{"id":1492,"date":"2019-04-03T11:10:01","date_gmt":"2019-04-03T15:10:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/naroffeconomics.com\/?p=1492"},"modified":"2019-04-03T11:10:01","modified_gmt":"2019-04-03T15:10:01","slug":"march-nonmanufacturing-activity-private-sector-jobs-and-help-wanted-online","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/naroffeconomics.com\/?p=1492","title":{"rendered":"March NonManufacturing Activity, Private Sector Jobs and Help Wanted OnLine"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

KEY DATA:<\/strong> ISM (NonMan.): -3.6 points;\nOrders: -6.2 points; Employment: +0.7 point\/ ADP: +129.000; Manufacturing:  -2,000\/ HWOL: -1.6%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IN A\nNUTSHELL:<\/strong>  \u201cThere are more signs the economy is slowing.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHAT IT\nMEANS:<\/strong>  If there is one consistency in the data, it\nis that they are inconsistent.<\/em><\/strong> \nWe have gotten some good numbers this week, some iffy numbers and some\ndisturbing ones.  Today\u2019s data were somewhat weaker\nthan expected.  Let’s start with the\nInstitute for Supply Management\u2019s NonManufacturing Index.  It came in lower than forecast.<\/em><\/strong>  That said, the level is still pretty solid,\nor at least points to continued moderate growth.  <\/em><\/strong>The details were a bit odd.  The overall index fell solidly, business\nactivity and orders crashed, but backlogs and hiring improved.  Those results tend not to say the same thing.\n What they seem to be implying is that\nthere is a easing in activity but it is not spread across all segments of the\neconomy.  Indeed, the manufacturing\nsupply managers indicted that conditions were improving.  Conclusion: \nConditions are a lot more mixed than they had been.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With Friday being the day of the March employment\nreport, today\u2019s ADP estimate of private sector job gains was looked toward to\nprovide some insight into the extent of the bounce from the February modest\n20,000 payroll rise.  Well, it could be\nsomewhat less than hoped for.<\/em><\/strong>  There were\nsome concerns that popped up in this report. \nFirst, the small business segment, which had been hiring quite solidly,\nappears to be shutting things down. <\/em><\/strong> It is unclear whether that is due to softer\ndemand or a lack of qualified applicants, but regardless, that is a critical\ncomponent of job growth and right now it is lacking.  The second is the sharp slowing in\nmanufacturing payroll gains.  I don\u2019t\nknow what to make of that as the ISM manufacturing survey pointed to a rebound\nin manufacturing employment.  I guess we\nwill have to wait a couple of days to find out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the jobs front, the Conference Board\u2019s Help\nWanted OnLine index fell in March.<\/em><\/strong>  This index\nhas become somewhat more volatile than usual and it may be due to temporary\nfactors such as the government shutdown and the weather.  Of course, it could be due to uncertainty\nover the direction of growth, which would not be a good thing.  But just as the ISM nonmanufacturing index\nstill points to solid growth despite its decline, the HWOL index decline only\nmeans that job growth should be good not great.<\/em><\/strong>MARKETS AND FED POLICY IMPLICATIONS:<\/strong>So,\nwhere is the economy going?  Good\nquestion.  The yin and yang of the\nnumbers makes it clear that the year of tax-induced solid growth is over.  But growth is still decent.<\/em><\/strong>  Indeed, yesterday\u2019s surprising report that vehicle\nsales popped in March provides some hope that the slowdown is bottoming.<\/em><\/strong>  My first quarter GDP number has been 1.8% for\na few months now and I am sticking with that. \nBut I also expect the second quarter to bounce back up to around\n2.5%.  Taken together, that means first\nhalf growth will likely come in at about 2.25%, which is where I have growth\nfor the year.  Is that bad?  Not at all \u2013 it is trend growth or maybe even\na touch higher.<\/em><\/strong>It\u2019s\njust the expectations we will get 3% growth for the next decade were overblown <\/em><\/strong>as\nwe will probably see that level (or close to it), for only one year.  That is not even good for government work,\nbut the administration\u2019s economists at the Office of Management and Budget tend\nto be politically directed.  Instead, we\nare seeing something closer to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office\neconomists\u2019 forecasts, which mirrored the private sector forecasts.  As for Friday, I think we will be in the\n160,000 to 175,000-range.  That would put\nthe three month average also in that range, which is where it should be.  That is not so strong or weak that the ad-libbers\nat the Fed will have to change course again, but it is solid enough to push\nback at those who want to see rates cut. \n\n\n\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

KEY DATA: ISM (NonMan.): -3.6 points; Orders: -6.2 points; Employment: +0.7 point\/ ADP: +129.000; Manufacturing:  -2,000\/ HWOL: -1.6% IN A NUTSHELL:  \u201cThere are more signs the economy is slowing.\u201d WHAT IT MEANS:  If there is one consistency in the data, it is that they are inconsistent.  We have gotten some good numbers this week, some … Continue reading March NonManufacturing Activity, Private Sector Jobs and Help Wanted OnLine<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1492","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/naroffeconomics.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1492","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/naroffeconomics.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/naroffeconomics.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naroffeconomics.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naroffeconomics.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1492"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/naroffeconomics.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1492\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1493,"href":"https:\/\/naroffeconomics.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1492\/revisions\/1493"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/naroffeconomics.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naroffeconomics.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naroffeconomics.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}