I'm referring to the theory about the worrisome unemployment rate in
the U.S. The theory goes something like this: The unemployment rate --
most recently measured at 9.7% -- remains doggedly high. That means
that folks are out of work and can't shell out for consumer goods like Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) iPods, Starbucks (Nasdaq: SBUX) lattes, and Activision Blizzard (Nasdaq: ATVI) video games.
That, in turn, means that suppliers of intermediate goods like Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) and Qualcomm (Nasdaq: QCOM) see demand fall. Businesses become reluctant to spend, eschewing a big tech upgrade with Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL) or canning that new headquarters that would have benefitted materials producers like Alcoa (NYSE: AA). Companies get worried, lay off workers to "optimize" operations, and the cycle deepens.
Hello, reality -- good to see you
Looking
at history as a guide, though, I found that the unemployment rate --
though easy enough to track and understand -- isn't really a good
measure of what to expect from the economy.
I went ahead and borrowed some data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics to illustrate the relationship. Thanks to the great people
at the National Bureau of Economic Research, I was able to pinpoint the
quarter that the U.S. pulled out of recession in every business cycle
since 1949 and see what the unemployment rate looked like as the
economy bottomed.
|
Quarter / Year
|
Unemployment Rate Previous Quarter
|
Unemployment Rate at Bottom
|
|
Q4 1949
|
6.6%
|
6.6%
|
|
Q2 1954
|
5.7%
|
5.6%
|
|
Q2 1958
|
6.7%
|
7.3%
|
|
Q1 1961
|
6.6%
|
6.9%
|
|
Q4 1970
|
5.4%
|
6.1%
|
|
Q1 1975
|
7.2%
|
8.6%
|
|
Q3 1980
|
7.6%
|
7.5%
|
|
Q4 1982
|
10.1%
|
10.8%
|
|
Q1 1991
|
6.3%
|
6.8%
|
|
Q4 2001
|
5.0%
|
5.7%
|
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics and National Bureau of Economic Research.
As you can see from the table, in nearly every case, the
unemployment rate was rising even as the recession was coming to an
end. In fact, in a number of these cycles, if we look at the quarter
following the recession's end, unemployment stayed the same or even
climbed despite significant economic growth.
What does this say? Well, it certainly speaks poorly of the predictive power of the unemployment rate.
There are plenty of numbers in the sea
Fortunately,
the unemployment rate isn't the only employment-related number that we
can look at when it comes to evaluating the economy's health. There are
actually two numbers that are considered "leading economic indicators"
that we can look at -- initial unemployment claims and the average
workweek.
Initial unemployment claims skyrocketed during the recession,
jumping from a four-week average of 440,000 in early September of last
year to more than 650,000 in early April. The most recent four-week
measure was 570,000, well down from that April high note.
Be forewarned though, even the monthly average for claims tends to
be very volatile and can jump around from week to week and month to
month. But what should be noted is the downward trend that claims have
taken from the early spring.
The average workweek, meanwhile, slid from 33.9 hours in mid-2007 to
a low of 33 hours in June of this year. Preliminary numbers for July
and August show that number at 33.1, a tepid suggestion that this data
point is also moving in the right direction.
Fishing with fairies
Yesterday, my fellow Fool Amanda Kish penned a piece
-- titled "Unemployment: It's Worse Than You Think" -- reviewing the
potential to end up unemployed in this economy and how to fortify your
financial position in case you find yourself in that unenviable
position. Her advice hits the bull's-eye and I think we can all benefit
from her defensive tips.
However, investors sitting on the sidelines
waiting for a green light from the Unemployment Rate Fairy before
putting their cash to work may end up disappointed. Economic recovery
generally seems to be fleet of foot compared to the plodding
unemployment rate, and investors sitting on the bench may be left
wondering how they missed the turn.
© 2009 UCLICK, L.L.C
Post new comment