http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082403533.html?referrer=emailarticle
***************
"If you don't live it, it won't come out of your horn." (Charlie Parker - Musician)
***************
Here's a quote from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board today: "With the exception of temporary bubbles caused by reckless monetary policy, rising home prices are merely a symptom of a vibrant economy, not a cause. The true cause of economic growth and higher living standards is rising productivity, which occurs when societies wisely invest in many things, such as new technologies and new ways of doing business. Housing is just one of those things. Setting as a goal the maintenance of high levels of investment in housing has obvious political appeal, but it's junk economics for a nation that wants to innovate and grow."
This is from an editorial that was occasioned by the reports just out on sales of previously built single-family homes indicating that they dropped 27.2% from June and 25.5% from the same time a year ago.
One of the economists quoted in the Post article we've attached refers to that data as so outside the statistical norm that it took even the most pessimistic economists by surprise. That same economist went on to point out that part of the reason home sales are collapsing is because prices are not low enough to clear the market.
Given that a 5 to 6 month supply of homes is the "norm" in the market, it would take 12.5 months to sell all homes available at the current sales pace.
So, we're back to that old "lagging indicator": JOBS. We've pointed out before that, until jobs come back, there is no recovery. This includes housing. There's a big inventory out there that's not getting sold.
Today, Catherine Rampell points out to us that "New Home Sales" (NY Times Economix Blog) were at their lowest level in July since the government began keeping track in 1963. If you go to the site and look at the seasonally adjusted trend line for new home sales, it looks like the sales volume has gone off a cliff! This is not "recovery."
Macroeconomic Advisers, a respected forecaster, has lowered their third quarter GDP forecast to 1.7% after having had their estimate at 2.1% as recently as Tuesday of this week.
If we could draw a trend line thru the lowered ("adjusted") GDP forecasts throughout this year, we should probably hit zero in time for December. We noted with interest today that a Republican had called for the resignation of the President's Economic Council members. We assume that person thinks such a move will fix the problem (does this mean that, if we just put a few Republicans on the "Economic Council", that GDP will suddenly go up?). One of the "members," Christina Romer (Chairwoman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers), has already resigned.
What will fix the problem is jobs and jobs will come with capital investment which is on the sidelines waiting. Other big money (like Private Equity) is also on the sidelines waiting. Ask a Top 500 CEO why capital investment is on the sidelines "waiting." The answer you get will probably involve an unsure regulatory and tax environment.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
High School Graduation Rates
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/opinion/21herbert.html?th&emc=th
***************
"Leadership is seeing opportunity in tough times." (Jack Welsh)
***************
Just as we post something on the fact that we're losing teachers, Bob Herbert comes along and tells us that the on-time high school graduation rate for black males in 2008 was 47%. That same rate in New York City was 28%.
The U6 (all in) unemployment rate has stayed at roughly 17% so there are no jobs out there and less jobs for those who haven't graduated from high school. But wait, we didn't have enough teachers (and even less good teachers) before and now we have less teachers.
Herbert on the issue: "Education in the broadest sense is the key to stopping this socioeconomic slide that is taking such a horrific toll in the black community. People have to understand what is happening to them before they can really do much about it. Young blacks who have taken a wrong road ... have to be shown a feasible legitimate alternative."
That alternative is jobs. New government data this week showed that U.S. manufacturing activity grew in July at the fastest pace in nearly a year. Auto plants, including GM's award winning Arlington, Texas SUV plant, stayed open when they normally close for summer renovations. Unfortunately, the figures on housing were not encouraging. Builders continue to struggle with weak demand for new homes caused by high unemployment and a glut of foreclosed homes on the market
Mark Zandi, chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, is a very much "listened to" voice in Washington and in top business circles. His opinion on what's going on right now is that he's raised his odds of a double-dip recession from one-in-five to one-in-four. However; his forecasts for 2011 and 2012 are more upbeat. He predicts real GDP will rise 4% in 2011 and 5% in 2012 (K@W 7/27/10). His most fundamental reason for optimism is strong corporate earnings with companies sitting on a great deal of cash. Zandi sees small businesses continuing to struggle but large and mid-sized firms driving new expansion in the next six to twelve months.
We hope he's right.
***************
"Leadership is seeing opportunity in tough times." (Jack Welsh)
***************
Just as we post something on the fact that we're losing teachers, Bob Herbert comes along and tells us that the on-time high school graduation rate for black males in 2008 was 47%. That same rate in New York City was 28%.
The U6 (all in) unemployment rate has stayed at roughly 17% so there are no jobs out there and less jobs for those who haven't graduated from high school. But wait, we didn't have enough teachers (and even less good teachers) before and now we have less teachers.
Herbert on the issue: "Education in the broadest sense is the key to stopping this socioeconomic slide that is taking such a horrific toll in the black community. People have to understand what is happening to them before they can really do much about it. Young blacks who have taken a wrong road ... have to be shown a feasible legitimate alternative."
That alternative is jobs. New government data this week showed that U.S. manufacturing activity grew in July at the fastest pace in nearly a year. Auto plants, including GM's award winning Arlington, Texas SUV plant, stayed open when they normally close for summer renovations. Unfortunately, the figures on housing were not encouraging. Builders continue to struggle with weak demand for new homes caused by high unemployment and a glut of foreclosed homes on the market
Mark Zandi, chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, is a very much "listened to" voice in Washington and in top business circles. His opinion on what's going on right now is that he's raised his odds of a double-dip recession from one-in-five to one-in-four. However; his forecasts for 2011 and 2012 are more upbeat. He predicts real GDP will rise 4% in 2011 and 5% in 2012 (K@W 7/27/10). His most fundamental reason for optimism is strong corporate earnings with companies sitting on a great deal of cash. Zandi sees small businesses continuing to struggle but large and mid-sized firms driving new expansion in the next six to twelve months.
We hope he's right.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Pay Satisfaction & Teacher's Jobs
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/more-americans-are-completely-satisfied-with-their-pay/?emc=eta1
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/business/economy/18teachers.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
***************
"True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever the cost." (Arthur Ashe)
***************
Based on Cathrine Rampell's 8/19 "Economix" post, just about a third of U.S. workers are "completely satisfied" with the amount of money they earn (Gallup poll). That's as high as it's been over the last 20 years. Looking at the trend line, that same data was as low as 13% in 1992.
