Strict Standards: Declaration of mystique_CategoryWalker::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home3/mmsuser/public_html/wp-content/themes/mystique/lib/core.php on line 71

Strict Standards: Declaration of mystique_CategoryWalker::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home3/mmsuser/public_html/wp-content/themes/mystique/lib/core.php on line 71

Strict Standards: Declaration of mystique_CategoryWalker::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output, $object, $depth = 0, $args = Array, $current_object_id = 0) in /home3/mmsuser/public_html/wp-content/themes/mystique/lib/core.php on line 71

Strict Standards: Declaration of mystique_CategoryWalker::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output, $object, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home3/mmsuser/public_html/wp-content/themes/mystique/lib/core.php on line 71

Strict Standards: Declaration of mystique_PageWalker::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home3/mmsuser/public_html/wp-content/themes/mystique/lib/core.php on line 127

Strict Standards: Declaration of mystique_PageWalker::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home3/mmsuser/public_html/wp-content/themes/mystique/lib/core.php on line 127

Strict Standards: Declaration of mystique_PageWalker::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output, $object, $depth = 0, $args = Array, $current_object_id = 0) in /home3/mmsuser/public_html/wp-content/themes/mystique/lib/core.php on line 127

Strict Standards: Declaration of mystique_PageWalker::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output, $object, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home3/mmsuser/public_html/wp-content/themes/mystique/lib/core.php on line 127
Archive for July 2014 « Page 2

Archive for July, 2014

Outside the Box: Poverty Matters for Capitalists


Having taken Thomas Piketty to the cleaners a few weeks back (see “Gave & Gave … and Hay”), Charles Gave now redresses the balance with regard to the issue of economic inequality in today’s Outside the Box. He makes a forceful case that “poverty matters for capitalists”:

Every US recession that I can recall was preceded by a fall in long rates, and I doubt the next will be much different. As such, do not expect the next US downturn to arise from the Federal Reserve pushing rates higher, an overvalued dollar or even mal-investments. Expect it to result from a decline in the income of the working poor. Early warning signs are likely to show up in the shopping aisles of stores such as Walmart, average driving miles, and the price of houses at the cheaper end of the market. I suspect the lesson that will eventually be learnt is that in a modern industrialized economy there are few worse things a central bank can do than deliberately attack the spending power of the poor.

Charles is clearly tying the economic struggle of the working poor to Federal Reserve policy. As he says, “negative real rates amounts to the Fed imposing a regressive tax on the poor although it lacks the authority to collect taxes.”

Income decline among the least wealthy in US society is not just an economic issue, he asserts:

At a moral level, I would also question the validity of a system that no longer allows its weakest members to get by. This is why I contend that the post-2010 policy of ZIRP has had little to do with protecting the health of the capitalist system, but rather has been a ruse to protect the rich. The policy is not only failing to deliver growth, it is also immoral.

And that income decline has been drastic since 2000, and particularly since 2010. Charles has created what he calls a “Walmart CPI,” which tracks the prices of rent, food, and energy (the things the poor must spend nearly all their income on); and he uses it to demonstrate the effects of negative real rates on the poor. Since 2000 there has been more than a 15% increase in the ratio of the Walmart CPI to standard US CPI.

We can expect this deadly combination of rising prices for necessities and declining incomes to affect the stock market, too, says Charles:

Pretty much every equity bear market in the US over the last 30 years has occurred against the backdrop of the working poor experiencing a decline in living standards (the one exception was 1987 when the market was reacting to over valuation).

Strong stuff. But that’s Charles: never afraid to tell it like he sees it.

I am preparing to leave for Nantucket in a few hours, and I’m looking forward to the trip. I’ve never been there; and not only are my hosts providing very pleasant accommodations along the waterfront, they have also conveniently arranged for the weather to be nearly perfect. I have an iPad full of books that are all begging to be read, and of course a weekly letter will have to be teased out of my computer sometime in the next few days.

Wrapping up, two significant items hit my inbox this morning, including one from Andrew McCreath, who is a host for BNN in Canada. He uses data from my friend Bill Dunkelberg, Chief Economist of the National Federation of Independent Business (who will be visiting me in a few weeks here in Dallas), showing the correlation between certain aspects of the NFIB survey and wages. It will be good news for workers if wage hikes are in the offing, but that means that margins in businesses, which are sky-high right now, will come under pressure. This also plays well into Rosie’s (David Rosenberg’s) theme that we are going to see wage inflation soon, which he visualizes in interestingsa charts. Will this trend finally lead to some talk of interest rate increases? And yet I am told that Ben Bernanke, in his $250,000 speeches, is saying that we will not see much higher rates in his LIFETIME.

