation would not be necessary.

"Some people say...", "Some businesses..." A, more straw-man arguments.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
James Fisher
11:01 AM on 01/29/2011
your really gonna try to sell that here?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Muzzle Me
Blogging: Graffiti with punctuation.
04:53 AM on 01/29/2011
Ok, I have a question for anyone that can help and would appreciate any input. Started work on Dec 20 (hurrah!), however here is my situation. When hired, I was told it was on a 26 week pay schedule for any given year. I was to get paid on January 28, but I won't get my check, physically in hand until February 4 and the check will be dated same even though the payroll period states on my check stub, January 17 through January 21. In essence, I will be receiving only one check per month. How will this effect my taxes if at all for 2011? Also, is this legal for my employer to do? Is the defining criteria that my employer has been consistent in issuing payroll this way? I live in Michigan. Thank you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tiggerchick
if your view is myopic, go get Lasik
09:53 AM on 01/29/2011
Did you get paid in 2011 before that? For instance, when did you receive the pay for the period(s) before January 17th? And the 17th through the 21st is 4 days? I don't think that's accurate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Muzzle Me
Blogging: Graffiti with punctuation.
12:57 PM on 01/29/2011
Thanks for responding. Here is the correction: Pay Period: Biweekly, Beginning: 1/03, Ending: 1/14, Check date: 1/21. I have since researched it further and come to find out that Michigan employment law states:

Michigan requires that the lag time between the end of the pay period and the payment of wages earned from 1 st-15th, pay by 1st of next month; 16th end of month, pay by 15 th of next month; 14 days after pay period for weekly or biweekly paydays to the employee.

So, legally, she has up to 14 days after the pay period to issue me a check. Which also means she can date it up to a 14 days later too. I'm wondering how many folks actually know their employment laws in any given state. And, I'm also wondering if employers, due to the job market, will start apply the same type of payout as I described.
03:29 AM on 01/29/2011
A friend of mine has 25 years of high tech experience. When she was recently laid off in the Silicon Valley due to outsourcing, her recruiter looked at her resume and said, "You have a lot of experience listed here." My friend agreed, thinking it was a good thing, but was corrected by the recruiter, who said, "You should shorten this up. Employers are looking for no more than 8 to 10 years experience. They want people who are young and energetic." My friend figured out that it was clearly a way of saying that you are SOL if you are over 30, because when you come out of college at 21 and then put in 10 years, you are essentially 30 years old. So, because she is over 50 and a great worker, she has been unable to get any interviews at all. This is what it has come down to. Eliminate the older worker and you effectively are able to, as an employer to eliminate the collective memory of what it was like to be an American worker making a fair wage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blueman00009
It is what it is
03:56 PM on 01/29/2011
Thanks for providing evidence of the unspoken story. I have the same problem in a different profession. You are over 30 and you are toast. Experience does not matter and is not wanted, nor is any training, education or any of the other talking points. The issue is age and naivety. That's what they want, and that's all.
06:30 PM on 01/29/2011
Its rare to see someone in their 20s or 30s at a job fair, just people middle-aged and older. Yet just try proving job discrimination.

If companies want someone with 20 years of experience, they're only willing to pay entry-level wages.