Jackson Free Press

Slowing job losses is one sign of the economy's impending recovery. The bottom is just ahead, according to economists, which means things will start looking up soon.

Two recent reports seem to agree. One, from the Associated Press, analyzes the results of the AP's Economic Stress Index:

[T]he free fall that marked the autumn of 2008 and winter of 2009 gave way in April to a more controlled descent, possibly even a bottom. Still, the analysis found that pain remains high compared with year-ago levels.
…
April's results "are saying we are very close to the low point in this recession," said Mark Vitner, an economist at Wachovia. "The worst is past, but that doesn't mean the troubles are over."

The AP report points to increases in seasonal employment and a rise in tourism in some areas as an indicator of the recession's grip loosening.

"More and more of the hotels are opening, and other businesses are picking up, so the unemployment decreases," Jerry Adams, a city official in Branson, where the jobless rate sank from 15.6 percent in March to 10.1 percent in April, told the AP.

In Mississippi seasonal employment helped take 12,200 people from the unemployment rolls in April, moving the state's unemployment rate to 8.6 percent—better the national average—from 9.4 percent in March. The leisure and hospitality industries and construction showed employment increases for April. Still, the state's unemployed people totaled nearly 112,000 last month, which does not account for those whose unemployment benefits have expired, or those who have simply stopped looking for work.

Bloomberg reports that employers cut the fewest number of jobs since last fall, and that payrolls dropped less than expected in May. They temper that cautiously optimistic news by noting that the unemployment rate hit a 25-year high last month at 9.4 percent, and hourly earnings were the lowest they've been since November 2005.

"The rate of decline has slowed some, but the losses to date are causing sharp declines in U.S. per capita income," David Malpass, an economist and president of Encima Global in New York, wrote in a note to clients. Malpass predicted a "slow recovery" from the deepest recession in half a century.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told lawmakers earlier this week that he expects to see economic growth "later this year," despite seeing unemployment rising "into next year," Bloomberg says.

"We are starting to see indications of economic progress as the recovery package begins to take hold," Representative Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat who chairs the congressional Joint Economic Committee, said in a statement. Rising unemployment "is a sobering reminder that we still have a long way" to go, she added.

Bloomberg notes that Americans are saving more and borrowing less, fearful of losing their jobs.

Still, economists are saying the incremental improvements are "unambiguous" signs of improvement, and the White House points "to the slowdown in job losses as proof that its $787 million package of spending measures was stimulating the economy," according to The New York Times.

"Today is a sign that we are making progress," Christina Romer, a White House economic adviser said to the Times.

Previous Comments

ID

148554

Comment

Thanks for this article, Ronnie. It is a sigh of relief to know that we have a few good signs looming. I watched CNN's report on the President's Whitehouse. They really have a special team of people who seem to have the country's interest at heart. This team is committed to work hard and it is with that type of drive and devotion that positives can develop. It is my hope that we are on the right track and that our country will regain its place in the world: A country to be looked up to and not DOWN ON.

Author

justjess

Date

2009-06-08T12:15:27-06:00

ID

148564

Comment

Ronni, Thanks for returning to this topic. Unfortunately, the corporate media is paid to deliver happy talk to the public. The reality is that Secretary Geitner and his friends in the financial sector are simply laying the ground for another round of easy pickings. Page 58 of the May 2009 issue of the Atlantic is most instructive. It shows how President Obama plans to spend the $787 billion under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). That compares to $700 last fall for President Bush's TARP. Together the total is $1.5 Trillion. Page 59 shows the much larger debts currently being imposed on the taxpayer by the Federal Reserve. Estimates now put the new burden on the taxpayer at over 12 Trillion Dollars. People are rightly concerned about the size of the Treasury debts, but most have not yet understood that the Federal Reserve is committing us to about 10 times more debt than the Treasury. The taxpayer is responsible for both. The economy does need enormous injections of money. The problem is that the banking system is providing credit, not money. The end is not yet in sight. Tommy Gregory

Author

Tommy

Date

2009-06-08T19:14:25-06:00

ID

148571

Comment

In other words, the Titanic isn't sinking quite as fast as we first thought, but we're still going down. Joy.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-06-09T08:39:31-06:00

