Mort Zuckerman: U.S. No Longer the Great Job Creation Machine

December 4, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (33)

The result is a new business attitude and a business model that focus less on revenue growth and more on that part of the businesses that executives know they can control: their costs. This means cutting personnel (and also advertising) to improve operating margins and reflects their lack of confidence in the growth of the economy.

The consequence is that the U.S. economy, which was for decades the greatest job creation machine in the world, is taking longer and longer to replace the jobs lost in the recession.

In the 1970s and 1980s, it took as little as one year from the end of a recession to add back the lost jobs. After an eight-month downturn that ended in March of 1991, jobs came back in 23 months. After the downturn from the dot-com bust in 2001, it took 38 months. This time, it could take five years or more to recover all of the 8 million-plus jobs lost since the "Great Recession" began.

Employment will continue to fall into 2010, and perhaps through it. If the jobless rate peaks at around 11 percent, we will be lucky to begin a proper jobs recovery before the end of 2010.

What accounts for the growing lag times? Fundamentally, it is that households and businesses are stepping back from spending levels that were artificially pumped up by debt. American consumers realize they had been on a binge. The ratio of consumer debt to the nation's GDP rose to 97 percent in the first quarter of this year, up from 45 percent in 1975. Every dollar that scared consumers save is one less for consumption and output.

Then there are all those young people just entering the labor market. To keep the jobless rate from rising, the United States needs to add a net 150,000 jobs a month. No one expects we will generate anywhere near that growth.

Furthermore, in the past decade, globalization and deregulation have forced companies to focus far more on productivity and on controlling costs. This means they seek to produce far more with the workers they have. Simultaneously, factory automation is wiping out assembly-line work, and information technology is making many white- and pink-collar jobs extraneous. Finally, companies are moving operations abroad to take advantage of cheaper labor in places like China and India. American workers are working harder, given their concern over job losses that have averaged 135,000 a month for the past three months. That's better than the 740,000 jobs lost in January, but it is still relatively high at this point in a recession.

We must face the hard fact that many of the lost jobs are gone forever. In this cycle, 56 percent of the currently unemployed have permanently lost their jobs, according to Ned Davis Research. These people have lost their jobs because plants have closed, work has moved overseas, or companies have gone out of business. This compares with an earlier peak in 1982 and 1991 of 43 percent.

As Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke confirmed, this recovery is shaping up to be a jobless one, just like the last two. The conventional unemployment rates look as if they will remain very high for years to come. Should there be an increase in demand, businesses will raise the number of employee hours worked, rather than adding new workers. This is reinforced by a recent Federal Reserve Board report stating that most of the participants in its survey anticipate it will be five to six years before the economy can convert fully to a normal job market.

Why is the long-term outlook for umemployment so dismal? One critical reason is the U.S. housing shock. The 30 percent average decline in home prices is far greater than the normal threshold of a 15 percent or greater fall in past sluggish recoveries. Add to this the drop in value of financial assets, and you have a colossal shock to household balance sheets, much greater than in previous recessions, adding up to $7 trillion. The result is a much bigger drop in nondurable consumer spending, on top of the much higher rise in the unemployment rate than in typical recessions.All of this reflects the fact that this downturn has been caused by a financial crisis. It therefore plays out differently from recessions that come about after businesses overinvest or when the Federal Reserve aggressively raises interest rates. When the machinery of finance grinds down, people cannot get enough credit to purchase consumer durables and businesses cannot borrow to invest and grow. In a study of recessions caused by financial crises, the unemployment rates rose dramatically higher—by an average of 7 percentage points, compared with the 5 percentage points we have experienced to date. Such crises last much longer—an average of 4.8 years. This one is at its two-year point.

Corrected on 12/07/09: An earlier version of this commentary misstated the year for which a budget shortfall is expected for states, cities, counties, and school districts. That shortfall is expected for 2010.

Tags:
recession,
employment,
unemployment

Reader Comments Read all comments (33)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

As David Meiswinkle Indepenendt candidate for NJ govenor all we have to do is re[peal and revoke Natfa and Cafta Trade treaties and get the USA out of the WTO, by voter petition, and politicians who do not agree vote them our or impeach them or petition to recall them like they did to Gov. Gray Davis in Calif.

Rmemeber this country is in a global trade war and the middle-class and our jobs and children's future are at stake. Nothing is impossible if enough American Voters exert their political will power in a inified manner. If we do not bring the jobs back to the USA the states will never have enough revenue or taxes to survive. If the idiots that passed this realized that as soon as the middle class is extinct there will be no one to pay the largest share of taxes and consume the most products in the USA. Even the rich should consider that without the MC to support our US economy they will be the only ones left to tax into oblivion. If they were smart they would bring back the middle class jobs now if for no other reason than to save their own wealth. Not to mention economic control and sovereignty over our own nation rather than by some foreign power such as China.

notrequired of CA 1:45AM June 27, 2010

Quoting Zuckerman: We must face the hard fact that many of the lost jobs are gone forever. In this cycle, 56 percent of the currently unemployed have permanently lost their jobs, according to Ned Davis Research. These people have lost their jobs because plants have closed, work has moved overseas, or companies have gone out of business. This compares with an earlier peak in 1982 and 1991 of 43 percent.