Obviously, these numbers correlate with the difficulty of finding alternative employment (or, in many cases, "any" employment) today.
Which brings us to "teachers." Great teachers are a wonderful experience and a gift to us. But all teachers are there to help and we're loosing them to "pink slips" being handed out in cities and towns because of a loss of tax receipts from those who are now unemployed. The "stimulus" money that Warren Buffet and Paul Krugman said was not enough was, indeed, NOT ENOUGH.
As Motoko Rich says in the Times article we've attached, the states pleaded for money from Washington and the federal government has come thru with $10 billion. But, some of the biggest U.S. school districts are "balking" at using their share of the money to hire teachers right away - teachers that have been laid off.
Why?
Well, the arguement goes like this: with the economic outlook weakening (or, as our Fed chairman put it recently, "unusually uncertain"), big deficits are looming for the next academic year and they need to preserve the funds to prevent future layoffs. Los Angeles is projecting a $280 million budget shortfall next year that could threaten more jobs.
The Los Angeles Unified School District laid off 682 teachers and counselors plus 2,000 support workers this spring and was not sure it could hire any of them back with the stimulus money. The district says it could be forced to cut 4,500 more people next year.
In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg committed to no teacher layoffs this year in exchange for not offering raises. This, based on already taking federal aid into account.
The $26 billion federal aid package, signed by President Obama on 8/10, allocates $10 billion for school districts to retain or rehire teachers and all support personnel. The rest is for health care for the poor, emergency personnel and other state purposes.
State and local governments have let go 102,000 more employees than they've added in the last three months. It doesn't look like the $10 billion allocated to help rehire teachers is reversing the tide.
Teachers who spent the summer in limbo are painfully aware that at best, the new federal aid may be a temporary lifeline. What's going to happen next year?
We have worried for years about the quality of America's educational system - now we don't even have enough teachers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/business/economy/18teachers.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
***************
"True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever the cost." (Arthur Ashe)
***************
Based on Cathrine Rampell's 8/19 "Economix" post, just about a third of U.S. workers are "completely satisfied" with the amount of money they earn (Gallup poll). That's as high as it's been over the last 20 years. Looking at the trend line, that same data was as low as 13% in 1992.
Obviously, these numbers correlate with the difficulty of finding alternative employment (or, in many cases, "any" employment) today.
Which brings us to "teachers." Great teachers are a wonderful experience and a gift to us. But all teachers are there to help and we're loosing them to "pink slips" being handed out in cities and towns because of a loss of tax receipts from those who are now unemployed. The "stimulus" money that Warren Buffet and Paul Krugman said was not enough was, indeed, NOT ENOUGH.
As Motoko Rich says in the Times article we've attached, the states pleaded for money from Washington and the federal government has come thru with $10 billion. But, some of the biggest U.S. school districts are "balking" at using their share of the money to hire teachers right away - teachers that have been laid off.
Why?
Well, the arguement goes like this: with the economic outlook weakening (or, as our Fed chairman put it recently, "unusually uncertain"), big deficits are looming for the next academic year and they need to preserve the funds to prevent future layoffs. Los Angeles is projecting a $280 million budget shortfall next year that could threaten more jobs.
The Los Angeles Unified School District laid off 682 teachers and counselors plus 2,000 support workers this spring and was not sure it could hire any of them back with the stimulus money. The district says it could be forced to cut 4,500 more people next year.
In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg committed to no teacher layoffs this year in exchange for not offering raises. This, based on already taking federal aid into account.
The $26 billion federal aid package, signed by President Obama on 8/10, allocates $10 billion for school districts to retain or rehire teachers and all support personnel. The rest is for health care for the poor, emergency personnel and other state purposes.
State and local governments have let go 102,000 more employees than they've added in the last three months. It doesn't look like the $10 billion allocated to help rehire teachers is reversing the tide.
Teachers who spent the summer in limbo are painfully aware that at best, the new federal aid may be a temporary lifeline. What's going to happen next year?
We have worried for years about the quality of America's educational system - now we don't even have enough teachers.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
"Girly Jobs"
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/why-girly-jobs-dont-pay/?emc=eta1
***************
"Sometimes it's not how hard you row the boat. It's how fast the stream is going."
(Warren Buffet)
***************
Nancy Folbre is an economics professor at UMASS and writes for the "Economix" blog at the NY Times. Her 8/16 post, "Why Girly Jobs Don't Pay Well," ponders the issue of lower pay for women from the point of view of the occupations that they choose and the real worth of those occupations. So, a kindergarten teacher would be worth $320,000 annually, reflecting the present value of the additional money that a really good kindergarten class can expect to earn over their careers.
Whether or not those of us who know a little something about "pay" think that Folbre's position on the "value" of a job is reasonable, it is interesting to see the reactions of some of her readers. One of them occupies a girly job now but only feels she's been able to do that because she's been married to someone for 35 years who occupies a non-girly job. This same person feels that, with divorce on the rise, these kinds of choices may not be there in the future.
Folbre goes on to point out that, though women now average higher levels of educational attainment than men, many continue to enter occupations dominated by women where wages are relatively low. Again, Folbre: "As one online discussion of girly jobs explains, some women may just like these jobs despite the low pay ... And sometimes women don't choose girly jobs, but end up in them because they face discrimination or harassment in other jobs."
Further, in an observation that it would be difficult to refute, Folbre points out that many of the best paying girly jobs - the professional jobs in health care and education that highly educated women are rapidly moving into - are heavily subsidized by the public sector.
She concludes with a classic statement: "We need to figure out how to honor girly values while earning manly pay."
That's well put but, overall, much of pay is a supply/demand equation. It's hard to change that.
***************
"Sometimes it's not how hard you row the boat. It's how fast the stream is going."
(Warren Buffet)
***************
Nancy Folbre is an economics professor at UMASS and writes for the "Economix" blog at the NY Times. Her 8/16 post, "Why Girly Jobs Don't Pay Well," ponders the issue of lower pay for women from the point of view of the occupations that they choose and the real worth of those occupations. So, a kindergarten teacher would be worth $320,000 annually, reflecting the present value of the additional money that a really good kindergarten class can expect to earn over their careers.
