The problem, of course, is that when economic activity migrates from the informal and underground economy to the monetized economy it gets recorded as additional output, jobs and income in our Keynesian labor and GDP accounts. In many such cases, however, no new output or income is actually being generated; it’s just being newly recorded.
In short, there is nothing organic, natural, sustainable or strong about the GDP numbers currently being posted—notwithstanding all the Biden-Harris boasting to the contrary. Actually, the US economic is being artificially bloated and levitated by cheap debt compliments of the Fed and other central banks around the world.
A goodly part of the “strong” economy illusion derives from cherry-picking the hideously misleading numbers contained in the BLS establishment survey’s monthly “jobs” count. As we noted in my previous piece, for instance, the index of hours worked in the high-pay, high-productivity goods-producing sector has actually contracted by 18% since peaking way back in 1978, but that has purportedly been more than off-set by a 128% rise in the hours index for the Leisure & Hospitality (L&H) sector, of which 75% is attributable to bars, restaurants and other food service operations.
Alas, however, what might be termed the “great jobs replacement” caper was not remotely a case of apples-to-apples. The typical part-time, near minimum wage “job” in the L&H sector pays the equivalent $24,400 per year or just 37% of the $66,000 annual equivalent for goods-producing jobs. So in terms of economic throw-weight, or the implied market value of output and income, we have been replacing prime labor force players with what amounts to third-stringers on waivers.
But in some cases, it may actually be even worse than that. To wit, neither the BLS employment data nor the GDP accounts are without systematic bias owing to the fact that they were designed and institutionalized mainly by Keynesian economists on the government payroll. The latter naturally equated economic output and jobs with that which their data framework measured—even as such macro-data was mainly of importance to Keynesian policy makers fiddling with the Washington-based fiscal and monetary dials in an attempt to enhance the greater economic good.
Accordingly, the Keynesian fathers of our contemporary economic data dumps didn’t care much about vast sections of the non-monetized economy including household labor, self-service activities (i.e. doing your own driving, shopping and lawn mowing) and the so-called underground economy conducted in cash and away from the tax collectors, regulators and law-enforcers.
The problem, of course, is that when economic activity migrates from the informal and underground economy to the monetized economy it gets recorded as additional output, jobs and income in our Keynesian labor and GDP accounts. In many such cases, however, no new output or income is actually being generated; it’s just being newly recorded.
Be seeing you
MCViewPoint 