When the decade-long expansion in US housing market activity peaked in 2006, the Great Moderation came to an end, and residential development began to decline. Losses on mortgage-related financial assets began to burden global financial markets in 2007, and the US economy entered a recession in December 2007. Several prominent financial firms were in financial difficulties that year, and several financial markets were undergoing substantial upheaval. The Federal Reserve responded by providing liquidity and support through a variety of measures aimed at improving the functioning of financial markets and institutions and, as a result, limiting the damage to the US economy. 1 Nonetheless, the economic downturn deteriorated in the fall of 2008, eventually becoming severe and long enough to be dubbed “the Great Recession.” While the US economy reached bottom in the middle of 2009, the recovery in the years that followed was exceptionally slow in certain ways. In response to the severity of the downturn and the slow pace of recovery that followed, the Federal Reserve provided unprecedented monetary accommodation. Furthermore, the financial crisis prompted a slew of important banking and financial regulation reforms, as well as congressional legislation that had a substantial impact on the Federal Reserve.
Rise and Fall of the Housing Market
Following a long period of expansion in US house building, home prices, and housing loans, the recession and crisis struck. This boom began in the 1990s and accelerated in the mid-2000s, continuing unabated through the 2001 recession. Between 1998 and 2006, average home prices in the United States more than doubled, the largest increase in US history, with even bigger advances in other locations. During this time, home ownership increased from 64 percent in 1994 to 69 percent in 2005, while residential investment increased from around 4.5 percent of US GDP to nearly 6.5 percent. Employment in housing-related sectors contributed for almost 40% of net private sector job creation between 2001 and 2005.
The development of the housing market was accompanied by an increase in household mortgage borrowing in the United States. Household debt in the United States increased from 61 percent of GDP in 1998 to 97 percent in 2006. The rise in home mortgage debt appears to have been fueled by a number of causes. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) maintained a low federal funds rate after the 2001 recession, and some observers believe that by keeping interest rates low for a “long period” and only gradually increasing them after 2004, the Federal Reserve contributed to the expansion of housing market activity (Taylor 2007). Other researchers, on the other hand, believe that such variables can only explain for a small part of the rise in housing activity (Bernanke 2010). Furthermore, historically low interest rates may have been influenced by significant savings accumulations in some developing market economies, which acted to keep interest rates low globally (Bernanke 2005). Others attribute the surge in borrowing to the expansion of the mortgage-backed securities market. Borrowers who were deemed a bad credit risk in the past, maybe due to a poor credit history or an unwillingness to make a big down payment, found it difficult to get mortgages. However, during the early and mid-2000s, lenders offered high-risk, or “subprime,” mortgages, which were bundled into securities. As a result, there was a significant increase in access to housing financing, which helped to drive the ensuing surge in demand that drove up home prices across the country.
Effects on the Financial Sector
The extent to which home prices might eventually fall became a significant question for the pricing of mortgage-related securities after they peaked in early 2007, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index, because large declines in home prices were viewed as likely to lead to an increase in mortgage defaults and higher losses to holders of such securities. Large, nationwide drops in home prices were uncommon in US historical data, but the run-up in home prices was unique in terms of magnitude and extent. Between the first quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2011, property values declined by more than a fifth on average across the country. As financial market participants faced significant uncertainty regarding the frequency of losses on mortgage-related assets, this drop in home values contributed to the financial crisis of 2007-08. Money market investors became concerned of subprime mortgage exposures in August 2007, putting pressure on certain financial markets, particularly the market for asset-backed commercial paper (Covitz, Liang, and Suarez 2009). The investment bank Bear Stearns was bought by JPMorgan Chase with the help of the Federal Reserve in the spring of 2008. Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy in September, and the Federal Reserve aided AIG, a significant insurance and financial services firm, the next day. The Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation were all approached by Citigroup and Bank of America for assistance.
The Federal Reserve’s assistance to specific financial firms was hardly the only instance of central bank credit expansion in reaction to the crisis. The Federal Reserve also launched a slew of new lending programs to help a variety of financial institutions and markets. A credit facility for “primary dealers,” the broker-dealers that act as counterparties to the Fed’s open market operations, as well as lending programs for money market mutual funds and the commercial paper market, were among them. The Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), which was launched in collaboration with the US Department of Treasury, was aimed to relieve credit conditions for families and enterprises by offering credit to US holders of high-quality asset-backed securities.
