At KCEconomy.com, we strive to find interesting facts and figures regarding our local economy and do our best to explain what these figures mean. It is only fair that we include facts and figures that we… well, simply cannot explain. Such is the case with the recent employment figures for metro areas.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the Kansas City area saw nonfarm employment decline 1.9 percent between December 2009 and December 2010. Out of the large metro areas with populations greater than 750,000, only Sacramento, Calif., had a more severe decline (2.2 percent). For the Kansas City area this means a loss of nearly 16,000 jobs.
The BLS data is the industry standard. It is the source for local area unemployment rate data, but these Kansas City numbers on employment change just don’t seem right to us. In the 2011 economic forecast MARC prepares for the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, released back in October, we predicted modest employment growth of about 8,000 for the region in 2010. This prediction was made using a national employment forecast with our model of the regional economy to predict how the local economy will perform. In the past, this approach has proved to be fairly accurate. This is the first time our estimate of the region’s employment direction is opposite that of BLS. Additionally, it has been generally accepted that our local economy weathered the recession better than other parts of the country. It is certainly surprising that Kansas City is so low relative to other large metros in terms of employment growth.
This BLS data will be revised this spring and we will look over the updated numbers with great interest. Either the current figures have somehow gotten out of alignment in 2010, or we may have to re-think how the local economy relates to the nation’s.
In the meantime, we will examine local employment data in detail so we can perhaps shed some light on this puzzling difference.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
GDP up 3.2 Percent in Fourth Quarter 2010
The Bureau of Economic Analysis released its first estimate of how rapidly Gross Domestic Product grew in the fourth quarter of 2010 earlier today. The annualized rate of 3.2 percent marks the 6th straight quarter of growth. This ends a good year for the national economy, especially considering that the 2007-09 recession is fresh in our minds. If you recall, that many economists were worried about a double-dip recession in 2010. That talk has pretty well dissipated.
Also, as we discussed on Wednesday’s blog, personal consumption grew at 4.4 percent rate. This was actually higher than the 4 percent growth rate that was predicted.
What this means is the economy is on solid ground and should soon be providing those much needed jobs throughout 2011.
Also, as we discussed on Wednesday’s blog, personal consumption grew at 4.4 percent rate. This was actually higher than the 4 percent growth rate that was predicted.
What this means is the economy is on solid ground and should soon be providing those much needed jobs throughout 2011.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Welcome Back Shoppers!
Although the Gross Domestic Product figures for the fourth quarter will not be released until Friday, economists are already predicting a solid bump based on personal consumption. According to 27 leading economists, consumer spending in the fourth quarter of 2010 jumped by 4 percent. This would make for six consecutive positive quarters and would mark the highest increase since 2006.
Economists cite a strong holiday shopping season and solid new car sales as reasons for the optimism. Additionally, the Consumer Confidence Index jumped 7.3 points in January (from 53.3 to 60.6, where 1985=100).
Taken together, all this information indicates that the consumer is finally spending again, which will help reverse the downward cycle we have experienced in recent years. As consumers demand more goods and services, employers will have to hire more workers to meet this demand. More hiring leads to more consumption, and the cycle continues.
The depths we experienced in the recession will likely keep the economy from feeling particularly strong for a while. A lot of hiring will have to occur before we can even begin to reach pre-recession levels, but if Friday’s GDP release does in fact include a good consumption figure we can feel confident that the economy is on the way back.
Economists cite a strong holiday shopping season and solid new car sales as reasons for the optimism. Additionally, the Consumer Confidence Index jumped 7.3 points in January (from 53.3 to 60.6, where 1985=100).
Taken together, all this information indicates that the consumer is finally spending again, which will help reverse the downward cycle we have experienced in recent years. As consumers demand more goods and services, employers will have to hire more workers to meet this demand. More hiring leads to more consumption, and the cycle continues.