The loss of manufacturing is the problem and has been occurring since the 1960's. When a people will not purchase the very product they, themselves make. Instead they purchase the same product made in a nation where the worker is paid, between $2.00 to $3.00 a day, somewhere in the future, the manufacturer those people work for has to close its doors and move to the country with the lesser wage. You cannot demand the highest wage with the most benefits in the world and turn around and buy from these countries. All your monies go out of country. Pat, no denials, See it for yourself. What is it, 14 trillion in debt now? Jobs gone, now the wail "Woe is me!".

I told this to the carpenters Union in the late 1960s, and was called Crab Grass. I hear there is virtually no union carpenters in the housing market in Ca. now.

So how do we retrieve jobs? Will it cause a war with China? Will China call in their loans? It is a conundrum. Don't you think.

Jim D Hise of AR 2:26PM January 29, 2010

1. U.S. economists are morons. Let's kill all the economists.

2. In a global free trade environment, jobs flow to China and India, which have 10% of our labor costs.

3. Numbers of legal and illegal immigrants are unparalleled in US history, increasing competition for jobs.

4. It doesn't seem to be in American character to maintain quality like the Japanese and Germans.

5. Manufacturing is derided. Supposedly we're in an "advanced" post-industrial period. In reality, manufacturing IS the high technology sector of the economy, as manufactures and their processes are designed by engineers and scientists, often thousands of them over a period of decades. Compare building a Boeing jetliner, which has required thousands of engineers and inventors to produce over the years, with "information technology," the darling of the media. Putting up a website is really non-mathematical high school level stuff for the most part.

6. Unfortunately manufacturing employs for the most part unskilled production workers, making manufacturing jobs susceptible to being moved to any low wage country.

7. The US was a great innovator in the past, with great inventors like Thomas Edison, ...John Bardeen, Jerome Lemelson. Patents give you about a twenty year headstart in starting and dominating new industries--about the only way to protect yourself from low wage competition is a patent and the frontrunner's advantage in technology. Unfortunately US innovation died about 1970 when cheapo businessmen started making use of Ted Kennedy's chamberpot immigration policies to displace the great R&D teams we had that dominated the world with garbage from the third world. US techs left the field in droves upon seeing the tsunami of immigrants, so that now we are pathetically striving to compete with world class Japanese and German engineers with third worlders doing third world level R&D. A lot of economists and liberal arts people still don't get that it's quality that counts, not quantity, and still call for more and more H-1B's and chamberpot immigrants. Another problem is political correctness. If your highest priority is getting women and minorities into science and engineering, then quality must assume a lower rank. Then worst of all there is "hired-to-invent." Increasing R&D costs gave rise to the employed inventor, and employed R&D people for the most part have no rights to their inventions, and thus no financial incentive to do ought but hack work. Would you invent a transistor if you only got a buck for it? Probably not with any enthusiasm. That's why if you visit a research lab you need to bring a mirror to hold to the lips of the scientists to see if they are engaged in research or may have expired. Reminds me of the decadence of Rome: Tiger Woods gets a billion for hitting a ball, but if you invent a transistor you get a buck.

Linda Re of KY 4:51AM December 09, 2009

advertisement

Debate Club

Was 2011 One of the Worst Years for the U.S. Government in American History?

Experts debate where 2011 ranks among Washington's worst years.

Latest Videos

advertisement

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

IRS, AP and Benghazi Show the Failure of Obama's Big Government

Giving an inefficient organization like the IRS more responsibility makes it more likely to screw up, not better able to solve this nation’s problems.

Coburn Wants Oklahoma Tornado Aid Offset With Budget Cuts

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn wants spending cuts before aid is sent to tornado victims in his own state.

Crowdfunding Zack Braff's Film And Robert Griffin's Gifts Is a Mistake

Rich people don't need donations from the public.

Poll Shows Americans Find Obama's IRS Story Barely Believable

There is still something fishy about the scandal at the IRS.

Do Benghazi, AP and IRS Scandals Reflect Obama’s Leadership Style?

It may be that a flawed leadership style is filtering down to the rest of the government.

In Marine Umbrella Incident, Republicans Still Deny Obama Is President

Umbrellagate is more proof that Obama's critics cannot acknowledge that he is, indeed, president.

Obama Isn't Nixon, but Needs More Friends in Washington

President Barack Obama needs to make more friends in Washington.

Republicans Can't Forget the Economy During Obama Scandals

Scandals provide good fodder for the GOP, but it can't forget about fixing unemployment.