Live data from Hacker News

Why a global recession is inevitable in 2023

economist.com

241–250 of 281 posts

Re: Why a global recession is inevitable in 2023

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because unemployment is low that means that the Fed can't drop rates at all or else inflation will come back. And it is likely that if the Fed pauses rate hikes and the economy doesn't fall into recession that there will be another boom and high inflation again, which will kick off more rate hikes. This is the difference between short-term reactions of inflation to rates and long-term reactions. What the Fed needs to…

Wage growth is not driving inflation. Pushing unemployment higher isn't the route to fix inflation. Recent inflation was driven primarily by two things significant increase in energy costs. Just like in the the 70s large oil spikes will drive large inflation as the cost of everything requires energy. Second was sever supply constraints due to lack of labor due to Covid (either people out side, plants running minimall…

Wage growth has been running at over 7% for the bottom quartile:

https://www.atlantafed.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker [ click the "wage level" button ]

And there has been a historically low number of job seekers per job opening:

https://www.bls.gov/charts/job-openings-and-labor-turnover/u...

And the US unemployment rate has been running at historically low levels of 3.5-3.7%:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE/

I guarantee you that the top graph there of how wage growth is running is what is most concerning the Fed when they talk about inflation.

We had commodities inflation during the last oil spike around 2010-2014 and the Fed didn't care about that. They know that commodities inflation acts as a tax and a natural brake on the economy and is cyclical in nature, so they didn't act. It didn't show up in wage growth.

We have both acting together right now, but it is the wage growth portion that the Fed is reacting to.

And here's a good short reaction article to Jerome Powell's comments earlier this month:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/12/jerome-powell-needs-...

Particularly focus on:

> “We’ve made less progress than expected on inflation,” Powell said.

compared to:

> The Labor Department’s consumer price index shows that, on average, prices have risen just 0.2 percent during the last five months — a stark turnaround from the high of 1.3 percent in June

The Fed is not as trivially stupid as the portrayal of the person who can't get past the y-o-y inflation headlines. They understand that CPI inflation is down. Oil and gas prices are back down. Why are they still yapping about less progress than expected keeping inflation under control? They're not pants-on-head stupid. Their definition of inflation encompasses wage growth (and I'd argue that in fact that is the definition of inflation that they are MOST concerned about) and isn't any of the CPI numbers.

And you can read this concern directly from Powell's remarks:

> Despite the slowdown in growth, the labor market remains extremely tight, with the unemployment rate near a 50-year low, job vacancies still very high, and wage growth elevated. Job gains have been robust, with employment rising by an average of 272,000 jobs per month over the last three months. Although job vacancies have moved below their highs and the pace of job gains has slowed from earlier in the year, the labor market continues to be out of balance, with demand substantially exceeding the supply of available workers. The labor force participation rate is little changed since the beginning of the year > [...] > The third piece, which is something like 55 percent of the index, PCE core inflation index, is non-housing-related core services. And that’s really a function of the labor market, largely. The biggest cost, by far, in that sector is labor. And we do see a very, very strong labor market, one where we haven’t seen much softening, where job growth is very high, where wages are very high. Vacancies are quite elevated, and, really, there’s an imbalance in the labor market between supply and demand. So that part of it, which is the biggest part, is likely to take a substantial period to get down. > The other—you know, the goods inflation has turned pretty quickly now after not turning at all for a year and a half. Now it seems to be turning. But there’s an expectation, really, that the services inflation will not move down so quickly, so that we’ll have to stay at it, so that we may have to raise rates higher to get to where we want to go. And that’s really why we are writing down those high rates and why we’re expecting that they’ll have to remain high for a time.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCprescon...

Re: Why a global recession is inevitable in 2023

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that inflation would reappear at 5.99% unemployment. They need >6% so there's a gap between here and there. Right now we're clearly at the rail and unemployment has not budged. The jobs overhang has significantly abated, but that has been a short-term reaction to the policy changes, and it can change back on just as short of a term.