Whether or not those of us who know a little something about "pay" think that Folbre's position on the "value" of a job is reasonable, it is interesting to see the reactions of some of her readers. One of them occupies a girly job now but only feels she's been able to do that because she's been married to someone for 35 years who occupies a non-girly job. This same person feels that, with divorce on the rise, these kinds of choices may not be there in the future.
Folbre goes on to point out that, though women now average higher levels of educational attainment than men, many continue to enter occupations dominated by women where wages are relatively low. Again, Folbre: "As one online discussion of girly jobs explains, some women may just like these jobs despite the low pay ... And sometimes women don't choose girly jobs, but end up in them because they face discrimination or harassment in other jobs."
Further, in an observation that it would be difficult to refute, Folbre points out that many of the best paying girly jobs - the professional jobs in health care and education that highly educated women are rapidly moving into - are heavily subsidized by the public sector.
She concludes with a classic statement: "We need to figure out how to honor girly values while earning manly pay."
That's well put but, overall, much of pay is a supply/demand equation. It's hard to change that.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
HP: The Gift That Keeps On Giving
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/business/14nocera.html?emc=eta1
***************
"The selfish leader will attempt to lead others for their own gain and for the detriment of others."
(Tom Peters)
***************
As is always the case in these situations (Mark Hurd's exit from HP), the "facts" begin to leak out and this time Joe Nocera has put many of those facts together to draw the messy picture that continues to be the top job at HP.
We continue to enjoy the "soap opera" that is HP and chronicle the lessons of what to do and NOT DO in managing effectively. Again, HP provides proof that great management in the middle of an organization can carry that organization if things are a mess at the top.
Back to Joe Nocera: "The resignation of Mark V. Hurd last week from his seemingly secure post as chief executive of HP has got to be one of the great head-scratchers in recent times ... Here's a guy who walked into a very troubled situation, replacing Carlton S. "It's All About Me" Fiorina, and oversaw what appears to be a magnificent turnaround. In his five years at HP, every metric Wall Street uses to judge companies had gone in only one direction: up."
More Nocera: "Its 2009 revenue was $115 billion, up from $80 billion when he took over. Four years ago, HP (passed) IBM in revenue, making it the country's biggest technology company. It's average annual 18% profit increases were remarkable given the company's mammoth size. And, the stock price more than doubled on Hurd's watch."
Nocera characterizes Cathie Lesjack, the HP CFO and temporary replacement for Hurd, as going out of her way to "diss" him in her press release. Since we haven't seen the press release (and have no interest), we'll take Nocera's word for it. What interests us more is that Nocera connects the attitude that Lesjack puts forth with the attitude of HP staff at every level.
Why Hurd is leaving relates to that. Nocera points out that the "board" cleared Hurd of "sexual harassment" charges but a spokesperson pointed out that the "relationship" was a "conflict." We're confused. So, then there were the "fudged" expense reports - ethically a problem, but proof of "fudging" is sometimes difficult and many times fixable by repayment and a wrist slap. So, as Nocera says, what's up here?
Nocera: "Mr. Hurd's supposed peccadilloes were a smoke screen for the real reason they got rid of an executive they didn't trust and employees didn't like ... Mr. Hurd's sudden departure from HP can be traced, in truth, to the last time the HP board did something shameful. This was the infamous "pretexting" scandal, which burst into public view about a year and a half into Mr. Hurd's tenure. The essential allegation was that the company, led by board chairwoman, Patricia C. Dunn, had gone way over the line in investigating a series of damaging leaks, including hiring investigators who used false pretenses to obtain phone records of people suspected of being the "leakers" (including board members) ... According to "The Big Lie: Spying, Scandal and Ethical Collapse at Hewlett-Packard,"... Mr. Hurd was very involved in HP's efforts to hunt down the leakers. But, when the whole process became public, Thomas Perkins, a prominent board member, skewed the situation to make it look like Hurd was not involved." The book concluded that Hurd lacked the moral character to be CEO.
Nocera again: "Then there were the company's employees. The consensus in Silicon Valley is that Mr. Hurd was despised at HP, not just by the rank and file, but even by HP's top executives. (Perhaps this explains why Ms. Lesjack was so quick to denigrate him once she took over.) "He was a cost-cutter who indulged himself," was one description I heard. His combined compensation for just his last two years was more than $72 million - a number that absolutely outraged employees since their jobs were the ones being cut."
Nocera's data from employees and former employees is so "juicy" that it's hard to choose what to include here but all of it proves the case. HP's R&D budget (something it has always been known for) was 9% of revenue - now it's 2%. Where do the new products come from?
A good Hurd summary would be from one former employee, Charles House, a longtime HP engineer who now runs a research program at Stanford University, Hurd was " ... incredibly demeaning and relied on the fear factor. He was wrecking our image, personally demeaning us and chopping our future."
As Nocera points out, are any of these firing offenses? Probably not. Especially when the short term profits are exceptional, you've bought EDS (while deciding to get rid of 25,000 people in order to pay for it - does that bother anybody?), and you've passed IBM in revenues.
But, again quoting Nocera, "... just whip up a personal scandal - make sure it has a little sex in it - then you can get rid of your failed leader on the grounds that he "violated company standards."
The best perspective from a management point of view is how Nocera ends his article (in my view: a classic): "One thing I found surprising this week was learning that to many HP observers Ms. Fiorina no longer seemed quite so bad. It was actually her strategic vision that Mr. Hurd had executed, I heard again and again. Her problem was that while she talked a good game, she lacked the skill to get that big, hulking, aircraft carrier of a company moving in the direction she pointed. Mr. Hurd was a brilliant operational executive, but had the strategic sense of a gnat, and only knew how to cut costs ... What HP needs next ... is someone with Carly's strategic sense, Mark's operational skills, and Lew's emotional intelligence." (Lewis E. Platt preceded Ms. Fiorina as CEO)
Meanwhile, the HP ship moves on. CEOs come and go but outstanding management in middle is a priceless commodity. When Hurd bought EDS, he simply gave it to Anne Livermore who has been on Fortune's list of the Top 50 Women in Business for years. Livermore has survived Platt, Fiorina, Hurd and members of the board who felt she could be replaced over the years. She, and her people simply move on. A lesson for all of us. A lesson probably lost on the HP board.
