Tuesday, June 19, 2007

What Consumers See Versus What Wall Street Sees

The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released their reports on inflation and real wages for May, along with the usual recap of recent trends for those figures.

Real earnings dropped again for May:

Real average weekly earnings fell by 0.2 percent from April to May after seasonal adjustment, according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. A 0.3 percent increase in both average weekly hours and average hourly earnings was more than offset by a 0.8 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).
...
Average weekly earnings rose by 4.1 percent, seasonally adjusted, from May 2006 to May 2007. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings increased by 1.4 percent.



So why did real wages go down? Because the cost of energy, especially gasoline, and the cost of food, were up significantly according to the Consumer Price Index release:

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.6 percent in May, before seasonal adjustment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. The May level of 207.949 (1982-84=100) was 2.7 percent higher than in May 2006.

...
During the first five months of 2007, the CPI-U rose at a 5.5 percent seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR). This compares with an increase of 2.5 percent for all of 2006. The acceleration thus far this year was due to larger increases in the energy and food components. The index for energy advanced at a 36.0 percent
SAAR in the first five months of 2007 compared with 2.9 percent in 2006. Petroleum-based energy costs increased at a 63.9 percent annual rate and charges for energy services rose at a 6.8 percent annual rate. The food index has increased at a 6.2 percent SAAR thus far this year, following a 2.1 percent rise for all of 2006.
Excluding food and energy, the CPI-U advanced at a 2.1 percent SAAR in the first five months, following a 2.6
percent rise for all of 2006.


A more specific breakdown of inflation over the past three months can help pinpoint the areas really seeing high inflation:

Compound annual 3-month rate of change, ending May:
Energy-------------------70.0
Food and beverages----4.2
Housing------------------2.5
Apparel------------------(-)6.6
Transportation----------30.6
Medical care------------3.3
Recreation----------------.9
Education and
communication---------5.3
Other goods and
services------------------3.0

Special Indexes
Energy-----------------71.0
Food-------------------4.2
All Items less
food and energy------1.6


So the highest rate of cost increase is in energy, followed by education/communication, food, and medical care. Try avoiding those goods and services. In contrast, apparel (a relatively avoidable cost if you're really strapped for cash) is down 6.6%, and discretionary recreation rose less than 1%. Does that make you feel good?

Probably not, and for much the same reason that the NY Times reported on Saturday that:

A closely watched survey by the University of Michigan released yesterday found that consumer confidence this month dropped to the lowest level in 10 months. Americans also now expect significantly higher inflation than they expected a few months ago, the survey said.


Wall Street had a very different reaction, according to the NY Times:

Wall Street barreled higher again yesterday after the week’s most anticipated economic reading indicated that inflation excluding the price of gasoline remained tepid last month, easing some concerns that have jolted stock and bond markets in recent sessions.
...
The three major stock indexes finished the week higher, even as yesterday’s Consumer Price Index showed prices rose at the fastest pace in 20 months in May as the cost of gas jumped. Investors were enthusiastic that the core index, which excludes food and energy prices, rose 0.1 percent. The figure, which the inflation-wary Federal Reserve watches closely, was below the 0.2 percent increase Wall Street expected.


I don't know if the difference between the consumer response and the investor response represents a true disconnect or just a disagreement over the likely future rate of inflation. But as I've said in another post, the rising cost of food--which seems much steeper to me than the official figure from the BLS--is actually changing grocery shopping habits in the area where I live, to the benefit of Aldi's, a discount, bring-your-own-bags German grocery.

I don't think inflation of the essentials of food, medical care, and education will be moderating any time soon. I have real doubts that gas prices will moderate in the long term, and I don't think most Americans have any real alternatives to buying gas, given that most public transportation has been dismantled, and almost all retail shopping of any significance is now unreachable on foot.

Where Did All Those Trumpeted New Jobs Go?

According to the monthly reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the US economy gained a net of almost half a million jobs in the third quarter of 2006. Then BLS issued its aggregate quarterly report earlier this month, titled "BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT DYNAMICS: THIRD QUARTER 2006."

Like magic, most of the new jobs announced in the monthly reports disappeared. Instead of a net gain of almost half a million, BLS says the net gain was 19,000. That's not a type--nineteen thousand. Somewhere around 4% of the previously announced total.

Possibly worse is that the total number of private sector firms dwindled by some 8,000 in the third quarter of 2006--8,000 more businesses dies than were born.

An excerpt of relevant material from the quarterly summary:

Private Sector Establishment-Level Gross Job Gains and Job Losses
Opening and expanding private sector business establishments gained 7.4 million jobs in the third quarter of 2006, a decrease of 397,000 from the previous quarter. Over the third quarter, expanding establishments added 6.0 million jobs, while opening establishments added 1.4 million jobs.

Gross job losses totaled 7.3 million, an increase of 50,000 from the previous quarter. During the quarter, contracting establishments lost 6.0 million jobs, while closing establishments lost 1.3 million jobs. (See tables A, 1, and 3.)

The difference between the number of gross jobs gained and the number of gross jobs lost yielded a net change of 19,000 jobs in the private sector for third quarter 2006.

From June 2006 to September 2006, gross job gains represented 6.5 percent of private sector employment, while gross job losses represented 6.5 percent of private sector employment. (See tables A and 2.) These gross job gain and loss statistics demonstrate that a sizable number of jobs appear and disappear in the relatively short time frame of one quarter.

Number of Establishments Gaining and Losing Employment

Another way to look at the dynamics of business activities is to monitor the number and proportion of business units that are growing and declining. The third quarter of 2006 represented the first quarter where the number of contracting establishments exceeded the number of expanding establishments since the second quarter of 2003. Out of 6.9 million active private-sector establishments, a total of 1,865,000 establishments gained jobs from June 2006 to September 2006. (See table C.) Of these, 1,524,000 were expanding establishments and 341,000 were opening establishments. During the quarter, 1,542,000 establishments contracted and 349,000 establishments closed, resulting in 1,891,000 establishments losing jobs.

Overall, the number of active private sector establishments decreased by 8,000 during the quarter. This change is the difference between the number of opening establishments and the number of closing establishments.


What in the world could cause such a discrepancy between the monthly and quarterly figures? The report in the NY Times notes:
The figures do not cover exactly the same things, as a small proportion of employers — notably railroads and religious organizations — are not covered by unemployment insurance. And Kirk Mueller, a branch chief in the section of the bureau that deals with current employment statistics, said differing seasonal adjustment factors could affect the results.

Nonetheless, the Times piece also states that "Eventually, the monthly numbers will be revised to reflect the results of the quarterly survey." In other words, the quarterly figures will be treated as the final figures.
Nineteen thousand jobs over three months. Around 4% of the previously announced net gain.

Eight thousand more private sector employers going out of business than entering business.

Anyone want to reconsider the state of the economy?