https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Starbucks_quest_for_healthy_growth_An_interview_with_Howard_Schultz_2777
***************
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." (Abraham Maslow)
***************
I have always tended to see Starbucks as part of the ritual of starting my day. I thought that they were very well managed so, if they grew so they were on every corner, I figured they knew what they were doing. It reminded me of having gas stations on every corner when I was growing up (now, it's banks).
The McKinsey interview attached goes a long way toward my understanding what went wrong with growth at Starbucks and why Howard Schultz returned as CEO after 8 years. For him, growth had become a "carcinogen" which really got my attention. His perspective: growth should not be - and is not - a strategy; it's a "tactic." His primary lesson: growth and success can cover up a lot of mistakes. So, when Starbucks had to shut down so many stores, most of the stores that had to be closed had only been open for 18 months or less. The most recent stores represented growth for growth's sake.
Part of the pressure for that kind of growth is Wall Street. Wall Street creates metrics that pressure managements. A metric that tends to be, in Schultz's words, an "albatross" around the neck of most retailers was: the calculation of the growth of stores open for more than one year. Because Wall Street is enamored with that number, most retailers and restaurants report comp-store sales on a monthly basis. What that does is produce tremendous fluctuation in stock prices on a monthly basis because "God forbid" you should have a down month. So, he removed the "albatross" from the necks of the operators.
That was the beginning of his second run as CEO.
Starbucks' potential in emerging markets is another key concern. Starbucks has 800 stores in greater China, 400 in the mainland. They are headed for thousands of stores but the idea is to grow right and part of that is being consistent with the culture. Now that China has 140 cities north of 1 million people, the idea is to provide stores that sell foods/snacks that are consistent the expectations of the local populace in that region. This means "putting our feet in the shoes of our customers" and that means careful growth.
Since Starbucks is sitting on about $2 billion in cash, their growth constraint is not money. It's human capital. Schultz wants to attract world-class people who have values that are well aligned with the company.
He will succeed.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Income Inequality
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/opinion/26herbert.html?emc=eta1
***************
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." (Douglas Adams)
***************
Bob Herbert's last post for the NY Times (3/25) is attached. It's a strong warning about income inequality.
Herbert quotes Arthur Miller, borrowing from poet Archibald MacLeish, saying that the essence of America was its promises: "So here we are pouring shiploads of cash into another war, this time Libya, while simultaneously demolishing school budgets, closing libraries, laying off teachers and police officers, and generally letting the bottom fall out of the quality of life here at home."
There is a general consensus that young people today are staring at a future where they will be less well off than their parents. Not only are 14 million Americans jobless (many of them long term), but their outlook is grim. To this we add that there is plenty of economic activity but the folks at the top are "stealing all the marbles." This is a term Herbert uses to make a point and I'll use it too, but the problem with American capitalism is that you play to win with the rules you have and the game is what it is. Tax laws and regulations are what they are (or aren't).
Just to digress for a moment, did we NOT start this century with a U.S. BUDGET SURPLUS? And now we are being preached to about the fact that there's a huge deficit because we want to buy a shirt made in China at Walmart with a credit card. Really? What did Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya cost? But, I digress.
So, the Economic Policy Institute has reported the richest 10% of Americans received 100% of the average income growth in the years 2000 to 2007 (the most recent years of economic expansion). We had a country where that ratio used to be much more balanced.
In 2009, the richest 5% claimed 63.5% of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 80% collected just 12.8%. Herbert quotes from the Times' own article on Friday ("G.E.'s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether") that, despite profits of $14.2 billion - $5.1 billion from its operations in the U.S. - G.E. did not have to pay any U.S. taxes last year. Quoting the article's author, "It's extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore," Herbert goes on to point out that G.E's CEO Jeff Immelt is now the leader of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. As we pointed out in a prior post, do you want a CEO who's company has shipped out more jobs than it's created over the last ten years in a "public service" post like that? So, G.E. doesn't just concentrate it's profits offshore but also its jobs.
