Most Americans have a hard time with economic complexity, and reading charts . . . BORING!
Please stay with me on this one . It is far too important to ignore, because the graph posted above does not paint a pretty picture for the future of this country. If you do not care to understand the fundamentals, skip to the explanation and assessment at the bottom under “gobbly-gook“.
This graph was apparently created by Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Global Equity Strategies research group for Bloomberg financial news (Bloomberg.com), and posted at one of my favorite investment and economic blogs – Seeking Alpha. For those of you who do not engage in economic analysis – I minored in Economics in undergraduate studies - this chart represents the comparative relationship since 1996 between the U.S. stock market (utilizing the S & P 500 as an indicator) and job growth/decline in the American labor market utilizing the U.S. Conference Board’s “job plentiful index”. The key factor here is the radical divergence between the stock market and jobs over the past seven years.
From 1996-2000, job growth grew lock-and-step with the stock market, and the job index was actually much higher than the relative market index – meaning that as businesses made money (profits), jobs were created – this concept of “wage labour“ correlating with profits is the single most fundamental component of Adam Smith’s original theory of Capitalism as outlined in his treatise The Wealth of Nations. Capitalism in its most simple of terms states that as companies compete for and secure profits, workers will benefit through both increased job opportunities and rising wages, all which serves the best interests of society.
If you follow the graph out from 2000-2003, both indexes dropped in remarkable comparison as a result of a relatively severe recession. However, after 2003, the stock market goes up, but job growth lags far behind, and this growing divergence is only temporarily halted by the financial meltdown in late 2008 – when the two lines meet again in early 2009. Now the divergence between the two is growing ever wider at an alarming rate.
So what does this gobbly-gook mean?
Simply put, the stock market believes publically-traded companies in the United States - which are overly-represented by very large corporations - will produce a growth in profits without creating more jobs.
What this really means is that no matter who is President – Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Mitt Rommney, John McCain, [you fill in the blank] – the future for the future of U.S. workforce looks bleak. Moreover, if you think putting the Republicans back in office will change that – with their proposed policies of cutting taxes, gutting business regulation, and further fostering the concentration of power in large corporations – you are only fooling yourself.
Obama said this past week that he is going to make the economy, specifically job creation, his number one priority. I had absolutely no illusions that Obama was going to be able to turn this mess around quickly – he was handed the second worst economic situation in U.S. history, coupled with two very expensive wars. Nonetheless, I am sorely disappointed in his failure to immediately regulate the financial system, and focus the bailouts on bolstering small and medium-size business to quickly boost employment. You can defend Big Business all you want, but it is statistically indisputable that small and medium size businesses provide over 50% of the jobs in this country, and produce 64% of the new jobs every year.
Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, would be astounded at the bailouts for Wall Street, and the subsequent consolidation (concentration of power) of these financial behemoths. Moreover, he would bemoan the fact that such an extraordinary amount of financial capital was squandered on such an inherently risk-weighted aspect of business (trading derivatives and securities), which only produces profits while creating virtually a statistically insignificant number of new jobs in comparison (which ironically, Wall Street was shedding jobs at a record pace while making record profits and bonuses on trading in 2009 – so as for creating new jobs, “that dog just won’t hunt”).
Better pray it’s not too late to redress these problems. Hoping Obama fails on this front, is proverbially speaking, biting you nose off in spite of your face.
P.S. The bailouts were a monumental failure - and the primary blame must be placed at the feet of former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and present Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (former New York Federal Reserve Chairman) for reasons I address in a future posting. Paulson, Geithner and Blankfein could all be charged for conspiracy to commit financial fraud if Federal Prosecutors would just grow some testicles.