Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Formula shows why it's so hard to cut jobless rate

Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:42 PM EST
business, us, unemployment, gdp
Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer

FILE - In this Jan. 23, 2010 file photo, job applicants fill out forms at a job fair in Santa Clara, Calif. The Federal Reserve and outside economists think it will take until around the middle of the decade to lower the double-digit jobless rate to a more normal 5 or 6 percent. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, File)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The economy's 5.7 percent growth last quarter — the fastest pace since 2003 — was a step toward shrinking the nation's 10 percent unemployment rate.

There's just one problem: Growth would have to equal 5 percent for all of 2010 just to lower the average jobless rate for the year by 1 percentage point.

And economists don't think that's possible.

Most analysts say economic activity will slow to 2.5 percent or 3 percent growth for the current quarter as the benefits fade from government stimulus efforts and from companies drawing down less of their stockpiles.

That's why the Federal Reserve and outside economists think it will take until around the middle of the decade to lower the double-digit jobless rate to a more normal 5 or 6 percent.

Another way of looking at it: A net total of about 3 million jobs would have to be created this year to lower the average unemployment rate by 1 percentage point for 2010, economists estimate. Yet even optimists think the creation of 1 million net jobs is probably out of reach this year.

High unemployment poses a risk to the unfolding recovery because it leads consumers to spend less, keeping economic growth weak. A sharp pullback in spending might even push the economy back into recession. Joblessness also represents a danger for President Barack Obama's Democratic Party in this fall's congressional elections.

The National Association for Business Economics and the International Monetary Fund think gross domestic product will rise just under 3 percent for all of this year. GDP, the best gauge of economic activity, measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States.

To get a sense of just how deep a dent the worst recession since the 1930s has made in the economy, consider this: The economy shrank 2.4 percent for all of 2009 — the sharpest drop since 1946. It was also the first annual decline since 1991.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, and Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock, agree that the economy would have to grow roughly 5 percent for all of 2010 just to ratchet down the average unemployment rate for the year by 1 percentage point — to a still-high 9 percent.

Their math is based on Okun's law, named for economist Arthur Okun. In 1962, Okun produced a formula for the connection he saw between unemployment and economic activity.

Exactly how much GDP growth is needed to lower the unemployment rate for a given period varies. That's because the formula involves several factors besides GDP growth. It also considers, for example, businesses' productivity growth.

When the economy was recovering from the 2001 recession, it took two years to reduce the unemployment rate by nearly a full percentage point: It fell from 6 percent in 2003 to 5.1 percent in 2005. GDP growth averaged just over 3 percent.

Economists say the formula hasn't always held up perfectly in recent decades. Rather, it's relied upon as a rough rule of thumb for determining how much growth will be needed to lower unemployment.

But a near-textbook case occurred in 1976, when the economy expanded at a 5.4 percent pace. As Okun would have predicted, that growth drove down the unemployment rate by nearly a full percentage point: from 8.5 percent in 1975 to 7.7 percent.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Jeannine Aversa's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (9)
Smelly FishDeleted
eriq samson

And yet the ignorance persists

It should be pointed out that the Government sector SHRANK

The point (that wingnuts miss) is that any good news might get consumers buying again and this recession like others is made worse by falling consumer confidence - that has also been rising

The notion that this is a "fluke" is that it is so rare for this big a change; BUSH did real damage to the economy; took us from a surplus and left us a structural deficit that will last for years; which handicaps the efforts to stimulate the economy

Gee thanks, republicans!

  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:07 PM EST
George-369262

"It should be pointed out that the Government sector SHRANK" Not true...

    #2.1 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 3:34 AM EST
    eriq samson

    No true - Gee EVERY version of this report only points that out - that the government sector of the economy shrank -- how is it that you know more than AP, Reuters, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC ....

    Or how is it that your comment is at odds with reality?

    • 1 vote
    #2.2 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 10:19 PM EST
    Reply
    the college of taxable knowledge

    Unemployment.

    1. all or most student jobs will be eliminated when everybody figures out they are negative cash flow.

    2. 10,000 new seniors (seasoned).. aka retired (re-wired) applying for social security a day and a lot of them maintaining part time jobs.. showing up early and leaving late... eliminating the need for additional people.

    3. Peopl have to work.. 40 hours a week considered a full time job ?.. that's 2080 hours.. spending money for 8760 per person in the house hold.. the 2080 goes down to 1800 with sick, vacation, holiday, personal etc.. then down to 1200 when you take off meetings and other underwater basket weaving and hr litigation mitigation and meeting itis in general (add facebook, myspace, twitter, phone, smoke signal and other communication gone wild on the job).. In other words.. don't have to hire anybody.. 50 percent productivity increase still on hold.

    4. Transportation.. when people finally get the drift and reduce their driving by 50 percent this additional time will be available for work to fend off additional global competition.

    more INFO BULLETS available as they develop daily..

    all historical formulas and calculations are obsolete.. the future is history..

    • 1 vote
    Reply#3 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 6:37 AM EST
    Real World Engineer

    People still get to stop work at 40 hrs/wk ?

    What a gravy life, hope they appreciate it.

    • 1 vote
    #3.1 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 1:34 PM EST
    Reply
    the college of taxable knowledge

    Deficits and debt.. Here again .. very misleading.

    When the press talks about debt at the "government".. aka taxpayer level.. they don't mention assets..

    When they talk about Gates etc and personal wealth.. they talk about assets and no accrued liabilities.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#4 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 6:44 AM EST
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
    Newsvine Privacy Statement
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
    FUN STUFF:
    • Leaderboard |
    • E-Mail Alerts |
    • Top of the Vine |
    • Newsvine Live |
    • Newsvine Archives |
    • The Greenhouse
    COMPANY STUFF:
    • Code of Honor |
    • Company Info |
    • Contact Us |
    • Jobs |
    • User Agreement |
    • Privacy Policy |
    • About our ads
    LEGAL STUFF:
    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com