ID

148580

Comment

Tommy, I seriously doubt corporate media is getting "paid" for happy talk, not with the "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality they display on a consistent basis. Also, I'm not saying The Atlantic is right or wrong, but my understanding of the definition of a recession--a slowdown of economic activity--is not a measure of debt, although debt might contribute to a slowdown. So are we talking apples and oranges? Banks have always only provided credit, not money. But in our economy, credit means access to inventory, the use and selling of which makes money. No credit equals no inventory and no money changing hands. More to the point of a "problem" is when we confuse credit and stock prices with "wealth," which it is not. To say that American taxpayers are responsible for all that debt needs some elaboration. I tend to question any analysis that puts the burden of federal debt only on individual tax payers, and doesn't account for excise taxes, trade tariffs, corporate taxes and all of the other ways government raises funds. Again, not saying you're wrong, but it's worth fleshing out. Iron, I think a more appropriate metaphor might be that the holes are being plugged and we're seeing the ship stabilize. Sinking has slowed and we might even be bobbing toward the surface soon. You know... glass half full instead of half empty. ;-)

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-06-09T14:38:34-06:00

ID

148581

Comment

...glass half full instead of half empty I like that analogy, Rommi M.

Author

justjess

Date

2009-06-09T14:52:17-06:00

ID

148582

Comment

[quote]Iron, I think a more appropriate metaphor might be that the holes are being plugged and we're seeing the ship stabilize. Sinking has slowed and we might even be bobbing toward the surface soon.[/quote] I think with the trillions in future debt Obama's piling on, plus his outright slaughter of contract law, the ships heading for the bottom, full speed ahead.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-06-09T15:01:14-06:00

ID

148589

Comment

...plus his outright slaughter of contract law... The Supreme Court doesn't see validity in that assessment, Iron.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-06-10T08:30:55-06:00

ID

148625

Comment

Ronni, I was sloppy in my use of the term “corporate” media. I was referring to the “business or financial” media: Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Business Week, Financial Times, Bloomberg News, etc. Many local news outlets certainly push “if it bleeds, it leads” but that is not true of the business media. One needs only a cursory examination of the cable news networks that cover the economy and note their major advertisers to learn who pays for the “happy talk”. (Allan Greenspan made news when he used the term "irrational exuberance" in 1996 to describe the attitude toward the economy as it raced toward the precipice.) In fact, the role of the business press in blinding the public to the danger was the cover story of the May/June issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. They reported the results of their own major examination of the financial press between January 1, 2000 and June 30, 2007. Their conclusion confirms what I said. See http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/power_problem.php . You are also right that my assertions need some elaboration. However, that would require more text than this method of communication will allow. Your second paragraph goes to the heart of the problem, but I disagree with your analysis. National governments are sovereign entities. As such, they have the power to create money (start italics) without going into debt. (End italics) The main problem with our current situation is that the Government is creating money (start italics) by going into debt. (End italics) One result of that policy is there is not enough money to ameliorate major social problems: not enough to provide a decent job to everyone who wants one, to provide health care for all, to build streets and highways that are the envy of the world, to build plenty of new schools, to buy text books for every child, etc. etc. Imagine standing with me on Judgement Day. Jesus asks, “Why didn’t we insure that every able-bodied person had a job so those things would have been accomplished?” And then we reply, “There wasn’t enough money....” Now, the reason there is not enough money is we believe the only way to create money is to create credit. That’s why there isn’t enough money. If we just created money, we could create enough to change the world. When enough money existed, we wouldn’t create any more until the supply began to run low again. Any sovereign national government can so create its own money without incurring debt, without having to pay interest, without enriching a privileged minority, and without impoverishing millions of its citizens. But we have all those, and more, because we cannot imagine life without them.

Author

Tommy

Date

2009-06-10T20:45:56-06:00

ID

148632

Comment

Ironghost, I hear you on the OBAMA plan; now, I'm trying to get my arms around your plan for keeping the ship from sinking. So far, all I can hear is a litnay of criticism. By the way, where were you during the Bush Administration with all of his deregulatory actions for the banking industry? Just asking.

Author

justjess

Date

2009-06-11T09:05:49-06:00

ID

148634

Comment

Jess: Oh gee, another "Where were you" remark. Is it because I distrust democrats I must obviously be some psycho Bushite? I've always been wary of deregulating an industry based on greed.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-06-11T09:18:02-06:00

ID

148636

Comment

Iron, I distrust all political parties and am not associated with one as a result. Your problem is that you often just repeat Republican talking points that often simply aren't fact-based. When you get called out on it, you start playing the victim and accusing other people of the kind of partisanship you yourself are showing, whether you mean to or not. That's straight of the Limbaugh playbook, and it only plays to a limited choir, not a forum such as this one. Most others who post here regularly are not blind partisans, and demand facts and attribution, and are willing to let the chips fall where they may. And if they come on here as blind Democratic partisans making fact-challenged statements, they get questioned just the same. Of the few people I've ever actually banned from this site are several hardcore Democrats and/or leftists who used the same tactics (but with a baseball bat swinging at everyone in site, which thankfully, you do not do.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-06-11T09:27:25-06:00

ID

148640

Comment

Donna, I'm only very defensive around here. There could be a reason for it, I suppose. I could go to arguing based on facts and whatnot, but if people just keep dismissing anything anyone says as "partisan", what's the point?

