I've published three charts (and numerous commentaries) over the past two months that suggested the U.S. labor market (and the economy more generally) is in worse shape than many on Wall Street, in Washington, and in the media would have us believe.
In "Not So Encouraging," I highlighted the fact that
a relatively sharp deceleration in the rate of productivity growth -- like we've seen recently -- has, except on two occasions over the past five decades, preceded or been associated with a slowdown in the pace of hiring.
In "Divergent Reality," I posited that
there are only two explanations for the incredible divergence we've seen in recent years. Either 1) the payroll data or sentiment readings are highly suspect (as to which is more likely, I would note that only the former is compiled by the U.S. government); or, 2) the quality of the jobs that many people have nowadays is significantly less than it was before the recession "ended."
In "Weak Equals Weak," I noted that
five decades of data suggest ("unexpectedly") weak durable goods orders will soon translate into ("unexpectedly") weak employment conditions.
And yet, despite these and other warning signs, economists were once again surprised by data -- namely, this morning's jobs report -- that was anything but robust.
Tell me again: why are they considered the "experts"?
Michael J. Panzner
