Alan Krueger, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Affairs, suggested in a recent speech a useful metaphor to distinguish different kinds of economic indicators. Some indicators are like the gauges on the dashboard of the car — industrial production, unemployment, inflation and so on.  They give the latest bits of information on the business cycle outlook, for businesspeople, government policy-makers, economic forecasters, and anyone else who wishes to follow such developments at high frequency. Many of these numbers are collected on a monthly basis. Other statistics are like the results of 10,000 mile checkups – the poverty rate, infant mortality, life expectancy, carbon emissions, natural resource depletion, the crime rate, traffic congestion, leisure time, and other measures of inequality, health, the environment and the quality of life.  They supplement market-measured activity and are needed in order to get a comprehensive feel for welfare and the longer term sustainability of the economy. This second category of statistics is more often collected on an annual basis.

GDP is the single indicator that gets the most attention. Lately much of that attention has been very critical. In late September, the most recent in a long line of critics weighed in. This group was weighty indeed: the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress was created by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, chaired by Joseph Stiglitz, chair-advised by Amartya Sen, and coordinated by Jean-Paul Fitoussi.  Nobel-Prize winners abound. The Commission believes that we have been focusing too much on market-measured output:   “By their reckoning, much of the contemporary economic disaster owes to the misbegotten assumption that policy makers simply had to focus on nurturing growth, trusting that this would maximize prosperity for all. “What you measure affects what you do,” Mr. Stiglitz said…”If you don’t measure the right thing you don’t do the right thing.” (New York Times, Sept. 23, 2009.)

I certainly agree that the non-market variables are important, both in the sense that they should be measured well and in the sense that policy-makers should put some priority on them as objectives. But I question whether the measurement issue and the objective issue are as closely linked as many would have it. I especially question any claims that the role of GDP should be in practice be replaced with a single concept that factors in these other measures of the health, inequality, the environment, etc.    GDP is a comprehensive measure of market output, is available quarterly, and belongs on the dashboard. The other variables are typically available only annually, and there is no way to know how to aggregate them into a single number, let alone to aggregate them together with the standard economic measures. By all means, take the 10,000 mile checkups seriously. But don’t remove GDP from the dashboard.

I am not sure I see the claim that the measurement problem is the reason for the myriad errors our national policy makers have made in recent years (notwithstanding the Bush Administration’s notorious downgrading of science). We have perfectly good tools for helping to make decisions about environmental regulation, for example, in the form of cost benefit analysis.  GDP measurement issues have nothing to do with that. Perhaps you believe that a Republican Administration may want to pressure the EPA to count some environmental damages at zero or suppress the evidence entirely; perhaps you believe that a Democratic Administration may want to count some economic costs at zero or abandon cost benefit analysis entirely. Yes, that would have a big effect on the policy decision. But what does any of it have to do with GDP?

In the same newspaper reporting Joe’s comments, I read of a development that has received mysteriously little attention: according to numbers from the Energy Information Agency, greenhouse gas emissions fell sharply in 2008 (by more than 2 ½ %), are falling even more in 2009 (about 6%), and in the next few years are almost certain to remain easily below the levels of 2005.   (See the chart below.)  The oil price spike in 2008 deserves some credit. Some might wish to try to give some credit to policy too. But there can be no doubt that the main reason for the sharp fall in emissions is the recession. A simple statistic for the unitiated: although CO2 emissions in an average year rise by 0.8%, they fell that much in both 1991 and 2001, the last two recessions, in addition to the much larger drop in the much larger recent recession. That is not a coincidence.

How should one value a 9 percent fall in emissions against a 3.8% fall in real GDP (from the 2007Q4 peak to the 2009Q2 apparent-trough)? I strongly suspect that a majority of Americans, no matter how well-informed regarding the science, would think that the output loss outweighs the climate benefit by far. A minority, in favor of very drastic action on climate change, might implicitly choose the other way. (I myself am in favor of pretty serious action, but not in favor of policies that impose huge economic costs, either because they are too drastic or are designed in an inefficient way. And of course engineering a recession would be a very inefficient way to do it.) Are Joe Stiglitz and Amartya Sen among those who think we are better off on balance? I have no idea. To ask the question is to help illuminate why attempts to sum everything up into a single number, such as “Green GDP,” fail.

Incidentally, if Joe does think that the estimated 9 percent fall in emissions outweighs the 4% loss in GDP, then he doesn’t think that our current situation constitutes a “contemporary economic disaster,” but, rather, a gain in welfare.  It would then logically follow that any policy decisions that got us into this situation (whether attributable to incomplete information about banking activity or inequality or anything else), were good, not bad!