***************
"The selfish leader will attempt to lead others for their own gain and for the detriment of others."
(Tom Peters)
***************
As is always the case in these situations (Mark Hurd's exit from HP), the "facts" begin to leak out and this time Joe Nocera has put many of those facts together to draw the messy picture that continues to be the top job at HP.
We continue to enjoy the "soap opera" that is HP and chronicle the lessons of what to do and NOT DO in managing effectively. Again, HP provides proof that great management in the middle of an organization can carry that organization if things are a mess at the top.
Back to Joe Nocera: "The resignation of Mark V. Hurd last week from his seemingly secure post as chief executive of HP has got to be one of the great head-scratchers in recent times ... Here's a guy who walked into a very troubled situation, replacing Carlton S. "It's All About Me" Fiorina, and oversaw what appears to be a magnificent turnaround. In his five years at HP, every metric Wall Street uses to judge companies had gone in only one direction: up."
More Nocera: "Its 2009 revenue was $115 billion, up from $80 billion when he took over. Four years ago, HP (passed) IBM in revenue, making it the country's biggest technology company. It's average annual 18% profit increases were remarkable given the company's mammoth size. And, the stock price more than doubled on Hurd's watch."
Nocera characterizes Cathie Lesjack, the HP CFO and temporary replacement for Hurd, as going out of her way to "diss" him in her press release. Since we haven't seen the press release (and have no interest), we'll take Nocera's word for it. What interests us more is that Nocera connects the attitude that Lesjack puts forth with the attitude of HP staff at every level.
Why Hurd is leaving relates to that. Nocera points out that the "board" cleared Hurd of "sexual harassment" charges but a spokesperson pointed out that the "relationship" was a "conflict." We're confused. So, then there were the "fudged" expense reports - ethically a problem, but proof of "fudging" is sometimes difficult and many times fixable by repayment and a wrist slap. So, as Nocera says, what's up here?
Nocera: "Mr. Hurd's supposed peccadilloes were a smoke screen for the real reason they got rid of an executive they didn't trust and employees didn't like ... Mr. Hurd's sudden departure from HP can be traced, in truth, to the last time the HP board did something shameful. This was the infamous "pretexting" scandal, which burst into public view about a year and a half into Mr. Hurd's tenure. The essential allegation was that the company, led by board chairwoman, Patricia C. Dunn, had gone way over the line in investigating a series of damaging leaks, including hiring investigators who used false pretenses to obtain phone records of people suspected of being the "leakers" (including board members) ... According to "The Big Lie: Spying, Scandal and Ethical Collapse at Hewlett-Packard,"... Mr. Hurd was very involved in HP's efforts to hunt down the leakers. But, when the whole process became public, Thomas Perkins, a prominent board member, skewed the situation to make it look like Hurd was not involved." The book concluded that Hurd lacked the moral character to be CEO.
Nocera again: "Then there were the company's employees. The consensus in Silicon Valley is that Mr. Hurd was despised at HP, not just by the rank and file, but even by HP's top executives. (Perhaps this explains why Ms. Lesjack was so quick to denigrate him once she took over.) "He was a cost-cutter who indulged himself," was one description I heard. His combined compensation for just his last two years was more than $72 million - a number that absolutely outraged employees since their jobs were the ones being cut."
Nocera's data from employees and former employees is so "juicy" that it's hard to choose what to include here but all of it proves the case. HP's R&D budget (something it has always been known for) was 9% of revenue - now it's 2%. Where do the new products come from?
A good Hurd summary would be from one former employee, Charles House, a longtime HP engineer who now runs a research program at Stanford University, Hurd was " ... incredibly demeaning and relied on the fear factor. He was wrecking our image, personally demeaning us and chopping our future."
As Nocera points out, are any of these firing offenses? Probably not. Especially when the short term profits are exceptional, you've bought EDS (while deciding to get rid of 25,000 people in order to pay for it - does that bother anybody?), and you've passed IBM in revenues.
But, again quoting Nocera, "... just whip up a personal scandal - make sure it has a little sex in it - then you can get rid of your failed leader on the grounds that he "violated company standards."
The best perspective from a management point of view is how Nocera ends his article (in my view: a classic): "One thing I found surprising this week was learning that to many HP observers Ms. Fiorina no longer seemed quite so bad. It was actually her strategic vision that Mr. Hurd had executed, I heard again and again. Her problem was that while she talked a good game, she lacked the skill to get that big, hulking, aircraft carrier of a company moving in the direction she pointed. Mr. Hurd was a brilliant operational executive, but had the strategic sense of a gnat, and only knew how to cut costs ... What HP needs next ... is someone with Carly's strategic sense, Mark's operational skills, and Lew's emotional intelligence." (Lewis E. Platt preceded Ms. Fiorina as CEO)
Meanwhile, the HP ship moves on. CEOs come and go but outstanding management in middle is a priceless commodity. When Hurd bought EDS, he simply gave it to Anne Livermore who has been on Fortune's list of the Top 50 Women in Business for years. Livermore has survived Platt, Fiorina, Hurd and members of the board who felt she could be replaced over the years. She, and her people simply move on. A lesson for all of us. A lesson probably lost on the HP board.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Peggy Noonan On Manners
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425983109795768.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion
***************
"We aren't in the coffee business, serving people. We're in the people business, serving coffee."
(Nabi Saleh)
***************
We are all now part of the great American "service economy" and I'm not sure we're used to it. That may, in part, be a generational observation but today's post by Peggy Noonan in her "Declarations" column gives me hope that I'm not alone.
First, a quick note about WSJ.com. These are people who may not know we're in a service economy now, but I digress. I've attached Peggy Noonan's article but I have no "surity" that those of you reading this will be able to click on it. That's because, even though I pay for my WSJ subscription, and I gain nothing monetarily for my blog posts, WSJ seems to feel obligated not to let me attach articles - some lawyer can probably explain that to me. Noonan's article is: "We Pay Them to be Rude to Us (In the service economy, all of us want to take the chute)", WSJ.com, Peggy Noonan, DECLARATIONS, 8/13/10 (OMG! Friday the 13th!).