As Herbert implies, how about some nation-building here at home? We have a monumental number of poor and unemployed people in the U.S. who could be "invested in" - that means trained or retrained with half the money that's been and being spent overseas on wars and/or "statesmanship." Is it $3 billion per year we were sending Hosney Mubarak so that Egypt would make nice with Israel? This is probably how Mubarak could wear $25,000 custom made suits with pinstripes that, when you looked closely, were stitched so that each "stripe" was his NAME continuously appearing. Google it.
I'm for nation building here in the U.S. In the past, that has been helpful to the rest of the world from a business point of view.
***************
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." (Douglas Adams)
***************
Bob Herbert's last post for the NY Times (3/25) is attached. It's a strong warning about income inequality.
Herbert quotes Arthur Miller, borrowing from poet Archibald MacLeish, saying that the essence of America was its promises: "So here we are pouring shiploads of cash into another war, this time Libya, while simultaneously demolishing school budgets, closing libraries, laying off teachers and police officers, and generally letting the bottom fall out of the quality of life here at home."
There is a general consensus that young people today are staring at a future where they will be less well off than their parents. Not only are 14 million Americans jobless (many of them long term), but their outlook is grim. To this we add that there is plenty of economic activity but the folks at the top are "stealing all the marbles." This is a term Herbert uses to make a point and I'll use it too, but the problem with American capitalism is that you play to win with the rules you have and the game is what it is. Tax laws and regulations are what they are (or aren't).
Just to digress for a moment, did we NOT start this century with a U.S. BUDGET SURPLUS? And now we are being preached to about the fact that there's a huge deficit because we want to buy a shirt made in China at Walmart with a credit card. Really? What did Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya cost? But, I digress.
So, the Economic Policy Institute has reported the richest 10% of Americans received 100% of the average income growth in the years 2000 to 2007 (the most recent years of economic expansion). We had a country where that ratio used to be much more balanced.
In 2009, the richest 5% claimed 63.5% of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 80% collected just 12.8%. Herbert quotes from the Times' own article on Friday ("G.E.'s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether") that, despite profits of $14.2 billion - $5.1 billion from its operations in the U.S. - G.E. did not have to pay any U.S. taxes last year. Quoting the article's author, "It's extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore," Herbert goes on to point out that G.E's CEO Jeff Immelt is now the leader of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. As we pointed out in a prior post, do you want a CEO who's company has shipped out more jobs than it's created over the last ten years in a "public service" post like that? So, G.E. doesn't just concentrate it's profits offshore but also its jobs.
As Herbert implies, how about some nation-building here at home? We have a monumental number of poor and unemployed people in the U.S. who could be "invested in" - that means trained or retrained with half the money that's been and being spent overseas on wars and/or "statesmanship." Is it $3 billion per year we were sending Hosney Mubarak so that Egypt would make nice with Israel? This is probably how Mubarak could wear $25,000 custom made suits with pinstripes that, when you looked closely, were stitched so that each "stripe" was his NAME continuously appearing. Google it.
I'm for nation building here in the U.S. In the past, that has been helpful to the rest of the world from a business point of view.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Searching For The Rebound
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26charts.html?emc=eta1
***************
"Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on too long." (Ogden Nash: 1902 to 1971)
***************
For those of you who have been regular "readers," I'm back. It's been a hectic last couple of months but now I'm hoping to get my volume back up. I'm really not sure how many of you are out there but I occasionally hear from people who like my perspective so I'll journey on. I'll probably start writing more in the first person because some of you like that better.
I've attached some data on housing from today's N.Y. Times which gives an excellent perspective on where that market is. The sales rate of existing homes (4.9 million over the last 12 months) is about the same as it was in mid-1999. Yet the sales of newly built single-family homes have dropped to levels not seen since the government began collecting data on this activity in 1963. The charts with the article show the stark direction of new home sales (Change in 12-month sales from 1979: 60% down and not looking like it's turning up).