Maybe Ben (who is still young enough that “his lifetime” means a VERY long time) was reading David Kotok’s latest note this morning, as David worries a few trout in Wyoming:

Gasoline prices have reached levels that (1) will be sustained for a while in all likelihood and (2) that are, in real terms, equivalent to levels that previously led to economic slowdowns in the US. This development prompted our exit from [an overweight position in the Energy] sector.

In a compelling study, Ned Davis Research examined the real price of gasoline, adjusted for the inflation rate, and its economic impacts. The inflation-adjusted price of gasoline today has reached levels that have historically throttled growth. Furthermore, the Ned Davis study finds that a higher price for gasoline would be the equivalent of a major shock. The research suggests that under either circumstance – current gas prices or prices that surge even higher – the weight on the economy from that adjustment is onerous.

And I just can’t close without this brief, ironic comment. Readers may know that I have neighbors who question my Texas ancestry (which goes back to the Republic, thank you) because I don’t own any guns. I am perfectly content for my friends to have lots of them and feel gun ownership is one of those sacred rights, but I have just never been motivated to build a bunker with an arms locker, or even possess a small pistol. For whatever reason, I feel perfectly safe without one.

With that admission (which some will applaud and others see as a glaring lapse of character), I note that over the 4th of July weekend, there were 82 people shot, 14 fatally, in Chicago.

I read elsewhere that Houston had six shot and two dead over that same period. Chicago, the third-largest city in the US, has no places where you can legally buy a gun. Houston, the fourth-largest US city, has over 500 (including Walmarts, etc., which are not listed as gun stores per se but have rather extensive offerings). Not sure what that means, but you have to wonder.

Have a great week. And enjoy your summer! I know most farmers are, as the weather is perfect for growing all sorts of crops, which look to produce record yields in the US this year.

Your going to be reading about GDP this week analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box


Stay Ahead of the Latest Tech News and Investing Trends…

Click here to sign up for Patrick Cox’s free daily tech news digest.

Each day, you get the three tech news stories with the biggest potential impact.

Poverty Matters for Capitalists

By Charles Gave
GaveKal Dragonomics
July 8, 2014

Inflation is a much misunderstood phenomenon. Most people assume that a CPI rate of 10% means that most prices are rising by a similar amount. In reality, some prices may be falling even while others soar. This matters because price variations affect socio-economic groups in very different ways. The rich tend not to be impacted unduly by price hikes for “necessities” such as food, rent and fuel, while the impact on the poor is to slash that portion of their income left over for discretionary spending.

A sharp rise in the price of staples imposes an effective tax on low earners, resulting in recession conditions for firms that sell to them. The broad picture in the US may be of low interest rates and rising real average incomes, but the poor have seen their real incomes slashed since 2008 and with scant subsequent improvement. The poor also own few assets. Aside from the inequity of such a situation, the macro concern is that the erosion of real incomes creeps up the earning scale so that middle earners eventually see an erosion of living standards. At some point, the decline in activity created by a fall in average incomes will lead to a recession.

I have tested this postulate by building a US inflation index comprised of price variations for oil, food and rent. This can be seen in the chart below where rent is weighted at 50%, food at 30% and energy at 20%. I term this price measure the Walmart Index since it is where most low earners tend to shop. The chart shows the relationship since 1934 between the US CPI and my adapted measure of the price index most relevant to the lives of the least well-off in America.

There is a clear relationship between periods of rising prices for essential items and negative real rates. Such a policy undermines the dollar as a store of value. As a result, investors seek alternatives such as gold, oil and agricultural land (see The High Cost Of Free Money). Boiled down, the impact for low earners is an abnormal rise of the Walmart CPI vs the US CPI. Put another way, negative real rates amounts to the Fed imposing a regressive tax on the poor although it lacks the authority to collect taxes.

The chart below shows the impact of this effective tax hike on household incomes. The actual income of the low income group varies more when measured against the price of necessities rather than the broad CPI.

Looking back, it is clear that America’s working poor did pretty well between 1982 and 2000, and had a bad time in the ensuing period, when real interest rates have, for the most part, been negative.