JetBlue is an airline created by a team of refugees from Southwest Airlines and its initial success was essentially based on transplanting the Southwest culture to a "start up" while buying/leasing newer larger planes with TVs in the backs of the seats (I simplify, but not too much).
Now, the airline industry is what Warren Buffet calls a "Big Lousy Business" (BLB). And, as Buffet often explains, when an outstanding management team takes on a BLB, no matter how good that team is, it's the BLB that wins.
Back to JetBlue. Steven Slater, the flight attendant that got fed up and slid down the chute, was probably fed up with more than just his passengers. While I'm sure Fortune (or some other business magazine) could explain what JetBlue is doing in terms of making money, the BLB that JetBlue is a part of, sucks (that's a business term). So, policies (especially as they relate to costs) can cause employees to get less support, perhaps, than they feel they deserve. Here, I think of American Airlines announcing a few years back that they are eliminating free "pillows" so that they can save $350,000 per year. While I'm unaware of Steven's situation at JetBlue, it would not surprise me to learn that their flight attendants are getting less support than they think they need.
Back to Peggy Noonan. She points out in her post today that Steven's story is a "cultural story." To quote Noonan: "American culture is, one way or another, a business culture and our business is service." She goes on: "Once we were a great industrial nation. Now we are a service economy. Which means we are forced to interact with each other, every day, in person and by phone and email. And it's making us all a little mad ... We interact so much, we wear each other down."
Noonan's perspective is that over the past 30 years, as we shifted from an industrial economy to a service economy, "manners" became too fancy, or too sexist, or ageist or reflective of class biases. She's right and she articulates her point well.
So, everyone is getting on everyone else's nerves! And, in this economy, "Everyone understands why Steven took the chute!"
One other thing: if you landed from another planet and you needed an explanation of the American culture, Peggy Noonan would be the person to talk to. She's that good!
***************
"We aren't in the coffee business, serving people. We're in the people business, serving coffee."
(Nabi Saleh)
***************
We are all now part of the great American "service economy" and I'm not sure we're used to it. That may, in part, be a generational observation but today's post by Peggy Noonan in her "Declarations" column gives me hope that I'm not alone.
First, a quick note about WSJ.com. These are people who may not know we're in a service economy now, but I digress. I've attached Peggy Noonan's article but I have no "surity" that those of you reading this will be able to click on it. That's because, even though I pay for my WSJ subscription, and I gain nothing monetarily for my blog posts, WSJ seems to feel obligated not to let me attach articles - some lawyer can probably explain that to me. Noonan's article is: "We Pay Them to be Rude to Us (In the service economy, all of us want to take the chute)", WSJ.com, Peggy Noonan, DECLARATIONS, 8/13/10 (OMG! Friday the 13th!).
JetBlue is an airline created by a team of refugees from Southwest Airlines and its initial success was essentially based on transplanting the Southwest culture to a "start up" while buying/leasing newer larger planes with TVs in the backs of the seats (I simplify, but not too much).
Now, the airline industry is what Warren Buffet calls a "Big Lousy Business" (BLB). And, as Buffet often explains, when an outstanding management team takes on a BLB, no matter how good that team is, it's the BLB that wins.
Back to JetBlue. Steven Slater, the flight attendant that got fed up and slid down the chute, was probably fed up with more than just his passengers. While I'm sure Fortune (or some other business magazine) could explain what JetBlue is doing in terms of making money, the BLB that JetBlue is a part of, sucks (that's a business term). So, policies (especially as they relate to costs) can cause employees to get less support, perhaps, than they feel they deserve. Here, I think of American Airlines announcing a few years back that they are eliminating free "pillows" so that they can save $350,000 per year. While I'm unaware of Steven's situation at JetBlue, it would not surprise me to learn that their flight attendants are getting less support than they think they need.
Back to Peggy Noonan. She points out in her post today that Steven's story is a "cultural story." To quote Noonan: "American culture is, one way or another, a business culture and our business is service." She goes on: "Once we were a great industrial nation. Now we are a service economy. Which means we are forced to interact with each other, every day, in person and by phone and email. And it's making us all a little mad ... We interact so much, we wear each other down."
Noonan's perspective is that over the past 30 years, as we shifted from an industrial economy to a service economy, "manners" became too fancy, or too sexist, or ageist or reflective of class biases. She's right and she articulates her point well.
So, everyone is getting on everyone else's nerves! And, in this economy, "Everyone understands why Steven took the chute!"
One other thing: if you landed from another planet and you needed an explanation of the American culture, Peggy Noonan would be the person to talk to. She's that good!
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
What Would Reagan Do?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinion/10herbert.html?th&emc=th
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09krugman.html?emc=eta1
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/business/energy-environment/10yuan.html?emc=eta1
***************
"In the end, people are persuaded not by what we say, but by what they understand."
(John C. Maxwell)
***************
"At some point we're going to have to claw our way out of this denial. With 14.6 million people officially jobless, and 5.9 million who have stopped looking but say they want a job, and 8.5 million who are working part time but would like to work full time, you end up with nearly 30 million Americans who cannot find the work they want and desperately need."
The quote above is from Bob Herbert in today's NY Times ("The Horror Show"). His point is that the employment situation in the United States is much worse than even the dismal numbers from last week's jobless report would indicate. Herbert is one of many who don't see anything like the sense of urgency that should be in play in Washington to address this situation. Herbert refers to "labor force participation" as a more sophisticated way to look at the problem, and quotes Charles McMillion (President, MBG Information Services), "Over the past three months, 1,155,000 unemployed people dropped out of the active labor force and were not counted as unemployed." Add them back in and the new unemployment rate is 9.9% in April going to 10.2% in July. According to McMillion, there are 3.4 million fewer private-sector jobs in the U.S. than there were a decade ago. This is the worst job creation record since the 1928 to 1938 period.