This all boils down to who's buying what houses and what's happening to the inventory of foreclosed houses? Few of the sales are of new homes and a rising proportion are forced sales of homes that are no longer worth the amount that was borrowed.
And then there's commercial real estate. Steve Brown reports today in Dallas a very short list of office and industrial projects in North Texas: 4. The biggest metro area in Texas and there are four major office or industrial developments being built. The shear smallness of that number actually gives hope (at least to someone as experienced as Steve Brown) that things will improve next year. This lack of investment works into the continuing reports of all time record cash on the books of corporations: sure, the "cash" is there but where's the capital expenditure?
And then we have durable goods orders. They fell unexpectedly in February. Bookings for goods meant to last at least three years dropped 0.9% after a 3.6% gain the month before. One economist has pointed out that there is a risk that "... capital spending will be flat in the first half of the year."
Part of the housing market thing may be generational. Whatever the appropriate portion of any population is that should "own" a home, the generation coming along behind the baby boom group is not as large. The new "standard" for total home sales will be lower.
Overall, there just does not appear to be a rip roaring comeback happening. There are a lot of supply chain specialists and economists looking for positive numbers and really digging deep to find them.
***************
"Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on too long." (Ogden Nash: 1902 to 1971)
***************
For those of you who have been regular "readers," I'm back. It's been a hectic last couple of months but now I'm hoping to get my volume back up. I'm really not sure how many of you are out there but I occasionally hear from people who like my perspective so I'll journey on. I'll probably start writing more in the first person because some of you like that better.
I've attached some data on housing from today's N.Y. Times which gives an excellent perspective on where that market is. The sales rate of existing homes (4.9 million over the last 12 months) is about the same as it was in mid-1999. Yet the sales of newly built single-family homes have dropped to levels not seen since the government began collecting data on this activity in 1963. The charts with the article show the stark direction of new home sales (Change in 12-month sales from 1979: 60% down and not looking like it's turning up).
This all boils down to who's buying what houses and what's happening to the inventory of foreclosed houses? Few of the sales are of new homes and a rising proportion are forced sales of homes that are no longer worth the amount that was borrowed.
And then there's commercial real estate. Steve Brown reports today in Dallas a very short list of office and industrial projects in North Texas: 4. The biggest metro area in Texas and there are four major office or industrial developments being built. The shear smallness of that number actually gives hope (at least to someone as experienced as Steve Brown) that things will improve next year. This lack of investment works into the continuing reports of all time record cash on the books of corporations: sure, the "cash" is there but where's the capital expenditure?
And then we have durable goods orders. They fell unexpectedly in February. Bookings for goods meant to last at least three years dropped 0.9% after a 3.6% gain the month before. One economist has pointed out that there is a risk that "... capital spending will be flat in the first half of the year."
Part of the housing market thing may be generational. Whatever the appropriate portion of any population is that should "own" a home, the generation coming along behind the baby boom group is not as large. The new "standard" for total home sales will be lower.
Overall, there just does not appear to be a rip roaring comeback happening. There are a lot of supply chain specialists and economists looking for positive numbers and really digging deep to find them.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Unemployed Per Job Opening
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/5-unemployed-for-every-job-opening/?emc=eta1
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/economic-blind-spots-left-and-right/?emc=eta1
A new report from the BLS shows that there were 5 unemployed for every available job in January. This ratio has been the same for several months. It's lower than it was two years ago when it was 7 workers per job opening during the height of the Great Recession. The chart from the BLS and Haver Analytics on our first attachment shows the trend.
5 unemployed per opening is bad. It's not an "improvement" from 7. It's bad.
If we go back to December, 2006, the ratio was about 1.5 to 1. Or even that period between June and December of 2003: the ratio was just under 3 to 1. In December of 2,000, it was almost 1 to 1.
If the numbers for layoffs are down, then what are we dealing with? The answer is the very slow pace of job creation. That's because, as Alan Blinder predicted, we've shipped jobs overseas and they're not coming back. The jobs not being created here are being created elsewhere or are gone.