The depths we experienced in the recession will likely keep the economy from feeling particularly strong for a while. A lot of hiring will have to occur before we can even begin to reach pre-recession levels, but if Friday’s GDP release does in fact include a good consumption figure we can feel confident that the economy is on the way back.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Beige Book Paints a Positive Picture
The Federal Reserve just released the latest edition of its Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions, better known as the “Beige Book.” The Beige Book is a collection of largely anecdotal information gathered by Federal Reserve Bank officials from business and market experts throughout the country. It is published eight times each year.
The latest report states that the economy in the Kansas City district (which includes western Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma, and northern New Mexico) grew at a strong pace in October and early November. Other districts with economies growing at a strong pace included New York, Richmond, Chicago and Minneapolis. The Boston, Cleveland, Atlanta, Dallas and San Francisco districts also grew, but at a more modest pace. Economic growth in the St. Louis and Philadelphia districts was described as mixed.
The growth in the Kansas City district was attributed to increased optimism from manufacturers and increased demand for energy and agriculture products produced in the region. On the down side, real estate and construction activity continued to languish in the district.
For more information on the Federal Reserve Bank’s Beige Book, click here.
The latest report states that the economy in the Kansas City district (which includes western Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma, and northern New Mexico) grew at a strong pace in October and early November. Other districts with economies growing at a strong pace included New York, Richmond, Chicago and Minneapolis. The Boston, Cleveland, Atlanta, Dallas and San Francisco districts also grew, but at a more modest pace. Economic growth in the St. Louis and Philadelphia districts was described as mixed.
The growth in the Kansas City district was attributed to increased optimism from manufacturers and increased demand for energy and agriculture products produced in the region. On the down side, real estate and construction activity continued to languish in the district.
For more information on the Federal Reserve Bank’s Beige Book, click here.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Kansas City’s Real Estate Market Emerging Trends
The Urban Land Institute (ULI) released its “2011 Emerging Trends in Real Estate” report last month. The report grades the country’s major metropolitan areas on investment and development opportunities. It is no surprise that very few markets are seen as “markets to watch.” Washington, D.C., New York, San Francisco and Austin top the list as the best markets for commercial/multifamily investment and development. Out of the largest 51 metros in the country, Kansas City ranked in the bottom third. ULI’s report considers Kansas City a “modestly poor” investment prospect and a poor development prospect.
In looking at the prospects for these large metros, it does appear that things fare better in the traditional big cities on the coasts, like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco-San Jose and Washington, D.C. Texas metros appear to be emerging, as does Denver, but most of the non-coastal metros have poor prospects.
Kansas City has never really been a trendsetter when it comes to real estate prospects, but its poor showing in the ULI report is still somewhat concerning. Markets that are perceived as established or emerging global cities are attracting the real estate development and investment while the secondary markets are being overlooked. If this perception is not changed, the gap between the hot, trendy markets and colder, secondary markets will widen.
In looking at the prospects for these large metros, it does appear that things fare better in the traditional big cities on the coasts, like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco-San Jose and Washington, D.C. Texas metros appear to be emerging, as does Denver, but most of the non-coastal metros have poor prospects.
Kansas City has never really been a trendsetter when it comes to real estate prospects, but its poor showing in the ULI report is still somewhat concerning. Markets that are perceived as established or emerging global cities are attracting the real estate development and investment while the secondary markets are being overlooked. If this perception is not changed, the gap between the hot, trendy markets and colder, secondary markets will widen.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Are We Turning the Corner in Employment?
October employment figures for the U.S. were released today to overall positive reviews. The most positive feature was the month-to-month increase in employment of 151,000 jobs nationwide. Public-sector jobs lost 8,000, but a stronger-than-expected increase of 159,000 in the private sector made for the first positive growth since May.
The National Bureau of Economic Research declared the 2007-09 recession over 16 months ago. Despite this passage of time, a very sluggish employment market keeps us feeling as if we are still in the recession’s grip. This leads us to wonder, how does this recovery compare to the 2001 recession in terms of employment?