Next, consider the “acceleration phenomenon”, which we have often used to explain the non-linear dynamics of consumption. We have mostly used this tool to show spending in developing economies experiencing real income growth. Sadly, we now apply the method to the US under reversed conditions. The framework begins with the observation that the propensity to spend on certain goods does not rise smoothly with income, but moves in steps: households just above a certain income threshold are much more likely to buy say, a car, than households just below it; hence the notion of “acceleration”. Our thesis is that significant sections of the US population have stopped consuming certain bigger ticket items. For illustration, the chart below shows the likely impact of a 25% fall in average incomes.

The economic impact

The chart below shows a worrying relationship between the standard of living, as measured by the Walmart CPI, and US recessions.

Going back to 1970 each time the lower income group of Americans experienced a fall in their standard of living for two years or more, the period ended with a recession. This is the inevitable arithmetical outcome from pursuing policies which crimp the incomes of that population cohort most inclined to spend what they earn. At a moral level, I would also question the validity of a system that no longer allows its weakest members to get by. This is why I contend that the post-2010 policy of ZIRP has had little to do with protecting the health of the capitalist system, but rather has been a ruse to protect the rich. The policy is not only failing to deliver growth, it is also immoral.

The stock market impact

Pretty much every equity bear market in the US over the last 30 years has occurred against the backdrop of the working poor experiencing a decline in living standards (the one exception was 1987 when the market was reacting to over valuation).


Every US recession that I can recall was preceded by a fall in long rates and I doubt the next will be much different. As such, do not expect the next US downturn to arise from the Federal Reserve pushing rates higher, an overvalued dollar or even mal-investments. Expect it to result from a decline in the income of the working poor. Early warning signs are likely to show up in the shopping isles of stores such as Walmart, average driving miles, and the price of houses at the cheaper end of the market. I suspect the lesson that will eventually be learnt is that in a modern industrialized economy there are few worse things a central bank can do than deliberately attack the spending power of the poor.

Given the Fed’s asinine policy stance, at least since 2002, it seems likely that the prices of discretionary items bought by the least well off are likely to slip into a protracted decline. Hence, the deflationary tendencies that have been visible for some years are likely to explode during the process of a deflationary contraction. The fact that the price of oil, gas and rents has continued to rise only hardens my conviction in this view.

I make no claim on the timing of this outcome. But the end game for this cycle is surely for US long rates to decline and quality spreads to open massively. My advice would be to maintain a deflation hedge in all portfolios, improve liquidity and boost the quality of both bond and equity holdings.

Like Outside the Box?
Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox.
It’s your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.

Important Disclosures

Thoughts from the Frontline: Central Bank Smackdown


Smackdown: smack·down, ˈsmakˌdoun/, noun, US informal

1.  a bitter contest or confrontation.

“the age-old man versus Nature smackdown”

2.  a decisive or humiliating defeat or setback.

The term “smackdown” was first used by professional wrestler Dwayne Johnson (AKA The Rock) in 1997. Ten years later its use had become so ubiquitous that Merriam-Webster felt compelled to add it to their lexicon. It may be Dwayne Johnson’s enduring contribution to Western civilization, notwithstanding and apart from his roles in The Fast and The Furious movie series. All that said, it is quite the useful word for talking about confrontations that are more for show than actual physical altercations.

And so it is that on a beautiful July 4 weekend we will amuse ourselves by contemplating the serious smackdown that central bankers are visiting upon each other. If the ramifications of their antics were not so serious, they would actually be quite amusing. This week’s shorter than usual letter will explore the implications of the contretemps among the world’s central bankers and take a little dive into yesterday’s generally positive employment report.

BIS: The Opening Riposte

The opening riposte came from the Bank for International Settlements, the “bank for central banks.” In their annual report, released this week, they talked about “euphoric” financial markets that have become detached from reality. They clearly – clearly in central banker-speak, that is – fingered the culprit as the ultralow monetary policies being pursued around the world. These are creating capital markets that are “extraordinarily buoyant.”

The report opens with this line: “A new policy compass is needed to help the global economy step out of the shadow of the Great Financial Crisis. This will involve adjustments to the current policy mix and to policy frameworks with the aim of restoring sustainable and balanced economic growth.”