As Catherine Rampell points out, job openings are about 36% below the level when the recession began three years ago. Basically, there's been no job market improvement over the last few years.
So, hiring is happening, but not enough. I think it was Paul Krugman who said we need to get back to a U.S. hiring rate of more than 300,000 jobs per month and sustain it for more than 5 years just to get back what we've lost.
Our second attachment is a classic from David Leonhardt on "Economic Blind Spots" for the left and the right.
Looking at the list, I'm not sure which I am since I see myself on some points in both but it's more fun to look at the blind-spot list for the right:
* Tax rates are the main determinant of economic growth. (Really?)
* The rich will always figure out a way to get around tax increases. (By contributing to worthy charities?)
* The United States has the world's best health care across the board. (How about the "coverage?")
* The free market is the answer for health care. (Really?)
* The free market is the answer for everything. (Really?)
* Illegal immigrants are a major economic problem. (Check with those who know demographics.)
* Global warming is a matter of debate. (We had more extreme weather before mankind arrived.)
* Inequality isn't a problem. (For whom?)
* Life is worse today than it used to be. (Tell that to the 400 million people in China who have been lifted out of poverty.)
Leonhardt has an excellent perspective on all this: "... conservative economists' blind spots overlap more with general conservative blind spots than is the case for liberal economists and liberal blind spots. That's not a value judgment so much as an observation: liberal economists tend to be more economically conservative than liberals."
Economists in general need to do better!
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/economic-blind-spots-left-and-right/?emc=eta1
A new report from the BLS shows that there were 5 unemployed for every available job in January. This ratio has been the same for several months. It's lower than it was two years ago when it was 7 workers per job opening during the height of the Great Recession. The chart from the BLS and Haver Analytics on our first attachment shows the trend.
5 unemployed per opening is bad. It's not an "improvement" from 7. It's bad.
If we go back to December, 2006, the ratio was about 1.5 to 1. Or even that period between June and December of 2003: the ratio was just under 3 to 1. In December of 2,000, it was almost 1 to 1.
If the numbers for layoffs are down, then what are we dealing with? The answer is the very slow pace of job creation. That's because, as Alan Blinder predicted, we've shipped jobs overseas and they're not coming back. The jobs not being created here are being created elsewhere or are gone.
As Catherine Rampell points out, job openings are about 36% below the level when the recession began three years ago. Basically, there's been no job market improvement over the last few years.
So, hiring is happening, but not enough. I think it was Paul Krugman who said we need to get back to a U.S. hiring rate of more than 300,000 jobs per month and sustain it for more than 5 years just to get back what we've lost.
Our second attachment is a classic from David Leonhardt on "Economic Blind Spots" for the left and the right.
Looking at the list, I'm not sure which I am since I see myself on some points in both but it's more fun to look at the blind-spot list for the right:
* Tax rates are the main determinant of economic growth. (Really?)
* The rich will always figure out a way to get around tax increases. (By contributing to worthy charities?)
* The United States has the world's best health care across the board. (How about the "coverage?")
* The free market is the answer for health care. (Really?)
* The free market is the answer for everything. (Really?)
* Illegal immigrants are a major economic problem. (Check with those who know demographics.)
* Global warming is a matter of debate. (We had more extreme weather before mankind arrived.)
* Inequality isn't a problem. (For whom?)
* Life is worse today than it used to be. (Tell that to the 400 million people in China who have been lifted out of poverty.)
Leonhardt has an excellent perspective on all this: "... conservative economists' blind spots overlap more with general conservative blind spots than is the case for liberal economists and liberal blind spots. That's not a value judgment so much as an observation: liberal economists tend to be more economically conservative than liberals."
Economists in general need to do better!
Friday, March 11, 2011
Duration of Unemployment
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/college-grads-high-school-dropouts-and-long-term-unemployment/
It's good to see that Americans' wealth grew 3.8% in the final three months of 2010, boosted by gains in stock portfolios. And, it's good to see that companies have added to their cash stockpiles, which reached their highest point in more than 50 years. At $1.89 trillion, corporate cash is at an all time record level. There are a growing number of economists that see corporations intending to start spending that "cash" on capital investments which, in turn, will potentially increase hiring.
