data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/aec10/aec1000a45da172ef2579a7e109e157de273493c" alt=""
As with the last few weeks, today’s results indicate that initial claims are continuing to trend up a bit while continued claims slowed their descent.
Could we be getting a sneak peak at the trends for this fall?
We are on the verge of realizing the answer to this question and its outcome is probably one of the most important developments of our time.
If firms go for another substantial round of layoffs and job cuts during the fall to early winter (…the typical period of increasing job cutting activity regardless of economic conditions) we could see an unemployment super-spike form whereby two years of significant job cutting activity merge into one large period of unemployment.
Of course there are many ways that the job picture could trend but if firms underestimated their cutting last year and need to cut even deeper this year, it would clearly differentiate this period from most of the past post-WWII recessionary periods.
Clearly, careful attention needs to be paid to these indices to see how they reflect the state of the job market as we move further into the second half of the year.
***
The following chart shows the recent trend in initial non-seasonally adjusted initial jobless claims with the year-over-year percent change acting as a rough equivalent of a seasonally adjustment.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c3002/c30026bd831ab6612aaea15792b6d2accb033202" alt=""
I have added a chart to the lineup which shows “population adjusted” continued claims (ratio of unemployment claims to the non-institutional population) and the unemployment rate since 1967.
Adjusting for the general increase in population tames the continued claims spike down a bit.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4fb01/4fb01610a89ebab8c4f1db258254c9b5e73b64c6" alt=""
As you can see, acceleration to claims generally precedes recessions and vice versa.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9050d/9050d3c1fb09a551fd0d9e56672a2b2c7700c93e" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7536d/7536d57bb96956f7873e3a7950ea0ad7a1956b5e" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d9c68/d9c6828f134d60272ba930d50ffc2c0adcb3d662" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f3cd7/f3cd70c4b1a63d8223e36e921333785dc1bd9e39" alt=""
This flattening period demarks the “mid-cycle slowdown” where for various reasons growth has generally slowed but then resumed with even stronger growth.
Until late 2007, one could make the case (as Fed chief Ben Bernanke surly did) that we were again experiencing simply a mid-cycle slowdown but now those hopes are long gone.
Adding a little more data shows that in the early 2000s we experienced a period of economic growth unlike the past several post-recession periods.
Look at the following chart (click for larger version) showing “initial” and “continued” unemployment claims, the ratio of non-farm payrolls to non-institutional population and single family building permits since 1967.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b5483/b5483120664fb3de5f9c986cf88856f7324d2668" alt=""
Another feature is that housing was apparently buffeted by the response to the last recession, preventing it from fully correcting thus postponing the full and far more severe downturn to today.
It is now completely clear that the potential “mid-cycle” slowdown that appeared to be shaping up in late 2007, had been traded for a less severe downturn in the aftermath of the “dot-com” recession, and now has we have fully entered, instead, a mid-cycle meltdown.