WH: Don’t expect employment growth in 2010
posted at 10:55 am on March 16, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
When OMB Director Peter Orszag, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and economic adviser Christina Romer appear before Congress today to testify on the state of the American economy today, bring the Kleenex. According to prepared remarks released by the White House, they’ll continue weeping over the burden they had in correcting a historic recession as a means to excuse the lack of job creation since taking office. They now say that the US won’t see any significant job creation until at least 2011, and that returning workers will drive the unemployment figures higher later this year:
GDP growth. For GDP, the forecast projects moderate growth of 3.0 percent (on a fourth-quarter-to-fourth-quarter basis) in 2010, followed by somewhat higher growth of 4.3 percent in both 2011 and 2012. Compared with the recoveries from other severe recessions, the projected growth is relatively modest, particularly in 2010. This reflects a combination of factors, including the limitations on monetary policy coming from the fact that interest rates cannot go below zero; the weakened state of households’ and firms’ balance sheets; the continuing caution of households and firms following the searing events of the past two years; and the weak condition of State and local government budgets.
Employment and unemployment. In terms of the labor market, the forecast projects average job growth of about 100,000 per month in 2010, about 200,000 per month in 2011, and about 250,000 per month in 2012. Typically following a recession, we see increases in productivity, temporary employment, and the length of the workweek before employment begins to recover. For the most part, developments in recent months have been following this pattern. Productivity growth has surged; temporary help employment has risen for 5 consecutive months; and the workweek has been generally rising. We expect to begin seeing job gains by sometime this spring.
Because of normal growth in the population and the fact that some workers are likely to reenter the labor force as the economy improves, it typically takes employment growth of somewhat over 100,000 per month to bring the unemployment rate down. Because we do not expect job growth substantially over 100,000 per month over the remainder of the year, we do not expect substantial further declines in unemployment this year. Indeed, the rate may rise slightly over the next few months as some workers return to the labor force, before beginning a steady downward trend. It is also worth noting that the productivity growth we have seen in the last three quarters is the fastest in nearly 50 years. This rapid growth in output per hour has allowed firms to raise production without hiring additional workers. This record pace of productivity growth almost certainly will not be maintained much longer, implying that further increases in output will require additions to the labor force.
Their prediction on unemployment? According to the released remarks, none of them will make a forecast on the unemployment figure for 2010, but the above hints that we’ll see it rise back into double digits in the near future. In 2011, the White House predicts that we’ll finish the year at 8.9%, less than a point below our current standing. By the end of 2012, the trio expects us to be at 7.9% — far above the average for either the Bush or Clinton administrations.
Assuming that they’re not sandbagging by setting expectations low, these numbers will be a disaster for Obama and the Democrats. They still want to blame the Bush administration for the recession, but the recovery is what will concern most Americans. The chart I ran two months ago shows that the US has never taken this long to generate new jobs in any of its post-war recessions:

Furthermore, generating 100,000 new jobs a month (presumably net) may not be enough to keep up with population growth, let alone reduce the unemployment rate. Generally speaking, the economy has to generate somewhere between 100K-125K jobs per month just to maintain pace with new entries into the job market. If the White House predicts that level as an average for 2010, then we’ll definitely head back into double digits, especially as the modest job creation encourages those discouraged workers back into the job pool.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Anyone want to bet against the 2012 GOP nominee reviving and updating Reagan’s signal campaign line of 1980:
“Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. Recovery is when Barack Obama loses his.”
I didn’t think so.
rrpjr on March 16, 2010 at 12:39 PM
And everyone thought that Biden was either stupid or lying when he said the “Stimulus is working better than planned.”
This. Is. Planned.
jukin on March 16, 2010 at 12:50 PM
i agree with jukin. Keeping unemployment up starts wearing down the citizenry, weakening his will to fight. Starving the beast in reverse.
ted c on March 16, 2010 at 12:51 PM
The term “work force”, in this case, is a bit misleading. It includes both those employed and those who, within the prior 4 weeks, either had a job or were actively seeking work.
It is growth in the last part of that number, those seeking work within the prior 4 weeks, that drives up unemployment at the same time the “work force” grows.
steveegg on March 16, 2010 at 1:19 PM
That is why extending unemployment benefits through the end of 2010 is vital for the ‘Rats. Since the chronically-laz…er, chronically-unemployed wait until the last couple weeks of their unemployment run to try and find work, they won’t count as “unemployed” until the end of the year. Moreover, since they’re dependent on the government, they’re more likely to vote for the ‘Rats.
steveegg on March 16, 2010 at 1:22 PM
Traditionally, workforce meant all those available to do work, not just all those currently working.
MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 1:54 PM
To receive unemployment you have to be actively seeking work, so those on unemployment are automatically counted. It is when they fall off of unemployment that they stop being counted in the “official” figures.
MarkTheGreat on March 16, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Don’t expect job growth in 2011, or 2012 either. Since Barry wouldn’t be around after 2012, things will get better.
GarandFan on March 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM
Hopey Changey
leadership by democrats
bluegrass on March 16, 2010 at 3:52 PM
It’s a quagmire! (stolen from gatewaypundit)
QUAGMIRE. How will the MSM explain that Obama & Democrat majority have FAILED to stop the job loss? How can they pretend not to notice Obama promised to pivot to JOBS in JANUARY?
I don’t want the ones who made the mess do all the talking, grab a mop….
TN Mom on March 16, 2010 at 4:01 PM
Voters to Dhims: Don’t expect to be the majority party in either house after November 2
ya2daup on March 16, 2010 at 4:41 PM
After one has used up ones original 26 weeks. People beyond that are put into another category. Some of those still show up in the U6 number on table 15 of the BLS report, but one gets dropped off that at some point after the first extension. At that point one is classified a discouraged worker.
They keep changing how the U6 is calculated as well. Last year up until November it included everyone collecting past the 26 weeks. Thats how they are able to lower the unemployment number despite the fact that the hard count of people who like actually do not have a job keeps INCREASING.
They also don’t count people who take part time jobs because unemployment doesn’t pay enough for them to live on.
dogsoldier on March 16, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2