That's the good news.
Today's post on "Economix" (attached) addresses the issue of the long-term unemployed. The normal statistics on unemployment solidly correlate with education: the higher the level achieved, the lower the unemployment rate. But, once unemployed, college educated workers are just as likely to face seemingly interminable unemployment as high school drop outs.
Catherine Rampell asks on that post if we have any theories why. Yes we do. If one were to believe Alan Blinder (at Princeton), the U.S. has jobs that have gone overseas permanently. If it can be done on the computer (or cheaper), it's overseas even if it's at the "professional" level. A tax lawyer is in trouble. A divorce lawyer, not so much. Those required to perform services in person for people are safe.
Rampell's charts are great. She does a good job, as always.
It's good to see that Americans' wealth grew 3.8% in the final three months of 2010, boosted by gains in stock portfolios. And, it's good to see that companies have added to their cash stockpiles, which reached their highest point in more than 50 years. At $1.89 trillion, corporate cash is at an all time record level. There are a growing number of economists that see corporations intending to start spending that "cash" on capital investments which, in turn, will potentially increase hiring.
That's the good news.
Today's post on "Economix" (attached) addresses the issue of the long-term unemployed. The normal statistics on unemployment solidly correlate with education: the higher the level achieved, the lower the unemployment rate. But, once unemployed, college educated workers are just as likely to face seemingly interminable unemployment as high school drop outs.
Catherine Rampell asks on that post if we have any theories why. Yes we do. If one were to believe Alan Blinder (at Princeton), the U.S. has jobs that have gone overseas permanently. If it can be done on the computer (or cheaper), it's overseas even if it's at the "professional" level. A tax lawyer is in trouble. A divorce lawyer, not so much. Those required to perform services in person for people are safe.
Rampell's charts are great. She does a good job, as always.
Climate Change
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/natural-causes-drove-russian-heat-wave-study-finds/
***************
"If you want to help the world most, help yourself grow, and you will do far more than you could by just being involved." (Priscilla T. Lim)
***************
We were told by Anne Jolis (from the WSJ Opinion Europe) in February of this year that the latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme. She had a look at The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project (where they use super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation going back to 1871). She reported that the project's initial findings show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend.
We all know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial revolution. What we don't know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors - solar variability, ocean currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, and so on.
So we spend trillions to cut carbon emissions (with implied reductions in economic growth as a consequence) to pre-industrial levels. Does that mean the climate won't continue to change?
This week's report (which we've attached) on the deadly heat wave that seared Russia last summer indicated that weather event was driven primarily by a natural phenomenon, not man-made causes. This is per Randall Dole, deputy director of research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory.
That heat wave killed nearly 11,000 people in Moscow alone. In this day and age, it is unimaginable to think that heat, whether in Moscow or anywhere else, could cause that many deaths.
But the NOAA scientists conclusions rebut speculation by some at the peak of that crisis that the heat wave could be directly attributed to the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other heat- trapping gases in the atmosphere. However; those scientists also point out that, by 2060, models show that intensive heat waves could occur as frequently as once every decade.
Earthquakes, like the one in Japan this week, happen. It's presumptive for mankind to think that our presence on the planet causes something that facilitates natural disasters. The fire in Moscow was caused by weather patterns but not weather that changed because of something mankind was doing.
***************
"If you want to help the world most, help yourself grow, and you will do far more than you could by just being involved." (Priscilla T. Lim)
***************
We were told by Anne Jolis (from the WSJ Opinion Europe) in February of this year that the latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme. She had a look at The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project (where they use super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation going back to 1871). She reported that the project's initial findings show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend.
We all know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial revolution. What we don't know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors - solar variability, ocean currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, and so on.