> I didn't say that inflation would reappear at 5.99% unemployment. I didn't say you did, just that you haven't said anything to motivate the 6-8% number. It's plausible sounding, but as far as what you've said so far, you might as well have drawn those numbers out of a hat.

Because it took 5 years from 2015-2020 for unemployment to fall from 6% to 3.5%, and during that period wage growth was between 3% to 4.5%, which is consistent with the Fed's desire to keep wage growth in line with their 2% inflation target adjusted for productivity gains.

The 8% number is motivated by the fact that the economy is highly nonlinear and the Fed really doesn't control how bad the next recession is going to be. It could, of course, be even worse.

Re: Why a global recession is inevitable in 2023

#243
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a look at the comment I was responding to, as well as some others on this page: It's a common misconception that the unemployment rate spikes ( spikes , not fluctuates slightly higher ) before recessions. It doesn't.

>It's a common misconception that the unemployment rate spikes (spikes, not fluctuates slightly higher) before recessions I'm not talking about using the unemployment rate as a leading indicator, which is what you're describing here.

> > that evidence strongly suggests that we are not in one

The unemployment part can't indicate current state either because it usually doesn't spike until months afterwards. We can easily be in a recession with unemployment still being low.

Re: Why a global recession is inevitable in 2023

#244
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's a common misconception that the unemployment rate spikes (spikes, not fluctuates slightly higher) before recessions I'm not talking about using the unemployment rate as a leading indicator, which is what you're describing here.

> > that evidence strongly suggests that we are not in one The unemployment part can't indicate current state either because it usually doesn't spike until months afterwards. We can easily be in a recession with unemployment still being low.

>The unemployment part can't indicate current state either

Yes, it can. Nonfarm payroll employment--along with GDP--is one of the key measures used by the NBER in their determination of whether or not we're in a recession, so it is by definition a current indicator. You are stating that it's not a sufficient indicator in determining a recession, which is correct, but that's not what I was saying anyway. Unemployment is absolutely a relevant measure here, and you are wrong.

Re: Why a global recession is inevitable in 2023

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s fair to be skeptical of economic predictions, as yes, most end up being wrong. But in this case the Fed is quite clearly aiming to orchestrate a spike in the unemployment rate, and pretty much all of history is pointing towards the current macro setup ending with recession. By and large people tend to be overly optimistic that this time is different re economic cycles and monetary policy. E.g. Wall Street analys…

Economics as a "science" is when psychology majors cosplay as mathematicians. They demonstrate all of the trappings of a science; specialist jargon, mathematical notation, journals, conferences, but have scant little to show for it. They will be the first to tell you that the economic system is too complex for any one of them to understand, and point at "markers" to which they attach a level of causal significance th…

You’re mistaken.

The principles of the economy are quite clear. If people have incentive to do something, they will. If you alter incentives, you alter behavior, everything stems from that.

The problem with making predictions is that the macro economy has billions of variables which obviously all cannot be realistically modeled. That doesn’t invalidate the validity of theory. Economic theory works just the same as physics if you were able to observe and model every value accurately. Most physics problems deal with far fewer variables and can be simulated and replicated quite easily.

In this case its easy to predict because Powell has indicated for all intents and purposes that he will create a recession. And if he wants to, he 100% has the power to do it regardless of any other variable.

Re: Why a global recession is inevitable in 2023

#246
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s fair to be skeptical of economic predictions, as yes, most end up being wrong. But in this case the Fed is quite clearly aiming to orchestrate a spike in the unemployment rate, and pretty much all of history is pointing towards the current macro setup ending with recession. By and large people tend to be overly optimistic that this time is different re economic cycles and monetary policy. E.g. Wall Street analys…

>But in this case the Fed is quite clearly aiming to orchestrate a spike in the unemployment rate While this might be technically true in the sense that they're trying to fight inflation by tightening monetary policy, and that has the effect of slowing economic activity and driving up unemployment, I dislike the framing because it implies that the fed wants to high unemployment as some sort of end goal, as if they ha…

They have to spike unemployment to lower wage pressures, thats it.