The Financial Times weighed in with this summary: “Leading central banks should not fall into the trap of raising rates ‘too slowly and too late,’ the BIS said, calling for policy makers to halt the steady rise in debt burdens around the world and embark on reforms to boost productivity. In its annual report, the BIS also warned of the risks brewing in emerging markets, setting out early warning indicators of possible banking crises in a number of jurisdictions, including most notably China.”

“The risk of normalizing too late and too gradually should not be underestimated,” the BIS said in a follow-up statement on Sunday. “Particularly for countries in the late stages of financial booms, the trade-off is now between the risk of bringing forward the downward leg of the cycle and that of suffering a bigger bust later on,” the BIS report said.

The Financial Times noted that the BIS “has been a longstanding sceptic about the benefits of ultra-stimulative monetary and fiscal policies, and its latest intervention reflects mounting concern that the rebound in capital markets and real estate is built on fragile foundations.”

The New York Times delved further into the story:

There is a disappointing element of déjà vu in all this,” Claudio Borio, head of the monetary and economic department at the BIS, said in an interview ahead of Sunday’s release of the report. He described the report “as a call to action.”

The organization said governments should do more to improve the performance of their economies, such as reducing restrictions on hiring and firing. The report also urged banks to raise more capital as a cushion against risk and to speed efforts to deal with past problems. Countries that are growing quickly, like some emerging markets, must be alert to the danger of overheating, the group said.

The signs of financial imbalances are there,” Mr. Borio said. “That’s why we are emphasizing it is important to take further action while the time is still there.”

The B.I.S. report said debt levels in many emerging markets, as well as Switzerland, “are well above the threshold that indicates potential trouble.” (Source: New York Times)

Casual observers will be forgiven if they come away with the impression that the BIS document was seriously influenced by supply-siders and Austrian economists. Someone at the Bank for International Settlements seems to have channeled their inner Hayek. They pointed out that despite the easy monetary policies around the world, investment has remained weak and productivity growth has stagnated. There is even talk of secular (that is, chronic) stagnation. They talk about the need for further capitalization of many banks (which can be read, of European banks). They decry the rise of public and private debt.

Read this from their webpage introduction to the report:

To return to sustainable and balanced growth, policies need to go beyond their traditional focus on the business cycle and take a longer-term perspective – one in which the financial cycle takes centre stage. They need to address head-on the structural deficiencies and resource misallocations masked by strong financial booms and revealed only in the subsequent busts. The only source of lasting prosperity is a stronger supply side. It is essential to move away from debt as the main engine of growth.

“Good policy is less a question of seeking to pump up growth at all costs than of removing the obstacles that hold it back,” the BIS argued in the report, saying the recent upturn in the global economy offers a precious opportunity for reform and that policy needs to become more symmetrical in responding to both booms and busts.

Does “responding to both booms and busts” sound like any central bank in a country near you? No, I thought not. I will admit to being something of a hometown boy. I pull for the local teams and cheered on the US soccer team. But given the chance, based on this BIS document, I would replace my hometown team – the US Federal Reserve High Flyers – with the team from the Bank for International Settlements in Basel in a heartbeat. These guys (almost) restore my faith in the economics profession. It seems there is a bastion of understanding out there, beyond the halls of American academia. Just saying…

Yellen’s Counter-Riposte

On July 2, two days after the release of the BIS report, Janet Yellen took the stage at the IMF conference and basically said (translated into my local Texas patois), “Kiss my grits.” She was having nothing to do with risk and productivity and spent her time defending the low-rate environment she has been fostering in the US. With just a brief hat tip to the fact that monetary policy can contribute to risk-taking by going “too far, thereby contributing to fragility in the financial system,” she proceeded to maintain that monetary policy should “focus primarily on price stability in full employment because the cost to society in terms of deviations from price stability in full employment that would arise would likely be significant.” (You can read the speech here if you have nothing else to do and your recent entertainment options have been limited to watching the microwave cook.)

In other words, Janet has her dual mandate, and the rest of the world can go pound sand. When she did allude to the risk of financial instability, she hastened to say that it was not something that would require a change in monetary policy but would instead call for what she termed a “more robust macroprudential approach.” In fact she used that word macroprudential no fewer than 29 times. For those not fluent in Fedspeak, what she meant is that we can deal with financial instability through increased regulation procedures, whatever the hell that means. Exactly what did macroprudential policy do for us during the last crisis?