So we spend trillions to cut carbon emissions (with implied reductions in economic growth as a consequence) to pre-industrial levels. Does that mean the climate won't continue to change?
This week's report (which we've attached) on the deadly heat wave that seared Russia last summer indicated that weather event was driven primarily by a natural phenomenon, not man-made causes. This is per Randall Dole, deputy director of research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory.
That heat wave killed nearly 11,000 people in Moscow alone. In this day and age, it is unimaginable to think that heat, whether in Moscow or anywhere else, could cause that many deaths.
But the NOAA scientists conclusions rebut speculation by some at the peak of that crisis that the heat wave could be directly attributed to the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other heat- trapping gases in the atmosphere. However; those scientists also point out that, by 2060, models show that intensive heat waves could occur as frequently as once every decade.
Earthquakes, like the one in Japan this week, happen. It's presumptive for mankind to think that our presence on the planet causes something that facilitates natural disasters. The fire in Moscow was caused by weather patterns but not weather that changed because of something mankind was doing.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Jobs
http://http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/business/economy/05jobs.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
***************
"The best part of this morning's jobs report may be the hints that the government is understating job growth." (David Leonhardt)
***************
Private sector hiring has had a nice jump to 222,000 as of 3/4/11. That's a good number. Unfortunately, the "net number" is lower because state and local governments are continuing to lay off workers. High oil prices added to government layoffs are not a good mix for improving the "jobs" side of the economy.
As Floyd Norris points out, there are two categories to highlight in this month's jobs report: from the peak in August, 2008, 450,000 jobs have vanished from state and local governments (2.3% of the total). That's the bad news. The good news is that manufacturing jobs have continued to rise: 189,000 over the last year.
The more comprehensive measure of labor underutilization is the BLS U6 unemployment rate which measures people who have stopped looking for work or who can't find full time jobs. That rate has been declining from a high of over 17% to its current level of 15.9%. That is a good number and probably reflects, at least in part, the exceptional levels of corporate profitability currently being reported.
More off putting are the numbers for workers who have been unemployed for more than a year: 4.2 million people (30.4% of the unemployed). That's an all time high. That has to reflect some of the jobs that have been permanently eliminated.
Most economists would agree (although I may have overassumed here that they can agree on anything - and probably, if they did agree on something, I would disagree with them) that net hiring has to get over 300,000 per month for a prolonged period of time if the economy is going to come back.
So far, we're in another jobless recovery, but at least the numbers are getting better rather than worse. Let's see if we can get to the 300,000 plus per month net hiring number for a sustained period of time.
***************
"The best part of this morning's jobs report may be the hints that the government is understating job growth." (David Leonhardt)
***************
Private sector hiring has had a nice jump to 222,000 as of 3/4/11. That's a good number. Unfortunately, the "net number" is lower because state and local governments are continuing to lay off workers. High oil prices added to government layoffs are not a good mix for improving the "jobs" side of the economy.
As Floyd Norris points out, there are two categories to highlight in this month's jobs report: from the peak in August, 2008, 450,000 jobs have vanished from state and local governments (2.3% of the total). That's the bad news. The good news is that manufacturing jobs have continued to rise: 189,000 over the last year.
The more comprehensive measure of labor underutilization is the BLS U6 unemployment rate which measures people who have stopped looking for work or who can't find full time jobs. That rate has been declining from a high of over 17% to its current level of 15.9%. That is a good number and probably reflects, at least in part, the exceptional levels of corporate profitability currently being reported.
More off putting are the numbers for workers who have been unemployed for more than a year: 4.2 million people (30.4% of the unemployed). That's an all time high. That has to reflect some of the jobs that have been permanently eliminated.
Most economists would agree (although I may have overassumed here that they can agree on anything - and probably, if they did agree on something, I would disagree with them) that net hiring has to get over 300,000 per month for a prolonged period of time if the economy is going to come back.
So far, we're in another jobless recovery, but at least the numbers are getting better rather than worse. Let's see if we can get to the 300,000 plus per month net hiring number for a sustained period of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)