To avoid an increase in bank reserves that would drive the federal funds rate below its objective as banks attempted to lend out their excess reserves, the Federal Reserve initially funded the expansion of Federal Reserve credit by selling Treasury securities. The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, got the right to pay banks interest on their excess reserves in October 2008. This encouraged banks to keep their reserves rather than lending them out, reducing the need for the Federal Reserve to offset its increased lending with asset reductions.2
Effects on the Broader Economy
The housing industry was at the forefront of not only the financial crisis, but also the broader economic downturn. Residential construction jobs peaked in 2006, as did residential investment. The total economy peaked in December 2007, the start of the recession, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The drop in general economic activity was slow at first, but it accelerated in the fall of 2008 when financial market stress reached a peak. The US GDP plummeted by 4.3 percent from peak to trough, making this the greatest recession since World War II. It was also the most time-consuming, spanning eighteen months. From less than 5% to 10%, the jobless rate has more than doubled.
The FOMC cut its federal funds rate objective from 4.5 percent at the end of 2007 to 2 percent at the start of September 2008 in response to worsening economic conditions. The FOMC hastened its interest rate decreases as the financial crisis and economic contraction worsened in the fall of 2008, bringing the rate to its effective floor a target range of 0 to 25 basis points by the end of the year. The Federal Reserve also launched the first of several large-scale asset purchase (LSAP) programs in November 2008, purchasing mortgage-backed assets and longer-term Treasury securities. These purchases were made with the goal of lowering long-term interest rates and improving financial conditions in general, hence boosting economic activity (Bernanke 2012).
Although the recession ended in June 2009, the economy remained poor. Economic growth was relatively mild in the first four years of the recovery, averaging around 2%, and unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, remained at historically high levels. In the face of this sustained weakness, the Federal Reserve kept the federal funds rate goal at an unusually low level and looked for new measures to provide extra monetary accommodation. Additional LSAP programs, often known as quantitative easing, or QE, were among them. In its public pronouncements, the FOMC began conveying its goals for future policy settings more fully, including the situations in which very low interest rates were likely to be appropriate. For example, the committee stated in December 2012 that exceptionally low interest rates would likely remain appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remained above a threshold of 6.5 percent and inflation remained no more than a half percentage point above the committee’s longer-run goal of 2 percent. This “forward guidance” technique was meant to persuade the public that interest rates would remain low at least until specific economic conditions were met, exerting downward pressure on longer-term rates.
Effects on Financial Regulation
When the financial market upheaval calmed, the focus naturally shifted to financial sector changes, including supervision and regulation, in order to avoid such events in the future. To lessen the risk of financial difficulty, a number of solutions have been proposed or implemented. The amount of needed capital for traditional banks has increased significantly, with bigger increases for so-called “systemically essential” institutions (Bank for International Settlements 2011a;2011b). For the first time, liquidity criteria will legally limit the amount of maturity transformation that banks can perform (Bank for International Settlements 2013). As conditions worsen, regular stress testing will help both banks and regulators recognize risks and will require banks to spend earnings to create capital rather than pay dividends (Board of Governors 2011).
New provisions for the treatment of large financial institutions were included in the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. The Financial Stability Oversight Council, for example, has the authority to classify unconventional credit intermediaries as “Systemically Important Financial Institutions” (SIFIs), putting them under Federal Reserve supervision. The act also established the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), which authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to wind down specific institutions if their failure would pose a significant risk to the financial system. Another section of the legislation mandates that large financial institutions develop “living wills,” which are detailed plans outlining how the institution could be resolved under US bankruptcy law without endangering the financial system or requiring government assistance.
The financial crisis of 2008 and the accompanying recession, like the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Inflation of the 1970s, are important areas of research for economists and policymakers. While it may be years before the causes and ramifications of these events are fully known, the attempt to unravel them provides a valuable opportunity for the Federal Reserve and other agencies to acquire lessons that can be used to shape future policy.
What was the most affected by the Great Recession?
17951), co-authors Hilary Hoynes, Douglas Miller, and Jessamyn Schaller found that the Great Recession (December 2007 to June 2009) had a bigger impact on men, black and Hispanic workers, young workers, and workers with less education than other workers.
What is the impact of a recession on the American economy?
Traditional fiscal stimulus analysis focuses on the short-run effects of fiscal policy on GDP and employment creation in the near term. Economists, on the other hand, have long recognized that short-term economic situations can have long-term consequences. Job loss and declining finances, for example, can cause families to postpone or forego their children’s college education. Credit markets that are frozen and consumer spending that is down can stifle the growth of otherwise thriving small enterprises. Larger corporations may postpone or cut R&D spending.