In an opinion piece in today's WSJ ("Unemployment: What Would Reagan Do?"), Henry Olsen comes from exactly the same place. With his "civilian employment-population ratio" perspective, he's looking at the percentage of working age Americans who have a job, whether they are seeking one or not. When the economy was at its Bush-era peek in 2007, a little over 63% of adult Americans had jobs. Friday's jobs report shows 58.4% have jobs. Translated to "people",
America has about 238 million non-institutionalized civilian adults of working age - this means that we have nearly 12 million fewer JOBS today than we would have if the employment-population rate were still at its 2007 level of 63%.
Olsen goes on to point out that the only instance since WW II of the U.S. economy increasing the employment-population ratio by 5 percentage points in a DECADE was the recovery that followed Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in 1983. Quoting Olsen: "An administration that pursued job creation - not ideology - would note this history and see how individuals and companies can create wealth and jobs quickly if they have the right incentives. Instead, we have policies that are uncertain and portend higher taxes and greater regulatory burdens. This is causing business and consumers alike to restrain spending, creating a drag on the economy too great for any government stimulus to reverse."
We are reminded of our recent post referencing Fareed Zakaria's perspective that Top 500 capital spending is sidelined because of a lack of certainty about potential tax and regulatory burdens. Zakaria's perspective is indisputable: the cash is there, and it's not being spent. He asked the CEOs "why" and their response was exactly what Zakaria quoted. There is more money (and job creation) there than any government "stimulus." Olsen quotes "someone" (and we are not sure here whether he is being facetious about Rom Emmanuel) as saying that we should never let a crisis go to waste. So, in this historic "employment crisis," Olsen advocates that we unleash the private sector (if that's "Reaganism," who cares what we call it, if it works?).
In a related post, Paul Krugman ("America Goes Dark") kicks off with a reference to Colorado Springs making headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off "a third of its streetlights." Seriously! Have we reached "Atlas Shrugged?"
Quoting Krugman: "We're told that we have no choice, that basic government functions - essential services that have been provided for generations - are no longer affordable. And it's true that state and local governments ... are cash-strapped. But they wouldn't be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases." With a small lesson in economics, Krugman goes on, "But isn't keeping taxes for the affluent low also a form of stimulus? Not so you'd notice. When we save a schoolteacher's job, that unambiguously aids employment; when we give millionaires more money instead, there's a good chance that most of that money will sit idle."
So, state and local governments are cutting back on infrastructure spending. Whether it's roads or teachers' jobs, cut backs are taking place. Interestingly, on the same day that Krugman is documenting that situation and articulating the ineptitude of our politicians in addressing it, Keith Bradsher comes out with a report in the Times that China will be closing down 2,087 steel mills, cement works and other energy-intensive factories.
Given China's continuing concern for GDP growth that needs to top 8% per year to keep unemployment from increasing (at the rate of 22 million people per 1% GDP drop below 8%), this is serious business and, while not the street lights in Colorado Springs, still an issue where we wonder how the Chinese government feels they can make this work. Energy analysts described it as a significant step toward the country's energy-efficiency goals.
It turns out that China can close factories now, more so than in the past, because a labor shortage in many cities has made it easier for workers, particularly young ones, to find other jobs. The factories being closed are the least efficient ones. The steel mills being closed appeared to emphasize smaller, older mills producing fairly low end grades of steel.
The International Energy Agency in Paris announced last month that China surpassed the United States last year as the world's largest consumer of energy. China passed the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in 2006. That milestone came earlier because of China's heavy reliance on coal.
It is daunting to us that China can shut down 2,000 plus manufacturing plants of any kind in order to comply with its energy-efficiency goals (reduce its carbon emissions per unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels). This while Colorado Springs can't afford to have all its street lights on at the same time.
So, while China has the pressure of achieving its energy-efficiency goals because of the continued rapid growth of its economy (especially in auto sales, where it is now #1 in the world, and home appliances), "America Goes Dark."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09krugman.html?emc=eta1
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/business/energy-environment/10yuan.html?emc=eta1
***************
"In the end, people are persuaded not by what we say, but by what they understand."
(John C. Maxwell)
***************
"At some point we're going to have to claw our way out of this denial. With 14.6 million people officially jobless, and 5.9 million who have stopped looking but say they want a job, and 8.5 million who are working part time but would like to work full time, you end up with nearly 30 million Americans who cannot find the work they want and desperately need."
The quote above is from Bob Herbert in today's NY Times ("The Horror Show"). His point is that the employment situation in the United States is much worse than even the dismal numbers from last week's jobless report would indicate. Herbert is one of many who don't see anything like the sense of urgency that should be in play in Washington to address this situation. Herbert refers to "labor force participation" as a more sophisticated way to look at the problem, and quotes Charles McMillion (President, MBG Information Services), "Over the past three months, 1,155,000 unemployed people dropped out of the active labor force and were not counted as unemployed." Add them back in and the new unemployment rate is 9.9% in April going to 10.2% in July. According to McMillion, there are 3.4 million fewer private-sector jobs in the U.S. than there were a decade ago. This is the worst job creation record since the 1928 to 1938 period.
In an opinion piece in today's WSJ ("Unemployment: What Would Reagan Do?"), Henry Olsen comes from exactly the same place. With his "civilian employment-population ratio" perspective, he's looking at the percentage of working age Americans who have a job, whether they are seeking one or not. When the economy was at its Bush-era peek in 2007, a little over 63% of adult Americans had jobs. Friday's jobs report shows 58.4% have jobs. Translated to "people",
America has about 238 million non-institutionalized civilian adults of working age - this means that we have nearly 12 million fewer JOBS today than we would have if the employment-population rate were still at its 2007 level of 63%.
Olsen goes on to point out that the only instance since WW II of the U.S. economy increasing the employment-population ratio by 5 percentage points in a DECADE was the recovery that followed Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in 1983. Quoting Olsen: "An administration that pursued job creation - not ideology - would note this history and see how individuals and companies can create wealth and jobs quickly if they have the right incentives. Instead, we have policies that are uncertain and portend higher taxes and greater regulatory burdens. This is causing business and consumers alike to restrain spending, creating a drag on the economy too great for any government stimulus to reverse."
