Gdp 7.2%
- Thread starter jrs3
- Start date
The question is: Are the jobs being lost now due to a fall in demand, or a result of greater productivity ? (thru automation, etc)
I just heard that WMT is installing new chips on all of their products. Think about it. No check out people needed (just go by the scanner and it knows what is in your bag) greatly reduced shoplifting, up to the second inventory. This will cause many WMT job cuts over the longer term, but it is not due to the lack of demand.
It is really not clear, and the answer will affect the way the market interprets the number.
nitro
I just heard that WMT is installing new chips on all of their products. Think about it. No check out people needed (just go by the scanner and it knows what is in your bag) greatly reduced shoplifting, up to the second inventory. This will cause many WMT job cuts over the longer term, but it is not due to the lack of demand.
It is really not clear, and the answer will affect the way the market interprets the number.
nitro
Quote from omcate:
The CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. just appeared on CNBC. He said that US companies have announced the cutting of about 172,000 jobs in October.
"11:44 ET Bond Market Update
Treasuries had continued their upward trajectory for most of the day and had gotten a boost from the Challenger, Gray & Christmas October layoff report. The market has since fallen back on profit taking and light volume, with the ten-year currently +03/32 yielding 4.338% after having touched 4.299%. The report had showed a surprising jump to 171,874 layoffs, the biggest bump since the previous October (although October is typically a big month for job cuts). "
nitro
Treasuries had continued their upward trajectory for most of the day and had gotten a boost from the Challenger, Gray & Christmas October layoff report. The market has since fallen back on profit taking and light volume, with the ten-year currently +03/32 yielding 4.338% after having touched 4.299%. The report had showed a surprising jump to 171,874 layoffs, the biggest bump since the previous October (although October is typically a big month for job cuts). "
nitro
Quote from omcate:
The CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. just appeared on CNBC. He said that US companies have announced the cutting of about 172,000 jobs in October.
Just an FYI:
Remember, Economic Stimulus of almost any kind has a LAG factor ranging from 12-18 months . . . What do you say to 4 to 5 quarters of economic growth in the 5% range?
BACK TO THE PARTY!!!
And . . .
How high can PRODUCTIVITY numbers go, with GDP at 7.2% and NO NEW JOBS?
I think it might be HIGHER!
Go USA!
Remember, Economic Stimulus of almost any kind has a LAG factor ranging from 12-18 months . . . What do you say to 4 to 5 quarters of economic growth in the 5% range?
BACK TO THE PARTY!!!
And . . .
How high can PRODUCTIVITY numbers go, with GDP at 7.2% and NO NEW JOBS?
I think it might be HIGHER!
Go USA!
OK,
Today's number was expected, but the action was not. Here is my guess at an approximate explanation.
The Fed Fund futures are now pricing in a pretty good chance of a 1/4 point (25 basis) hike early next year, and a non zero probabilty of a 1/2 point hike. A 100 basis jump in the rates translates approximately into about 100,000 jobs lost by people that work in housing related parts of the Economy.
So my quess is that the market is balancing the (good) jobs news with the spectre of higher interest rates.
This is clearly a cyclical bull market and not a secular bull market (although an argument certainly exists that it is a secular bull in the NAZ.)
nitro
Today's number was expected, but the action was not. Here is my guess at an approximate explanation.
The Fed Fund futures are now pricing in a pretty good chance of a 1/4 point (25 basis) hike early next year, and a non zero probabilty of a 1/2 point hike. A 100 basis jump in the rates translates approximately into about 100,000 jobs lost by people that work in housing related parts of the Economy.
So my quess is that the market is balancing the (good) jobs news with the spectre of higher interest rates.
This is clearly a cyclical bull market and not a secular bull market (although an argument certainly exists that it is a secular bull in the NAZ.)
nitro
That over the last 200 years, equities have annualized returns of 8%, and if you take the last decade out of the equation, you are probably down to about 5%.
But.....
Did you know that 62% of that annual return is produced by DIVIDENDS?
TRUE.
The other 30% is due to multiple-expansion.
Food for thought!
But.....
Did you know that 62% of that annual return is produced by DIVIDENDS?
TRUE.
The other 30% is due to multiple-expansion.
Food for thought!
waggie945,
If that is true, that is astonishing.
Can you provide me with the reference to where this is discussed?
nitro
If that is true, that is astonishing.
Can you provide me with the reference to where this is discussed?
nitro
Quote from waggie945:
That over the last 200 years, equities have annualized returns of 8%, and if you take the last decade out of the equation, you are probably down to about 5%.
But.....
Did you know that 62% of that annual return is produced by DIVIDENDS?
TRUE.
The other 30% is due to multiple-expansion.
Food for thought!
My good friends at the $23 Billion Dollar Tactical Asset-Allocator in Pasadena, First Quadrant have all of the relative facts and figures. Chairman of First-Quad, Robert Arnott, is one smart cookie!
Simply click on the following link, and open up the PDF file that his highlighted in tan on the right side of the page entitled:
What Risk Premium is "NORMAL"?
http://www.firstquadrant.com/WhatsNew.htm
"What's even more amazing is that the lion's share of the growth from $100.00 invested in stocks in 1802 to the $1,884.00 that you would have now, occurred in the massive bull market from 1982 to date.
In the 180 years from 1802 to 1982, the real value of our $100.00 portfolio had grown to a mere $300.00! If stocks were priced today at the same dividend yields as they were in 1802 and 1982 (5.4%), our $100.00 portfolio would today be worth just $500.00, net of inflation and dividends.
These data put the lie to the conventional view that equities derivce most of their returns from capital appreciation, with income far less important than growth; if not irrelevant."
Let me know what ya think!
Simply click on the following link, and open up the PDF file that his highlighted in tan on the right side of the page entitled:
What Risk Premium is "NORMAL"?
http://www.firstquadrant.com/WhatsNew.htm
"What's even more amazing is that the lion's share of the growth from $100.00 invested in stocks in 1802 to the $1,884.00 that you would have now, occurred in the massive bull market from 1982 to date.
In the 180 years from 1802 to 1982, the real value of our $100.00 portfolio had grown to a mere $300.00! If stocks were priced today at the same dividend yields as they were in 1802 and 1982 (5.4%), our $100.00 portfolio would today be worth just $500.00, net of inflation and dividends.
These data put the lie to the conventional view that equities derivce most of their returns from capital appreciation, with income far less important than growth; if not irrelevant."
Let me know what ya think!
There are growing odds that U.S. inflation will surprise on the upside in the next couple of years.
A special study in the latest monthly Bank Credit Analyst publication challenges the widespread view that inflation will keep falling in the coming year. The case for lower inflation typically assumes that there is considerable spare capacity in the economy. However, real GDP in Q3 was only 0.7% below potential, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Given the imprecision in the measurement of potential GDP, this gap is not large enough to be sure that inflation will keep falling. Moreover, the odds are good that the gap will narrow further in the quarters ahead. Inflation is already proving to be very sticky in most of the economy.
http://www.bcaresearch.com/public/highlights.asp?pre=PRE-20031106.GIF
A special study in the latest monthly Bank Credit Analyst publication challenges the widespread view that inflation will keep falling in the coming year. The case for lower inflation typically assumes that there is considerable spare capacity in the economy. However, real GDP in Q3 was only 0.7% below potential, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Given the imprecision in the measurement of potential GDP, this gap is not large enough to be sure that inflation will keep falling. Moreover, the odds are good that the gap will narrow further in the quarters ahead. Inflation is already proving to be very sticky in most of the economy.
http://www.bcaresearch.com/public/highlights.asp?pre=PRE-20031106.GIF