Source: US Energy Information Agency

[Readers wishing to post comments are referred to SeekingAlpha.]

The quip “There are three kinds of lies:  lies, damn lies, and statistics” is variously attributed to Benjamin Disraeli or Mark Twain.   What should the public make of government statistics, such as the monthly employment report released today, Thursday, July 2, by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)?  

There is no lying in US government statistics.   But there are always commentators who will use the numbers to make whatever point they want.     One should learn enough to be able to interpret the numbers for oneself.     That is the only way to prevent being misled.

Of the many numbers contained in the BLS reports, I view three as especially important.    

The most salient figure politically is the unemployment rate, which hit 9.5% in June, according to Thursday’s report.    This was the highest level since August 1983 and clearly reflects the current extent of distress in American labor markets.

Critics of the official statistics like to point out that the unemployment rate does not capture discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force because they couldn’t find a job.  True.  But the government isn’t trying to make the unemployment number look smaller.   Rather, it is just too difficult to decide who is a “discouraged worker,” as opposed to simply being out of the labor force.   So the BLS always defines only those who have looked for a job recently as being in the measured labor force.   This still allows us to compare changes in unemployment over time, which is the purpose of the unemployment rate.   The agency does compute a measure that attempts to include discouraged workers and part-time workers — the U-6 series — but I don’t think it is right to call this the “real unemployment rate.”   

The second important number in the labor market reports is employment, that is, the number of workers who have jobs, which was down another 467,000 in June.    This is the statistic to which the financial markets and macroeconomic forecasters pay the most attention on a monthly basis.  (In that sense, the question of discouraged workers is a red herring.)     Employment peaked in December 2007, the start of the recession.    Since then, we have lost 6 million jobs altogether.   The current recession is now both the longest-lasting and the deepest since the 1930s.    But at least the period of the steepest rate of job loss –  November 2008 to March 2009 – appears to be behind us.  

Two details about the jobs number.    First, the statisticians get the “employment” number through one method, by surveying establishments (employers), while the unemployment rate uses a measure of employment derived through a different method, by surveying households.   The employment number is generally considered more reliable because it is based on a wider survey — another reason to prefer it.  

The second point is that, for purposes of comparison across different business cycles, we still need to divide employment by something.     If not the labor force, then what?   We must, at a minimum, allow for population growth.    So it is useful to divide employment by total population.  This way we don’t have to attempt distinctions about which Americans might be prepared to take a job under the right circumstances.  The fraction of the population (civilian non-institutional) with jobs peaked at the end of the Clinton Administration, reaching 64 ½  % in January 2001.   It has now declined to 59 ½ %.

Although the financial markets pay most attention to the number of workers with jobs, employment is not much good for forecasting the overall economy, because it tends to be a lagging indicator.   Even when firms see economic activity starting to pick up, they delay hiring, because it is costly to find, hire, and train new workers – not to mention to fire them again if the recovery turns out abortive.   

For this reason, the third indicator is my personal favorite for gauging the business cycle in real time:  the rate of change of total hours worked in the economy.  Total hours worked is equal to the total number of workers employed, multiplied by the length of the workweek for the average worker.   The length of the workweek can be expected to respond at turning points faster than does the number of jobs.  When demand is slowing, firms tend to cut back on overtime, and then switch to part-time workers or in some cases cut workers back to partial workweeks, before they lay them off.    The phenomenon is called “labor hoarding.”  Conversely, when demand begins to rise, firms tend to increase the workweek, before they hire new workers.   (To take two historical examples, the “change in total hours worked” improved in both April 1991 and November 2001, which on other grounds were eventually declared to mark the ends of their respective recessions.)   

The workweek reached a historically short level in June: 33.0 hours.  Not a good sign.    As one consequence, total hours worked fell 0.8% that month, continuing the same rapid deterioration we have seen since last September, the month when Lehman Brothers failed and the recession worsened sharply.  

The bottom line for the economy:   despite signs in other areas that the recession is leveling out – most importantly, production and sales — the labor market indicators in themselves are not yet signaling a turning point.   Thus the June numbers confirm the evaluation I made a month ago, based on hours worked in May, that the apparent good news in the widely reported May employment number was probably an insignificant blip.   The bottom line for newspaper readers:   master your statistics, so that they can’t master you.

