We had a nice gain of 223K but the big news is in the revisions especially January which was taken up to 284K.
That’s a big deal because it breaks – what feels like to many economists – an intuitive barrier on job creation. Practically speaking the economy behaves as if it has a lot of inertia, particular in job creation. Its hard to see numbers like that and not think the underlying momentum is moving forward.
A couple of things I want to say
1) Quick glance over the internals seems to suggest we are still losing construction jobs and government jobs. In addition, non-durables have been flat which is of no surprise.
However, especially government and construction light a clear path to how this could be sustained and by my estimates would accelerate if oil prices and the Fed played along.
2) Brad Delong notes how this is not consistent with Okun’s Law. There are a lot of reason I wouldn’t worry about Okun’s law but one of the big ones is the following.
3) It should not shock anyone to see labor productivity go into decline over the next year. Not just low number, but robustly negative numbers.
This is because when I look at the world I see a world where technology may rapidly declining.
Now, that doesn’t mean “tech” is rapidly declining. The most powerful technology we had was called “growing computer hardware in Wall Street Office buildings”
Basically we had some Wall Street quants cook-up securitized mortgage products, which we then shipped to China and low and behold they shipped us back Iphones in return.
Growth in that technology has come to and end and there is some evidence that it may begin reversing itself. This will mean technological decline for the US. It, however, would be consistent with a GDP-less recovery.

13 comments
Comments feed for this article
Friday ~ March 9th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Curt Doolittle
Correct. And a great analytical statement in economic language of what conservatives have been arguing in sentimental language, and what austrians have been arguing in inter-temporal language (where inter-temporal language acknowledges the differences in production cycles, and where human beings themselves are one of those cycles.) : **The misallocation of capital into the financial sector and the consequential misallocation of human beings into unnecessary skill sets and regions.**
Tongue in cheek: I knew you’d catch on eventually.
Now, all you have to figure out is how to achieve your humanitarian ends using Keyenesian spending and monetary policy without creating another even worse bubble, with worse allocations of human capital — or at a minimum,
While at the same time, you’ll have to figure out how to replace what has blocked us from doing this in the past: which is the teacher’s unions and the DOE in eduction, and the collaboration between the unions and the government. That the right succeeded in balancing union collusion with wall street collusion still moved the emphasis away from dealing with industrial policy and education reform.
My theory is that industrial policy is highly testable, and makes a government accountable, which is why politicians avoid it and work with monetary policy, government spending, and the two polar ends of the society: unions and financiers. Labor and Finance use government to transfer risk from entrepreneurs. Meanwhile businesses have to defend themselves from predation from both directions, and either flee to alternative jurisdictions and labor pools, or pay for rents as their only alternative. And they have rallied enough of the population behind them to make it possible.
Then when you’re done. You’ll realize that all government spending must be conducted using the german model (with the consent of industry, in the service of industry) in order for people in politics to possess sufficient knowledge to know how to apply spending and credit.
Sometime after that you’ll figure out (which my libertarian friends never will) that the US military if not used for nation building but for punishment of anti-market behavior, is our most profitable industry, and makes it possible to for us to export dollars as long as it’s a near monopoly. At that point you’ll be done with your personal intellectual development.
lol
Curt
Friday ~ March 9th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Unemployment And The Decline In Demand For American “Financial Technology” | Capitalism v3
[...] Quick Thoughts on Payroll and a GDP-Less Recovery « Modeled Behavior. …when I look at the world I see a world where technology may rapidly [...]
Friday ~ March 9th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
your mom
“Quick glance over the internals seems to suggest we are still “loosing ”
losing.
Friday ~ March 9th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
your mom
“In addition, non-durables have been which is of no surprise.”
Non-durables have been up or down?
Thanks for the blog but you need a hot young secretary to proofread your posts before you publish them.
Friday ~ March 9th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
A decent jobs report | Punditocracy
[...] Karl Smith: We had a nice gain of 223K but the big news is in the revisions especially January which was taken up to 284K. [...]
Saturday ~ March 10th, 2012 at 1:25 am
Steve
Isn’t it possible that the economy is growing faster than we think it is. During turning points initial estimates are often way off. This is true on the upswing, not just the downswing.
Saturday ~ March 10th, 2012 at 8:26 am
A Trend That’s Been Fantastic For Investors Is Finally Coming To An End – Finding Out About
[...] flip side, one could describe things as economist Karl Smith does: “A GDP-less [...]
Monday ~ March 12th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Dear occupy Wall Street: the great disparity between labor and profit is … at Kolby Shenir
[...] we should note that economist Karl Smith is the first person we’ve seen use the word GDP-less [...]
Monday ~ March 12th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Moneymentos » Blog Archive » What’s The Opposite Of A Jobless Recovery? » Moneymentos
[...] Smith calls it a GDP-less recovery, which is a bit wonky. We put a call out for ideas on Twitter this morning and [...]
Tuesday ~ March 27th, 2012 at 2:13 am
GIASTAR – Storie di ordinaria tecnologia » Blog Archive » ECONOMIST: ‘Kim Would Be The First World Bank President Who Seems To Be Anti-Growth’
[...] Modeled Behavior’s Karl Smith puts it, we seem to be experiencing a “GDP-less recovery”: a recovery marked by strong [...]
Tuesday ~ March 27th, 2012 at 2:45 am
ECONOMIST: 'Kim Would Be The First World Bank President Who Seems To Be Anti-Growth'
[...] Modeled Behavior's Karl Smith puts it, we seem to be experiencing a "GDP-less recovery": a recovery marked by strong job growth, [...]
Tuesday ~ March 27th, 2012 at 4:25 am
‘Kim Would Be The First World Bank President Who Seems To Be Anti-Growth’ – Finding Out About
[...] Modeled Behavior’s Karl Smith puts it, we seem to be experiencing a “GDP-less recovery”: a recovery marked [...]
Friday ~ March 30th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
ECONOMIST: ‘Kim Would Be The First World Bank President Who Seems To Be Anti-Growth’ | ccnew
[...] Modeled Behavior’s Karl Smith puts it, we seem to be experiencing a “GDP-less recovery”: a recovery marked by strong [...]