In any of these scenarios, an economic downturn can result in “scarring,” or long-term damage to people’s financial positions and the economy as a whole. The parts that follow go through some of what is known about how recessions can cause long-term harm.
Economic damage
Higher unemployment, decreased salaries and incomes, and lost opportunities are all consequences of recessions. In the current slump, education, private capital investments, and economic opportunities are all likely to suffer, and the consequences will be long-lasting. While economies often experience quick growth during recovery periods (as idle capacity is put to use), the drag from long-term harm will keep the recovery from reaching its full potential.
Education
Many scholars have pointed out that educationor the acquisition of knowledgeis important “Human capitalalso known as “human capital”plays a crucial role in promoting economic growth. Delong, Golden, and Katz (2002), for example, assert that “Human capital has been the primary driver of America’s competitive advantage in twentieth-century economic expansion.” As a result, variables that result in fewer years of educational achievement for the country’s youth will have long-term effects.
Recessions can have a variety of effects on educational success. First, there is a large body of research on the importance of early childhood education (see, for example, Heckman (2006, 2007) and the studies mentioned therein). Because parental options and money drive schooling at this stage (pre-k or even younger), issues that diminish families’ resources will have an impact on the degree and quality of education offered to their children. Dahl and Lochner (2008), for example, indicate that household income has a direct impact on math and reading test scores.
Second, a variety of factors outside of the school environment influence educational attainment. Health services, for example, can remove barriers to educational attainment, from prenatal care to dental and optometric treatment. After-school and summer educational activities have an impact on academic progress and learning in the classroom. Forced housing dislocationsand, in the worst-case scenario, homelessnesshave a negative impact on educational outcomes. Economic downturns obviously affect all of these factors on educational performance. In 2008, 46.3 million individuals were without health insurance, with over 7 million children under the age of 18 being uninsured (U.S. Census 2009). We can expect even more children to struggle with their schooling as poverty (nearly 14 million children in 2008) and foreclosures (4.3 percent of home loans in the foreclosure process1) rise.
Finally, families who are trying to make ends meet are frequently pushed to postpone or abandon aspirations for further education. According to a recent survey of young adults, 20% of those aged 18 to 29 have dropped out or postponed education (Greenberg and Keating 2009). According to a survey performed in Colorado, a quarter of parents with children attending two-year colleges expected to send their children to four-year colleges before the recession (CollegeInvest 2009).
College attendance is costly if it is postponed or reduced. Not only does attending college lead to higher earnings, lower unemployment, and other personal benefits, but it also leads to a slew of social benefits, such as improved health outcomes, lower incarceration rates, higher volunteerism rates, and so on (see, for example, Baum and Pa-yea (2005) or Acemoglu and Angrist (2000)).
Opportunity
There’s no denying that recessions and high unemployment restrict economic opportunities for individuals and families. Individuals and the greater economy suffer losses as a result of job losses, income decreases, and increases in poverty.
To give just one example of missed opportunities, recent study has indicated that college graduates who enter the workforce during a recession earn less than those who enter during non-recessionary times. Surprisingly, the findings also imply that the income loss is not only transient, but also affects lifetime wages and career paths. “Taken together, the findings show that the labor market effects of graduating from college in a terrible economy are big, negative, and enduring,” writes Kahn (2009). She finds that each 1 percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate results in an initial wage loss of 6 to 7%, and that the wage loss is still 2.5 percent after 15 years.
Non-college graduates will most likely do badly. While unemployment has grown for all demographics throughout the recent crisis, individuals with less education and lower incomes face significantly greater rates than others.
Job loss
The unemployment rate has risen from 4.9 percent in December 2007 to 9.7 percent in August of this year during the current recession. About 15 million people are unemployed right now, more than double the level at the onset of the recession, with nearly one out of every six workers unemployed or underemployed. About 5 million individuals have been out of job for more than six months, making up the greatest percentage of the total workforce since 1948.
Losing one’s employment causes obvious challenges for most people and their families. Even once a new job is taken, the income loss can last for years (often at a lower salary).
Although the research on the effects of job loss is far too large to discuss here, Farber’s evidence is worth highlighting (2005). Farber concludes that job separation is costly, based on data from the Displaced Workers Survey from 2001 to 2003. 2 “In the most recent period (2001-03), approximately 35% of job losers were unemployed at the next survey date; approximately 13% of re-employed full-time job losers are working part-time; full-time job losers who find new full-time jobs earn about 13% less on average than they did on their previous job…”
Job loss has an impact on one’s mental health in addition to their income and earnings (see Murphy and Athanasou (1999) for a review of 16 earlier studies). It’s also worth noting that how one does during a recession is determined by a multitude of things. When compared to other age groups, older employees are disproportionately represented among the long-term unemployed.