The Fed has to do this because they vastly overstimulated. It was entirely avoidable if responsible policy had been pursued

The people who make it into a bleeding heart kind of issue are largely misguided, and don’t understand the distinction between real and nominal. Real wages have been declining at the fastest pace in history yet they point to nominal numbers like its some victory

Re: Why a global recession is inevitable in 2023

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s fair to be skeptical of economic predictions, as yes, most end up being wrong. But in this case the Fed is quite clearly aiming to orchestrate a spike in the unemployment rate, and pretty much all of history is pointing towards the current macro setup ending with recession. By and large people tend to be overly optimistic that this time is different re economic cycles and monetary policy. E.g. Wall Street analys…

The Fed has a dual mandate. They do not actually want to raise the unemployment rate by itself, only insofar as with the very strong unemployment rates now, it gives them leeway to potentially increase it as they address their other mandate of taming inflation. Inflation in the US, contrary to popular belief, is already almost solved. Since July the MoM inflation per the FRED CPI rate is annualized at like 4%. Once t…

You’re mistaken.

Rate of CPI change is declining on a MoM basis due to one time fiscal headwinds/supply normalization. The demand side has not been addressed at all, with nominal GDP growth close to 10% YoY and the tightest labor market in history along very high wage growth numbers.

If the Fed doesn’t raise unemployment before loosening policy, CPI will rebound due to the level of labor market tightness and wage growth.

It’s possible the Fed will use declining headline CPI to justify pivoting prior to rise in unemployment, but this will almost certainly turn out to be a mistake and require even higher rates a year or two out.

If the Fed pivots before actually triggering a solid softening in the economy, all assets will rally and labor market will retighten.

They made exactly this mistake many times in the 70s and 80s. The only way out at this point is to keep policy tight until a recession event kicks off

Re: Why a global recession is inevitable in 2023

#248
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can afford a $500k house you can also afford a $350k house. Those numbers seem insanely high to me. I would've thought people are looking for more like $100k.

You won't find houses for $100k unless they are in poor condition or a bad location. That is roughly the price you would expect to pay for an average condominium in Germany.

Yeah, that's what I mean - not what houses are selling for, but what people are looking for/able to buy. Median income in the US is somewhere around 40k-70k/year depending on the source, and the general recommendation is not to exceed 2.5x that for the price of a home - so around 100k-175k.

Re: Why a global recession is inevitable in 2023

#249
post #195
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are recessions a healthy part of a normal economic ebb and flow? (Over the long-term) Ray Dalio discusses this in his video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0&t=483s And basically the answer he gives is "yes".

I look at recessions as being analogous with a bodybuilding cut cycle. You go through a bulking cycle to build muscle and to do so you consume a calorie surplus. Because it's difficult to tailor your macros precisely, you most likely put on a bit of fat at the same time. So after a period of bulking you undertake a cut cycle, where you burn off all the fat you don't want. In economic terms, in the bulk cycle there's…

Cringe

Re: Why a global recession is inevitable in 2023

#250

Disclaimer, I have no idea if this is even slightly logical, I'm not an economist. House prices have increased significantly above inflation for decades to the point of absurdity, many multiples of a households income. People in their 20s (and 30s) increasingly don't believe they will ever own a home. If we have a period of inflation, with increased wages (obviously with a painful lag), but house prices remain stagna…

No, the fundamental reason for lack of housing affordability is a lack of supply relative to demand. Since 2008 we've dramatically under built new housing units relative to household formation. Playing with inflation or interest rates may change who loses out, but it still doesn't change the fundamental problem that we don't have enough housing to go around.

The number of housing units in the United States has been growing year on year and in 2021, there were approximately 142 million housing units in the United States. 1.43 million is the average annual new house starts since 1959. Houses sold is around 6 million so only 25% of the sales are new houses. Lack of building is probalby no the main reason. If the interest rates was 8-10%+ a few million houses would come for sale. With low interrest rates many people would rather have more houses than they need to protect against inflation.
Post reply on HN