Hold that thought as we move on to Mario Draghi, who piled on the next day, as if to reemphasize that the leading central bankers of the world are simply not going to pay any attention to increasing financial instability risk. (Interestingly, the voice recognition software that I use to dictate this letter insists upon transcribing Draghi as druggie. Given what he is pushing, maybe it knows more than the typical software package.)

Immediately following a European Central Bank meeting, Mario gave us the following statement:

The key interest rates will remain at present levels for an extended period … [and] the combination of monetary policy measures decided last month has led to a further easing of the monetary policy stance. The monetary operations to take place over the coming months will add to this accommodation and will support bank lending.

My friend Dennis Gartman summarized the actual meaning of Draghi’s comments quite succinctly:

In other words, European-style quantitative easing is now the course that the Bank shall take. As we understand it … and this is a bit confusing and shall take a while to fully comprehend what the ECB has done and shall be doing … the Bank will be making as much as €1 trillion available to the banks in two early tranches and will make that money available for the next four years as long as the money is being used for direct lending operations.

Mr. Draghi made it clear that the new program is complex and shall take some time for everyone to understand the program but said that he is quite “confident that banks will quickly understand” the program’s details and will embrace it.

My own interpretation is that Mario said, “I’ll see the Fed’s tapering and raise it by €1 trillion.”

Wow! A double-teamed double smackdown! Even The Rock would be impressed.

The Coming Liquidity Crisis

The next crisis is shaping up to look a lot like the last one, just with a different cause. It is going to be a liquidity crisis.

What was the cause of the last crisis? Everybody points to subprime debt, but that was really just a trigger. What happened was that everybody in the financial world became distrustful of everybody else’s balance sheet and so decided to go to cash, but there was so much debt and so much invested in illiquid assets that everybody couldn’t get out of the theater at the same time.

It is happening again today. The intense drive for yield is driving down interest rates and volatility, pushing up assets of all kinds, and setting us up for the same song, second verse of the 2008 crisis.

While I have been hinting around about that possibility for some time, it really crystallized for me this morning as I was reading the latest “Popular Delusions” from Dylan Grice. Let me quote a bit from the opening of his typically brilliant essay:

If the financial market analog to fear is yield, maybe it’s unsurprising that in today’s world of malleable money, specially trained sniffer dogs are required to find a trace of either.

Take Kenya, for example, which recently broke the African record for a sovereign debut. After raising $2 billion for “general budgetary purposes” – infrastructure was mentioned somewhere in the prospectus – and at a rate lower than expected (6.875% for ten-year maturities), Aly-Khan Satchu, a Nairobi-based investment manager, was quoted in the FT: “Kenya’s gotten really, really lucky with the yield…. There’s very strong global demand for African sovereign paper.” A rally in all things Egyptian, triggered by recent elections legitimizing military strongman Abdel Fattah as-Sisia as president, was deemed most bullish for Africa….

Meanwhile, in the corporate credit markets, covenant-lite loans now represent half of all corporate bonds outstanding, according to Barclays. And in ABS land the spread between AAA and subprime auto loans is the narrowest since 2007. “People just have to reach further and further,” says fund manager David Schawel to Bloomberg. “The objective now is to reach a certain yield target instead of feeling good about the underlying credit.”

Credit markets aren’t the only ones blurring the “gross yields” with net expected return, a different thing entirely. The insurance market is caught up in the same mass distortion. Catastrophe bonds, in which the investor loses his entire principal in the event of the specified catastrophe occurring, now trade at the lowest spread to the treasury since 2005, according to Bloomberg, at around 4.7%. The narrative is that it’s worth paying up for their low correlation to other assets, but Warren Buffett, himself no stranger to shrewd bond investments, is steering clear. “If you charge an inadequate premium you will get creamed over time,” he points out.

French ten-year bonds (OATS) are paying 1.7%. Spanish (2.68%) and Italian (2.83%) debt are paying roughly the equivalent of US debt. German debt, at 1.27%, pays less than half of US debt at 2.64%. Somewhere in that equation, sovereign debt is spectacularly mispriced. Rated ten-year corporate bonds are paying between 3% and 3.4%. That is less than a 1% premium for bonds that are only single-A. Seriously?