We are reminded of our recent post referencing Fareed Zakaria's perspective that Top 500 capital spending is sidelined because of a lack of certainty about potential tax and regulatory burdens. Zakaria's perspective is indisputable: the cash is there, and it's not being spent. He asked the CEOs "why" and their response was exactly what Zakaria quoted. There is more money (and job creation) there than any government "stimulus." Olsen quotes "someone" (and we are not sure here whether he is being facetious about Rom Emmanuel) as saying that we should never let a crisis go to waste. So, in this historic "employment crisis," Olsen advocates that we unleash the private sector (if that's "Reaganism," who cares what we call it, if it works?).
In a related post, Paul Krugman ("America Goes Dark") kicks off with a reference to Colorado Springs making headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off "a third of its streetlights." Seriously! Have we reached "Atlas Shrugged?"
Quoting Krugman: "We're told that we have no choice, that basic government functions - essential services that have been provided for generations - are no longer affordable. And it's true that state and local governments ... are cash-strapped. But they wouldn't be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases." With a small lesson in economics, Krugman goes on, "But isn't keeping taxes for the affluent low also a form of stimulus? Not so you'd notice. When we save a schoolteacher's job, that unambiguously aids employment; when we give millionaires more money instead, there's a good chance that most of that money will sit idle."
So, state and local governments are cutting back on infrastructure spending. Whether it's roads or teachers' jobs, cut backs are taking place. Interestingly, on the same day that Krugman is documenting that situation and articulating the ineptitude of our politicians in addressing it, Keith Bradsher comes out with a report in the Times that China will be closing down 2,087 steel mills, cement works and other energy-intensive factories.
Given China's continuing concern for GDP growth that needs to top 8% per year to keep unemployment from increasing (at the rate of 22 million people per 1% GDP drop below 8%), this is serious business and, while not the street lights in Colorado Springs, still an issue where we wonder how the Chinese government feels they can make this work. Energy analysts described it as a significant step toward the country's energy-efficiency goals.
It turns out that China can close factories now, more so than in the past, because a labor shortage in many cities has made it easier for workers, particularly young ones, to find other jobs. The factories being closed are the least efficient ones. The steel mills being closed appeared to emphasize smaller, older mills producing fairly low end grades of steel.
The International Energy Agency in Paris announced last month that China surpassed the United States last year as the world's largest consumer of energy. China passed the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in 2006. That milestone came earlier because of China's heavy reliance on coal.
It is daunting to us that China can shut down 2,000 plus manufacturing plants of any kind in order to comply with its energy-efficiency goals (reduce its carbon emissions per unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels). This while Colorado Springs can't afford to have all its street lights on at the same time.
So, while China has the pressure of achieving its energy-efficiency goals because of the continued rapid growth of its economy (especially in auto sales, where it is now #1 in the world, and home appliances), "America Goes Dark."
Saturday, August 7, 2010
HP Ousts Another CEO
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/07hewlett.html?emc=eta1
***************
"The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The great teacher demonstrates."
(John C. Maxwell)
***************
Wait a minute! First, Carly Fiorina had to go in 2005 because she wasn't turning around HP fast enough. Then, Patricia Dunn, Non-Executive Chairwoman of HP (that's certainly a title!), had to go because she was indicted for trying to find out (using shady methods) which board members were leaking adverse opinions to the press (2006). Now, Mark Hurd, whom Patricia Dunn hired, has to go because of "fudging his expenses."
In Hurd's case, we know that, since Gloria Allred is out front shouting, that inaccurate expense reports were covering up a relationship with a woman. The woman involved was evidently an outside contractor.
There is a general consensus that Hurd created a powerhouse over the last 5 years from a great company that had tremendous potential for growth but had lost its way. His strength was his ability to reduce costs combined with strategic acquisitions (like EDS). He doubled the price of the stock and increased revenues to the point where, at $115 billion, HP is larger than IBM.
What is most interesting about this issue from a strategic point of view is that, with all of this turnover at the top of HP, HP rolls on. That's because HP has always had great talent in the middle of the organization. Great companies have great people where the work gets done. So, Hurd buys EDS and gives it to Anne Livermore who is an HP EVP with an exceptional reputation and consistently ranked in the Fortune list of the Top 50 Women in American Business. And, HP rolls on.
Hurd will be leaving with $12 million in severance.
***************
"The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The great teacher demonstrates."
(John C. Maxwell)
***************
Wait a minute! First, Carly Fiorina had to go in 2005 because she wasn't turning around HP fast enough. Then, Patricia Dunn, Non-Executive Chairwoman of HP (that's certainly a title!), had to go because she was indicted for trying to find out (using shady methods) which board members were leaking adverse opinions to the press (2006). Now, Mark Hurd, whom Patricia Dunn hired, has to go because of "fudging his expenses."
In Hurd's case, we know that, since Gloria Allred is out front shouting, that inaccurate expense reports were covering up a relationship with a woman. The woman involved was evidently an outside contractor.
There is a general consensus that Hurd created a powerhouse over the last 5 years from a great company that had tremendous potential for growth but had lost its way. His strength was his ability to reduce costs combined with strategic acquisitions (like EDS). He doubled the price of the stock and increased revenues to the point where, at $115 billion, HP is larger than IBM.
What is most interesting about this issue from a strategic point of view is that, with all of this turnover at the top of HP, HP rolls on. That's because HP has always had great talent in the middle of the organization. Great companies have great people where the work gets done. So, Hurd buys EDS and gives it to Anne Livermore who is an HP EVP with an exceptional reputation and consistently ranked in the Fortune list of the Top 50 Women in American Business. And, HP rolls on.
Hurd will be leaving with $12 million in severance.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Feels Like A Recession
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/business/economy/31econ.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
***************
"You can't find the right answer if you're asking the wrong question." (John C. Maxwell)
***************
We're into August now and that's certainly enough time to look back at 2010 so far and see what the facts are. As Catherine Rampell reports, the economic recovery in the U.S. has slowed. The economy has been growing for a year but jobs, not so much. The growth rate for the second quarter is now "officially" 2.4%.