Economic mobility
As previously stated, intergenerational mobility or the lack thereof can exacerbate the effects of recessions.
Through a variety of processes, poorer families can lead to less opportunities and lower economic results for their children, whether through nutrition, school attainment, or wealth access. As a result, a recession should not be viewed as a one-time occurrence that strains individuals and families for a few years. Economic downturns, on the other hand, will affect the future chances of all family members, including children, and will have long-term effects.
Private investment
Investments and R&D are two of the most obvious areas where recessions can stifle economic progress. Economists have long acknowledged the importance of investment and technology as driving forces behind economic growth. 4
Investment spending and the adoption of innovative technology can and do decline during recessions. At least four causes have contributed to this. First, a downturn in the economy will reduce demand for enterprises’ products as customers’ incomes fall, diminishing the return on investment. Second, enterprises’ ability to invest will be hampered by a lack of credit. Third, recessions are periods of greater uncertainty, which may cause businesses to cut down on spending “They may be less willing to experiment with new items and procedures because they are “core” products and production techniques. Finally, the relationship between human and physical capital must be considered. Technology is frequently integrated in new physical equipment: as output and employment decline, fewer fresh equipment purchases are made. As a result, workers are less able to put existing abilities to use, and there is less of a need to learn new ones “current employees to be “up-skilled,” or hire new employees with new skills.5
Figure C depicts non-residential investment growth during each of the last four recessions, as well as a more specialized category of equipment and software (thus excluding structures). Annualized quarterly non-residential investment averaged 4.7 percent from 1947 to 2009, whereas investment in equipment and software averaged 5.9 percent. Investment falls sharply during recessions, as shown in the graph. It also demonstrates the severity of the present slump, with total non-residential investment down 20% from its peak in the second quarter of 2009.
The repercussions of reduced investment levels are evident. Decreased levels of economic production in the future are a result of lower capital investment today. Poorer levels of physical investment can lead to lower productivity and, as a result, lower earnings. 6 The consequences will linger long after the present recession has officially ended.
Entrepreneurial activity: Business formation and expansion
Apart from the general drop in investment activity, recessions, particularly those with a credit crunch, such as the current one, can stifle small firm formation and entrepreneurial activity.
There are various ways that recessions might stifle the establishment and expansion of new businesses. To begin with, it is self-evident that new businesses require new clients. Because a slowing economy equals less overall spending, those considering starting a new firm may prefer to wait until demand returns to typical levels. Second, new businesses necessitate the addition of new debtors and investors. Lower wages and wealth levels may make it more difficult for new businesses to recruit individual investors, and credit limits may limit private bank financing.
“The credit freeze in the short-term funding market had a disastrous effect on the economy and small enterprises,” according to a recent analysis from the US Small Business Administration (SBA 2009). The usual production of products and services had virtually stalled by late 2008.” According to a study of loan officers, conditions for small-business commercial and industrial loans have been dramatically tightened.
Not only do recessions make it more difficult to establish a new firm, but they can also derail struggling new businesses. There could be a slew of new firms (and business models) popping up.
els) that might be successful in normal times but can’t because to a lack of demand or credit. In 2008, 43,500 businesses declared bankruptcy, up from 28,300 in 2007 and more than double the 19,700 that declared bankruptcy in 2006. (SBA 2009).
The influence of the recession can also be observed in the number of initial public offerings (IPOs). Firms use the funds earned from initial public offerings (IPOs) to grow their operations. There were just 21 operating company IPOs in 2008, down from an annual average of 163 the previous four years (Ritter 2009). 8 Furthermore, the median age of IPOs in 2008 was slightly greater than in previous years, indicating that the capital flood is going to the more established companies.
It’s tempting to believe that recessions just delay the establishment of new businesses, and that delayed plans will eventually be implemented. However, many new enterprises have a limited window of opportunity to get started. Furthermore, innovative new businesses frequently build on previous technological and innovation platforms. A delay in one business may cause delays in many others, causing a cascade effect across a wider variety of businesses.
How did the Great Recession alter the US economy’s structure?