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-06-11T09:54:53-06:00

ID

148642

Comment

Iron, Opinions do not equal facts, and you make haven't made any statements of fact. Not on this thread, anyway. Saying Obama is shredding contract law, for example, is opinion, and you won't find any legitimate sources--conservative or otherwise--that present the same opinion as unequivocal fact. If there are, bring them on.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-06-11T10:22:06-06:00

ID

148643

Comment

Iron, you do have a history of pulling out the kneejerk talking points. They mean nothing if they're not based on fact. If you do that, you will be eaten alive on a site where people demand a higher standard than found on blather-radio or echo-chamber blogs where they don't care about facts, and are about character assassination. And in those outlets, people get all huffy when someone challenges their statements of non-fact. Most people who claim they were kicked off this site, for instance, weren't. They left of their own volition because they weren't able or willing to back up their claims, or could not stand being challenged. They weren't looking for an actual conversation; they just wanted to bash those who didn't agree with them, and couldn't hang in a place where that I think it's funny when I see those people on other sites proclaiming that they were censored here. They were self-censored if anything because they refuse to do any homework. No one is applying a different standard to you. Just back up what you say with facts, and you'll find a good debate ahead. We just don't maintain this site to spread falsehoods. Sorry.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-06-11T10:28:48-06:00

ID

148648

Comment

Tommy, I agree that governments have the power to "create" or print money, but without anything to back it up, it ends up being worth the paper it's printed on and not much else. Once upon a time, U.S. money was backed by gold and silver, thus, the world's value on gold and silver determined the value of a U.S. dollar, and you could literally get a dollar's worth of gold for a dollar. No more. Without anything real to back them, today's dollars do not have inherent value. Their value is based solely on supply and demand. Flood the market with dollars and the value of each one goes down. In other words, the U.S. government can't simply "create" money and keep it's value up. Under our economic system, more government-created dollars do not equal more buying power. Enter the credit market, which values goods and services, not dollars. Credit, as I said before, provides the wherewithal to stock inventories, which, when sold or used, produce dollars. The scenario you’re touting can only be made real if money has intrinsic value, which it does not. I wish it were different. As to whether the business media (which should not include The New York Times, by the way) is “paid” for happy talk, I can’t speak to their individual editorial polices, however, from a journalistic viewpoint, it’s considered unethical to mix advertising sales and editorial content. The business press, however, generally pushes a big business, Wall Street agenda, which, as your linked story says, is not necessarily in line with what’s best for the American public. The general public (i.e., small investors or non-investors--most Americans) is looking in the wrong place to get unbiased business news geared to them if they read the Wall Street Journal and their ilk. It’s a real problem, and the CJR article you linked sums it up beautifully: [S]ometime after 2003, as federal regulation folded like a cheap suitcase, the business press institutionally lost whatever taste it had for head-on investigations of core practices of powerful institutions. Too bad that’s precisely what was needed. In light of this general system failure, what are the lessons for the general reader and the business press itself? First, the public should be aware—warned, so to be speak—that its interests and those of the business press may not be in perfect alignment. The business press exists within the Wall Street and corporate subculture and understandably must adopt its idioms and customs, the better to translate them for the rest of us. Still, it relies on those institutions for its stories. Burning a bridge is hard. It is far easier for news bureaucracies to accept ever-narrowing frames of discourse, frames forcefully pushed by industry, even if those frames marginalize and eventually exclude the business press’s own great investigative traditions. Second, there’s a difference between reporting from an investor’s perspective and from a citizen’s. The business press is better at the former than the latter, and the gap has only been growing. I would only caution that what’s good for investors in the short and medium terms may not be good for anyone over the long haul. Third, remember the nexus between uncompromised regulation and great journalism. Fourth, lament the decline of the great business sections of general-circulation dailies, specifically those of the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. Fifth, seek alternatives. Read Mother Jones, or something, once in a while. Sixth, never, ever underestimate the importance of editorial leadership and news ownership, for in them rests the power to push back against structural conflicts and cultural taboos fostered by industry, to clear a space for business journalism to do the job it is clearly capable of, the one job that really needed doing.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-06-11T11:09:45-06:00