Rampell quotes Prajakta Bhide, a research analyst at Roubini Global Economics, as saying that the rest of the year is "... going to feel like a recession." So, we've had quarterly economic growth at 5% year end 2009, 3.7% for the first quarter of 2010 and now 2.4% for the second quarter. If we draw a trend line thru that data, do we get to Rampell's reference to several economists suggesting that 1.5% growth would be good for the second half of this year?
Since we need 2.5% GDP growth just to keep the unemployment rate where it is (Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers), finding adequate stimulus somewhere would appear to be a priority. This perspective only underlines the Krugman/Buffet arguement, mentioned here more than once, that the original stimulus measures would not be enough. And, they weren't.
Business, which appears to be investing more in equipment than hiring (and, as we mentioned a while back, Zakaria's fact-based perspective is that Top 500 capital money is waiting on demand to return, so whatever investing is going on in "equipment", it isn't what it could be), isn't helping with consumer demand. Business is, in fact, waiting for consumer demand. Yet, if "business" isn't hiring much, business is going to have a long wait. Further, we've seen no sign that small business is getting the loans it needs for growth and that's where most of the jobs are created. Does this appear to be a "vicious circle"?
Interestingly, the attachment to Rampell's article shows revised official U.S. data for GDP growth over the last three years (into 2010 so far) producing a trend line that is actually "worse" than originally thought to be the case for the Great Recession. There is no other conclusion to come to but that we were even closer to the "brink" of a depression that we thought at the time.
So, that old "lagging indicator" that we have often referred to, unemployment, doesn't seem to be getting any better. And, that pernicious housing market hasn't come back yet. Until something positive happens there, we won't see much GDP growth.
On the positive side, there appear to be reports from Bloomberg that global merger and acquisition (M&A) activity may be picking up in the second half of 2010. There have been 787 announced deals since July 19 with a total disclosed value of $86.4 billion. That surge caused global deal volume to pass the $1 trillion mark for the year, more than a 10% increase over the first 7 months of 2009.
Raju Shukla, head of Barclay's Capital India, was quoted today as saying that the "market hiccups" due to the European crisis are fading. Ironically, one of the larger contributions to European M&A activity for the second half of 2010 will be BP's sale of assets to Apache (at least $7 billion and could end up being more), as part of BP's overall effort to raise cash to pay for spill clean up.
Alan Greenspan, appearing on "Meet the Press" yesterday, characterized the housing situation in the U.S. as crucial. His perspective is that, if housing prices can stay stable, we can skirt the worst of the housing problem - but, right under the current price level (mainly 5, 7 or 8% below), is a very large block of mortgages which are, or could be, under water. This would feed right into Ben Bernanke's testimony last month before Congress that the economic outlook is "unusually uncertain." Greenspan's characterization that any recovery we've seen so far, since the current recession's probable end, has been limited to large banks, large businesses and high income individuals seems to resonate with what other economic data show.
To characterize Greenspan, any pause in a modest recovery feels like a quasi-recession.
***************
"You can't find the right answer if you're asking the wrong question." (John C. Maxwell)
***************
We're into August now and that's certainly enough time to look back at 2010 so far and see what the facts are. As Catherine Rampell reports, the economic recovery in the U.S. has slowed. The economy has been growing for a year but jobs, not so much. The growth rate for the second quarter is now "officially" 2.4%.
Rampell quotes Prajakta Bhide, a research analyst at Roubini Global Economics, as saying that the rest of the year is "... going to feel like a recession." So, we've had quarterly economic growth at 5% year end 2009, 3.7% for the first quarter of 2010 and now 2.4% for the second quarter. If we draw a trend line thru that data, do we get to Rampell's reference to several economists suggesting that 1.5% growth would be good for the second half of this year?
Since we need 2.5% GDP growth just to keep the unemployment rate where it is (Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers), finding adequate stimulus somewhere would appear to be a priority. This perspective only underlines the Krugman/Buffet arguement, mentioned here more than once, that the original stimulus measures would not be enough. And, they weren't.
Business, which appears to be investing more in equipment than hiring (and, as we mentioned a while back, Zakaria's fact-based perspective is that Top 500 capital money is waiting on demand to return, so whatever investing is going on in "equipment", it isn't what it could be), isn't helping with consumer demand. Business is, in fact, waiting for consumer demand. Yet, if "business" isn't hiring much, business is going to have a long wait. Further, we've seen no sign that small business is getting the loans it needs for growth and that's where most of the jobs are created. Does this appear to be a "vicious circle"?
Interestingly, the attachment to Rampell's article shows revised official U.S. data for GDP growth over the last three years (into 2010 so far) producing a trend line that is actually "worse" than originally thought to be the case for the Great Recession. There is no other conclusion to come to but that we were even closer to the "brink" of a depression that we thought at the time.
So, that old "lagging indicator" that we have often referred to, unemployment, doesn't seem to be getting any better. And, that pernicious housing market hasn't come back yet. Until something positive happens there, we won't see much GDP growth.
On the positive side, there appear to be reports from Bloomberg that global merger and acquisition (M&A) activity may be picking up in the second half of 2010. There have been 787 announced deals since July 19 with a total disclosed value of $86.4 billion. That surge caused global deal volume to pass the $1 trillion mark for the year, more than a 10% increase over the first 7 months of 2009.
Raju Shukla, head of Barclay's Capital India, was quoted today as saying that the "market hiccups" due to the European crisis are fading. Ironically, one of the larger contributions to European M&A activity for the second half of 2010 will be BP's sale of assets to Apache (at least $7 billion and could end up being more), as part of BP's overall effort to raise cash to pay for spill clean up.
Alan Greenspan, appearing on "Meet the Press" yesterday, characterized the housing situation in the U.S. as crucial. His perspective is that, if housing prices can stay stable, we can skirt the worst of the housing problem - but, right under the current price level (mainly 5, 7 or 8% below), is a very large block of mortgages which are, or could be, under water. This would feed right into Ben Bernanke's testimony last month before Congress that the economic outlook is "unusually uncertain." Greenspan's characterization that any recovery we've seen so far, since the current recession's probable end, has been limited to large banks, large businesses and high income individuals seems to resonate with what other economic data show.
To characterize Greenspan, any pause in a modest recovery feels like a quasi-recession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)