[Readers wishing to post comments are referred to the version of this post on Seeking Alpha or the RGE Monitor site. ]

Is the United States in recession?   If one looked solely at the adverse shocks that have hit the economy over the last year, one would infer an unusually high probability of a recession.    If one consulted some of the most import economic measures over the last year, one would say the country clearly entered a recession last January.  If one gauged the popular mood, one would hear, “Of course we are in recession !” 

The one criterion that has been missing is the one criterion that people most commonly have in their minds as the definition of a recession:   two consecutive quarters of negative growth.   This morning, October 30, the Commerce Department released the advance estimate of GDP for the 3^rd quarter.   It showed a decline.   The decline was small:  just 0.3 per cent at an annual rate; and it is only one quarter, not yet two.    But at this point there can be little doubt that we are really truly in recession. 

The adverse shocks include the most severe housing bust in more than 70 years, an oil shock as big as those of the 1970s, the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, and the worst fiscal outlook ever.    Any one of these developments would normally be enough to send an economy into recession.   Leading economists from Martin Feldstein to Larry Summers have been warning since the start of the year that the downturn has indeed arrived, not to mention Nouriel Roubini who forecast it far ahead of time.

And sure enough, many of the most reliable statistical indicators have suggested all year that we are in recession. 

The most important statistical criterion besides GDP is employment.   Jobs peaked in December 2007 and have declined steadily ever since.  The cumulative loss is 760 thousand (or 0.55%) as of September.    My personal favorite among indicators is Total Hours Worked in the economy, because it combines both employment (number of people working) and average length of workweek (are they working 40 hours a week? Overtime?  Part-time?).    Total Hours Worked shows a similar pattern as employment, but with an even steeper decline since December: 1.4%.  (The Bureau of Labor Statistics is the agency that releases these numbers, on the first Friday of the subsequent month.)

The index of Leading Economic Indicators, which is designed to try to warn of turning points in advance, turned down more than a year ago.   Not only that, but also the index of Coincident Economic Indicators, which is supposed to move contemporaneously with the real economy, appears clearly to indicate that a recession started toward the end of 2007.  

Housing prices as of August are down 27%, relative to their peak in July 2006 (Case-Shiller composite of 20 cities).   Consumer confidence, another important determinant of household spending, fell to an all-time low in September, according to the October 28 release from the Conference Board.  The version collected by the University of Michigan is also looking quite bleak.   Indeed, retail sales are down, especially autos.  The worse news in the Commerce Department report is that consumer spending took a steeper plunge in the third quarter than at any time in the last 28 years.   The trend in industrial production has been negative for a year, and accelerated in August and September.  Corporate profits are down too.

But it is still not yet officially a recession !  Why not?   The most important criterion for dating business cycles is real growth.    The rate of change of real GDP, surprisingly, was above zero in the first quarter of 2008, and was even moderately strong in the second quarter: 2.8%.   (The revised “final” estimate of GDP in the fourth quarter of 2007 did turn out to be below zero, but just barely.)     It is quite a mystery why output pointed up during the first half of the year, while everything else pointed down.  

Clearly the demand for US goods received some boost in the 2nd quarter from tax rebates and exports.   Exports continued to help growth in the third quarter (together with inventory investment, which probably includes some goods sitting on shelves that firms were unable to sell, and defense spending).    Net exports have been carrying the economy for the year, as one can readily tell by noting that real domestic purchases have been in decline.  Exports are unlikely to continue this role in the future, because our trading partners have slowed down more than we have and because the depreciation of the dollar has recently stopped.

But perhaps there is some measurement problem with GDP.   Gross National Income (GNI) has as much claim to measure growth as Gross National Product does.  In theory the two are supposed to be virtually the same: the value of goods and services sold is conceptually the same as the value of income earned.    Real GNI did in fact turn down in the 4th quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008, though it rebounded in the third quarter as real output did.   Real personal income – one of the indicators that the NBER Business Cycle Dating Committee looks at – has been declining almost throughout the year. Real personal disposable income fell especially sharply in this morning’s release for the 3rd quarter.

The weight of evidence is now overwhelming:   we are currently in recession.

Did it start at the end of 2007, when employment and the other indicators peaked?     Or was the stimulus from the government and from exports enough to postpone the turning point, and did the recession thus only start towards the end of the summer, when the financial crisis intensified very sharply?   I am afraid that we need to wait for some more data and some more (regularly scheduled) revisions before we will know.

[For anyone wishing to comment on this post, I suggest you go to the RGE version.]