The life insurance market is creating special-purpose vehicles (SPVs) for offloading their risk that are then guaranteed by the parent company. This is the subject of a very sobering report from the Minnesota branch of the Federal Reserve. Up to 25% of such debt may be subject to self-guarantees, and this debt is getting very high ratings. Whom are we kidding? (This is actually a very serious problem and needs an entire letter devoted to it. There’s just not enough time on a Friday afternoon, with the grill beckoning.)

And we are going to have to deal with a run on everything, very similar to what happened last time, armed only with “macroprudential policy”? Precisely what additional rules are we going to enact? You are not allowed to sell what you own? Except if you say “Mother may I, with sugar on top?” A liquidity crisis cannot be dealt with by means of any regulatory policy I can think of, short of draconian limits on markets – really nasty limits, which sort of undermines the whole concept of a free market. But then, maybe I just have no imagination.

If I could sit down with Chairwoman Yellen and ask her a few questions, chief among them would be: “What can macroprudential policies do in a liquidity crisis brought on by a reach for yield encouraged by your bank? Can you tell me exactly what those policies are?”

There is a bull market in complacency. As Dylan goes on to say, the illusion of central bank control is in full force. And one of the chief ironies is that a bull market can last longer than any of us can reasonably expect – and then end more abruptly than even the most cautious bulls suspect. The St. Louis Fed Financial Stress Index is at its lowest ebb since they began calculating the index. How much lower can it realistically go? The answer is that no one really knows.

I don’t know what the trigger for the next debt crisis will be, but whatever it is, it will result in an even deeper liquidity crisis than we saw in ’08. That is just the nature of the beast.

You need to look into your portfolios, deep into your portfolios, and see what your various investments did back in 2008-09. Then take a deep, long, serious look in the mirror. Ask yourself, “Can I withstand another shock like that?” Do you think you are smart enough to pull the trigger to get out in time? Do you have automatic triggers that will cause you to exit without having to be emotionally involved? Are there illiquid assets in your portfolio that you want to own right on through the next crisis? (Let me note that there are a lot of assets about which you might answer positively, with a full-throated yes, in that regard.) Would you rather be biased to cash today, when cash is in a true bear market and at its lowest value in years, if that cash will give you the buying power to purchase assets at prices that will once again look like 2009’s? Think about how you will feel in the wake of the next crisis, when cash will be king!

You should be thinking of cash not as cash per se, but as an option on future deep-value trades. There are few truisms in the investment world that are really valid, but one of them is that you make your money when you buy. That you sold at a profit is just another way of saying that you were smart to buy when you did. There is going to come a time when buying opportunities are once again going to be all around you.

A Few Thoughts on the Nonfarm Payroll Number

First, this was a continuation of a five-month run of relatively good nonfarm payroll numbers. You can see the GDP recession in the January and February reports which gave us lower payroll numbers. That recession is gone away. There are no wage pressures in the latest report, with earnings rising a meager $0.06 an hour, or the more positive sounding 0.2% y/y. Unemployment fell to 6.1%, but the broader unemployment measure, U-6, barely budged, at 12.4%.

Joan McCullough ran U-6 down for us:

Including this from EPI (Heidi Shierholz) who runs this calculation every month called “Missing Workers”, a/k/a/ those who have dropped off the radar screen for a host of reasons.

June 2014:  *5.98 mil (*roughly half of that number are of prime working age.  Aint’ that grand?  SOS.)

UE Rate if you add those back into the labor force:  9.6%  

Compare that number to the official rate of 6.1% 

Ms. Shierholz also estimates that “even if we saw June’s rate of job growth every month from here on out, we still wouldn’t get back to health in the labor market for another two and a half years.” …

That is still not be enough to take the bloom off the rose, but we should note that buried in the data is something that I’ve noted anecdotally among my own children and their friends (and which Joan again highlighted to me):

Now here’s the big joke of the whole deal:

Employed persons at work part time:

Part time involuntarily                                    +275k

Because hours cut back                                  +72k

Because that’s all they could find                   +111k

Part time voluntarily                                       +840k

That is seriously pathetic and makes me wonder about the Retail adds +40k and the Leisure & Hospitality adds +39k. Low-paying, less than 40 hour a week jobs?  You bet.  Ditto Health care and social assistance, which clocked in with a hefty 33.7k. 

But it also explains why, with 288k bodies added, the average workweek is not budging.  Translation:  they are hiring more workers instead of increasing the hours of existing workers.  Which suggests that maybe this is more of what we have seen already:   the quest to hire part time employees to avoid the benefits baloney.