The chart below shows month-over-month change in private employment for the 16-month period after the end of the 2001 recession compared to the 16 months after the 2007-09 recession. (We chose to focus on private employment since temporary census hiring and layoffs skewed the total figures, and growth in employment in the long-term will ultimately depend on private hiring.) Notice that the columns to the left are both negative for many months after recession’s end. This is typical, as employment is a lagging indicator. Employers will typically not start hiring until they are fairly certain the economy is on solid footing.
Somewhat surprising is the difference we see beginning about eight months after the end of each recession. Private employment has grown faster in the 2007-09 recovery than in the 2001 recovery. In the current recovery, monthly private employment change has been positive since December 2009. The 2001 recovery did not exhibit steady private employment growth until almost two years after the recession ended.
There are two important things to keep in mind, however. First, we are celebrating a total employment increase of only 151,000 nationwide. While encouraging, this increase did nothing to the overall unemployment rate, which stayed steady at 9.6 percent. Economists estimate that for the unemployment rate to go down, the U.S. economy would need to add at least 200,000 jobs a month. Second, the 2001 and 2007-09 recessions are very different animals. The 2001 recession saw a loss of almost 3 million private sector jobs, which was tame by comparison to the nearly 8.5 million lost in the 2007-09 recession. So with a much deeper loss in the most recent recession, it stands to reason that the recovery should be a bit more robust.
Regardless, the positive take away from this should be 10 consecutive months of private employment growth nationwide. Granted, the monthly growth figures could be higher, but 10 months still looks like a positive trend.
The National Bureau of Economic Research declared the 2007-09 recession over 16 months ago. Despite this passage of time, a very sluggish employment market keeps us feeling as if we are still in the recession’s grip. This leads us to wonder, how does this recovery compare to the 2001 recession in terms of employment?
The chart below shows month-over-month change in private employment for the 16-month period after the end of the 2001 recession compared to the 16 months after the 2007-09 recession. (We chose to focus on private employment since temporary census hiring and layoffs skewed the total figures, and growth in employment in the long-term will ultimately depend on private hiring.) Notice that the columns to the left are both negative for many months after recession’s end. This is typical, as employment is a lagging indicator. Employers will typically not start hiring until they are fairly certain the economy is on solid footing.
Somewhat surprising is the difference we see beginning about eight months after the end of each recession. Private employment has grown faster in the 2007-09 recovery than in the 2001 recovery. In the current recovery, monthly private employment change has been positive since December 2009. The 2001 recovery did not exhibit steady private employment growth until almost two years after the recession ended.
There are two important things to keep in mind, however. First, we are celebrating a total employment increase of only 151,000 nationwide. While encouraging, this increase did nothing to the overall unemployment rate, which stayed steady at 9.6 percent. Economists estimate that for the unemployment rate to go down, the U.S. economy would need to add at least 200,000 jobs a month. Second, the 2001 and 2007-09 recessions are very different animals. The 2001 recession saw a loss of almost 3 million private sector jobs, which was tame by comparison to the nearly 8.5 million lost in the 2007-09 recession. So with a much deeper loss in the most recent recession, it stands to reason that the recovery should be a bit more robust.
Regardless, the positive take away from this should be 10 consecutive months of private employment growth nationwide. Granted, the monthly growth figures could be higher, but 10 months still looks like a positive trend.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Housing Price Chart From “Central Standard”
Below is the chart I referenced today on KCUR’s “Central Standard” program. The data comes from the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The chart shows how the housing values in these 6 metros all increased at relatively the same rate until about 2003. Then the housing bubble began to grow, especially in hot growth markets like Las Vegas and Miami and, to a lesser extent in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul. Kansas City, however maintained a stable rate of growth until the housing bubble burst in late 2007. During the recession in 2008 and early 2009 housing prices fell precipitously in those markets that saw huge increases in values just a few years earlier. In Kansas City, we did not experience the large increase, so consequently we did not experience a great home value collapse.
To close on a positive not, across all of these metros, it appears that the worst may be over. All are showing signs over the past few quarters that their home prices are stabilizing.
To close on a positive not, across all of these metros, it appears that the worst may be over. All are showing signs over the past few quarters that their home prices are stabilizing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