The unemployment rate has gradually decreased in the years since the Great Recession, although other indications of labor market health have remained unchanged. Low pay growth and high unemployment rates among lower-skilled workers appear to be due to a persistent lack of demand in the US economy, paired with people on the bottom rungs of the labor ladder being more sensitive to cyclical conditions. That is to say, the high percentage of unemployment among lower-skilled individuals is not the cause “More strong economic growth and better fiscal and monetary demand-management policies might greatly resolve the “new normal.”
Furthermore, my analysis implies that, at the current level, greater aggregate demand for labor will not result in inflation. At best, we’ve just seen significant tightening in the last few months. More than likely, this is a result of falling oil prices, implying that there is still a lot of slack in the labor market. Additional labor demand, according to the latter view, would improve employment outcomes, with special benefits for low-skilled workers and other disadvantaged groups who are disproportionately affected by cyclical downturns.
Many of the recommendations made by proponents of the concept that the economy has stabilized into a stable state are likewise contradicted by my findings “A new normal has emerged.” There are two particularly ill-advised responses to present labor market conditions, both based on a misdiagnosis of the economy as having escaped the cyclical downturn. First, tax cuts, unemployment insurance reductions, and means-tested government transfer programs aimed at raising labor supply will reduce wages rather than increase employment.
Second, when there are demand shortages at every rung of the job ladder, education and training programs geared at improving the skills of low-wage workers are unlikely to benefit the labor market substantially. As a result, education and training programs are unlikely to be of immediate benefit. However, these programs, along with greater income support for low-income people, make sense as a long-term response to long-term trends, even if they are unlikely to make a significant contribution in the short term.
Taking ill-advised policy moves, such as failing to execute appropriate fiscal and monetary policies to raise labor demand, or, even worse, implementing policies geared at cooling an overheating economy, might prolong periods of underemployment, harming workers’ productivity for years to come. Every month that the economy continues to lag behind makes us poorer for decades to come. An overly cautious policy could result in significant harm. To avoid such a long and sluggish recovery, policies must be put in place now to prepare for the next downturn.
What was the impact of the Great Recession on American workers?
“At the start of the Great Recession, one out of every five employees lost their jobs, and many of those people never recovered; they never got real work again,” says Peter Cappelli, director of the Wharton Center for Human Resources. “The spike in disability claims was in part caused by the difficulty laid-off people had in securing any jobs.” It ruined the careers of a generation of young individuals just starting out in the workforce. This is partly responsible for the fact that this age group continues to put off purchasing a home, having children, and other signs of solid adulthood.”
The Great Recession accelerated some tendencies while halting the progression of others. “The fact that so many individuals chose temporary positions, frequently as contractors, was pushed along by the downturn,” says Cappelli. “Good employee-management practices took a major step back during this era because employees were willing to put up with anything as long as they had a job.”
It’s still unclear if the Federal Reserve Board’s move to lower interest rates in November 2018 was a direct cause of the recession, according to economists. Whatever the cause, workers are now faced with the prospect of postponing retirement or retiring while still in debt. Home ownership is on the decline, and salary growth has remained stagnant.
What the Great Recession did leave behind was a residue that Management Professor Matthew Bidwell describes as a greater awareness of the economy’s vulnerability.
What happened to the economy following the Great Recession?
Following the implementation of the financial stabilization measure (Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in mid-2009, the economy began to expand after falling dramatically during the Great Recession. From mid-2009 to mid-2019, the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.3 percent.
Do recessions help the economy?
- The economy slows, unemployment rises, and businesses fail during these periods of recession.
- A recession, on the other hand, may have advantages, such as weeding out underperforming businesses and lowering asset sale prices.
- Inappropriate government policies can minimize or eliminate many of the benefits of the recession.
What economic effects did the Great Depression have?
The Great Depression of 1929 wreaked havoc on the American economy. A third of all banks went bankrupt. 1 Unemployment has climbed to 25%, and homelessness has increased. 2 House prices dropped, global trade collapsed, and deflation increased.
During a recession, who suffers the most? How?
During a recession, who suffers the most? How? Poverty is on the rise. During recessions, corporations often see a drop in profits.
Why did the economy collapse in 2008?
Years of ultra-low interest rates and lax lending rules drove a home price bubble in the United States and internationally, sowing the seeds of the financial crisis. It began with with intentions, as it always does.
What is the significance of the Great Recession?
The economic crisis was precipitated by the collapse of the housing market, which was fueled by low interest rates, cheap lending, poor regulation, and hazardous subprime mortgages. New financial laws and an aggressive Federal Reserve are two of the Great Recession’s legacies.