Use your head.  If we really created 288k jobs.  And 275k folks were made involuntarily part-time, then this suggests that there are still way more candidates than there are openings.

When some of us pointed out, when the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was being debated way back in 2010, that the bill would result in an extraordinarily large number of temporary and part-time workers, we were called delusional and told we were just using that argument to oppose the ACA. It turns out, Mr. Krugman et al., that we were right. An unintended consequence of the ACA is a dramatic increase in part-time employment, especially among young people. There is no disputing this, unless you are willing to ignore the clear data from the BLS.

Precisely when young people are starting their careers and should be able to land “starter jobs” and look forward to establishing themselves, they now have to hold down multiple part-time jobs in order to simply survive. Gods forbid they have a kid or two.

I don’t know when the topic of reform of the ACA will actually be allowed to come up in the House, let alone the Senate. I don’t think there is anyone who thinks the increase in part-time jobs due to the ACA is a good thing. There are at least two or three different ways to fix it, but until both parties are willing to address some seriously needed reforms, we are stuck in a world where our kids will suffer because of the stubbornness of both the Republicans and the Democrats. This is one of those topics where I wish both parties could simply see past the forest to say this particular tree needs to be trimmed, and we will worry about the other trees later when one party gets enough power to adopt some further changes. For now, our kids and those with fewer skills are paying the price.

But it is July 4 as I wrap up this letter, and we are celebrating our independence. From taxation without representation, from overbearing government, from government in some distant locale unconcerned with our local problems and our personal concerns. From a government concerned with its own internal re-election interests rather than with real on-the-ground problems of the people. Sigh.

In any case, it’s time to hit the send button as my family beckons and the grill awaits my magic touch.

Nantucket, New York City, Maine, San Antonio, and China(?)

I leave for Nantucket Island next Wednesday for a private conference. I’ll be there four days and then on to New York City for a little media and lots of meetings, with a few dinners with friends, of course. Then a few weeks later, my youngest son, Trey, and I will head off to Grand Lake Stream, Maine, for our annual fishing trip at Leen’s Lodge and Camp Kotok. This will be our eighth year to attend the gathering and get together with the many old friends who have made this weekend a very special part of their lives. It is hard to believe that Trey was just 12 when we first started going. He has grown up with these guys (and, lately, ladies). I’m sure we will rejoin our traditional fishing duel, which I won for the first time last year (by a rather small fish), but the memories are far more important than the fish.

I’m scheduled to speak at a rather intriguing Casey Research conference up in the Texas Hill Country near San Antonio. It is quite the beautiful venue, and they have a rather remarkable lineup of speakers. I have been a regular there for a few years and enjoy getting to catch up with old friends without having to be responsible for the conference. It is really quite the relaxing time for me, and I actually get to sit down and enjoy some of the other speakers. Join me.

I am thinking about going to China sometime in September or October. I know I have a lot of readers in the region, and I would be interested in meeting key people who can give me insights into what is going on in the country. Drop me a note if you can help.

Sunday night my old friend Tony Sagami arrives in Dallas, and we get to spend the next few days together. I’m sure Tony remembers (he doesn’t ever seem to forget anything) that we met sometime back in the mid-’80s on the conference circuit. We bonded over sushi and sake and have been blood brothers ever since. We have worked together for years on various projects and have seen our careers intertwine, but the real foundation is a true friendship that has stood the test of time and distance, as Tony keeps traveling to parts farther and farther afield. He now resides (more or less) in Bangkok; but Skype, email, and Facebook keep us connected; and we try to get together as often as possible. He is a remarkably good writer and a very astute investment analyst. I have learned a lot from Tony over the years. Ed D’Agostino (President of Mauldin Economics) is flying in the next evening to oversee a video that Tony and I will do together and will make available to you for free in the next few weeks.

As usual, the Mauldin family gathers just a tad bit late, but we all seem to eventually get in one place, sit down, and enjoy a meal with each other. I hope you are going to have a weekend with family and friends as well. I am off to grill steaks, and then we will watch multiple fireworks displays all over the city from the balcony of my high-rise apartment. (Last-minute note: we counted over a dozen major firework events – very cool!) Not quite the same as being right there, but more relaxed and no traffic getting home. You have a great week!

Your still a little kid who loves fireworks analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor