Following a recession, the economy adjusts and recovers some of the gains that were lost during the downturn. When growth accelerates and GDP begins to move toward a new peak, the economy shifts to a real expansion.
What happened to the economy following the Great Recession?
The Great Recession lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, making it the longest downturn since World War II. The Great Recession was particularly painful in various ways, despite its short duration. From its peak in 2007Q4 to its bottom in 2009Q2, real gross domestic product (GDP) plummeted 4.3 percent, the greatest drop in the postwar era (based on data as of October 2013). The unemployment rate grew from 5% in December 2007 to 9.5 percent in June 2009, before peaking at 10% in October 2009.
The financial repercussions of the Great Recession were also disproportionate: home prices plummeted 30% on average from their peak in mid-2006 to mid-2009, while the S&P 500 index dropped 57% from its peak in October 2007 to its trough in March 2009. The net worth of US individuals and charity organizations dropped from around $69 trillion in 2007 to around $55 trillion in 2009.
As the financial crisis and recession worsened, worldwide policies aimed at reviving economic growth were enacted. Like many other countries, the United States enacted economic stimulus measures that included a variety of government expenditures and tax cuts. The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 were two of these projects.
The Federal Reserve’s response to the financial crisis varied over time and included a variety of unconventional approaches. Initially, the Federal Reserve used “conventional” policy actions by lowering the federal funds rate from 5.25 percent in September 2007 to a range of 0-0.25 percent in December 2008, with the majority of the drop taking place between January and March 2008 and September and December 2008. The significant drop in those periods represented a significant downgrading in the economic outlook, as well as increasing downside risks to output and inflation (including the risk of deflation).
By December 2008, the federal funds rate had reached its effective lower bound, and the FOMC had begun to utilize its policy statement to provide future guidance for the rate. The phrasing mentioned keeping the rate at historically low levels “for some time” and later “for an extended period” (Board of Governors 2008). (Board of Governors 2009a). The goal of this guidance was to provide monetary stimulus through lowering the term structure of interest rates, raising inflation expectations (or lowering the likelihood of deflation), and lowering real interest rates. With the sluggish and shaky recovery from the Great Recession, the forward guidance was tightened by adding more explicit conditionality on specific economic variables such as inflation “low rates of resource utilization, stable inflation expectations, and tame inflation trends” (Board of Governors 2009b). Following that, in August 2011, the explicit calendar guidance of “At least through mid-2013, the federal funds rate will remain at exceptionally low levels,” followed by economic-threshold-based guidance for raising the funds rate from its zero lower bound, with the thresholds based on the unemployment rate and inflationary conditions (Board of Governors 2012). This forward guidance is an extension of the Federal Reserve’s conventional approach of influencing the funds rate’s current and future direction.
The Fed pursued two more types of policy in addition to forward guidance “During the Great Recession, unorthodox” policy initiatives were taken. Credit easing programs, as explored in more detail in “Federal Reserve Credit Programs During the Meltdown,” were one set of unorthodox policies that aimed to facilitate credit flows and lower credit costs.
The large scale asset purchase (LSAP) programs were another set of non-traditional policies. The asset purchases were done with the federal funds rate near zero to help lower longer-term public and private borrowing rates. The Federal Reserve said in November 2008 that it would buy US agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and debt issued by housing-related US government agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan banks). 1 The asset selection was made in part to lower the cost and increase the availability of finance for home purchases. These purchases aided the housing market, which was at the heart of the crisis and recession, as well as improving broader financial conditions. The Fed initially planned to acquire up to $500 billion in agency MBS and $100 billion in agency debt, with the program being expanded in March 2009 and finished in 2010. The FOMC also announced a $300 billion program to buy longer-term Treasury securities in March 2009, which was completed in October 2009, just after the Great Recession ended, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The Federal Reserve purchased approximately $1.75 trillion of longer-term assets under these programs and their expansions (commonly known as QE1), with the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet increasing by slightly less because some securities on the balance sheet were maturing at the same time.
However, real GDP is only a little over 4.5 percent above its prior peak as of this writing in 2013, and the jobless rate remains at 7.3 percent. With the federal funds rate at zero and the current recovery slow and sluggish, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy plan has evolved in an attempt to stimulate the economy and meet its statutory mandate. The Fed has continued to change its communication policies and implement more LSAP programs since the end of the Great Recession, including a $600 billion Treasuries-only purchase program in 2010-11 (often known as QE2) and an outcome-based purchase program that began in September 2012. (in addition, there was a maturity extension program in 2011-12 where the Fed sold shorter-maturity Treasury securities and purchased longer-term Treasuries). Furthermore, the increasing attention on financial stability and regulatory reform, the economic consequences of the European sovereign debt crisis, and the restricted prospects for global growth in 2013 and 2014 reflect how the Great Recession’s fallout is still being felt today.
How long does it take for a recession to end?
The recovery from the latest severe downturn, the Great Recession, took several years. According to data from the Economic Policy Institute, it took 51 months for employment to return to pre-recession levels.
Is a downturn beneficial to 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 happened to the economy after 2008?
Many conservatives believe that our economy can only thrive if the federal government stays out of the way. Many progressives argue that in our free market system, the government must intervene at times to defend the public welfare and ensure broad-based economic growth. Today’s politics are defined by this discussion.
Americans of all political stripes should agree, however, that between 2008 and 2010, swift and decisive government action was required to avoid a second Great Depression and to aid our economy’s recovery from the biggest recession since the 1930s. After all, the evidence shows that between 2008 and 2010, three acts of Congress signed by two presidents led to the conclusion of the Great Recession of 20072009 and the ensuing economic recovery. Specifically:
- The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of 2008 saved our financial system from near-certain collapse, sparing the United States’ financial system from tragedy.
- The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 averted a second Great Depression and ushered in a new era of economic development.
- By lowering the payroll tax and extending prolonged unemployment insurance benefits, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 bolstered the economy’s fragile recovery.
The top ten reasons why these three major government interventions in the economy were effective will be discussed in this column. But first, let’s go through why such government intervention was required in the first place.
Do you recall the circumstances in 2008? Our economy, job market, and Wall Street were all on the verge of collapsing. Between then and today, there was a strong economic contraction accompanied by large job losses and steep stock market losses, which was followed by slow, uneven, but nonetheless steady economic growth and labor and financial market recoveries. Federal government actions played a significant role in ensuring that the deep dive was not prolonged and that the recovery occurred sooner than it would have otherwise. The job market, the economy, and the financial markets are all showing signs of improvement. This is a tremendous improvement over the condition in 2008.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program of 2008, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 all contributed to the United States’ economic recovery. These three moves happened at a critical juncture in the economy’s development, when the economy was on the verge of significant damage unless policymakers took decisive, targeted, and swift action.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was established in October 2008 to allow the federal government to utilize $700 billion to help the banking system recover. During the last months of 2008, much of that money was spent infusing capital into failing banks, ensuring that our financial system would not collapse. In February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was signed into law, enacting a package of tax cuts and expenditure initiatives totaling $787 billion that would last almost two years, through the end of 2010. The Recovery Act provided additional unemployment insurance and Social Security benefits almost immediately, but infrastructure funding did not begin until the summer of 2009. As the Recovery Act’s benefits expired in December 2010, Congress enacted fresh payroll tax cuts and provided extended unemployment insurance benefits.
The result: After each measure was passed, financial markets, the economy, and the labor market began to improve fast, and money began to flow into critical ailing markets. These three policy measures did exactly what they were supposed to do: policymakers intervened to prevent the economy from deteriorating.
To be true, if these policy initiatives had provided more bang for their money, they would have been more effective and efficient. More assistance for distressed homeowners may have been included in the Troubled Asset Relief Program. More infrastructure money might have been included in the Recovery Act, and payroll tax cuts and prolonged unemployment insurance benefits should have been separated from needless tax cuts for the wealthy. However, conservative hostility to more effective and efficient policy interventions made none of this additional assistance for our economy and workers conceivable.
Nonetheless, the Troubled Asset Relief Program averted the financial system’s collapse. While there are reasonable concerns about the program’s design, whether the benefits were distributed equally, and if the monies were spent as efficiently as possible in the long term, there’s little doubt that it benefited the economy. A new Great Depression was averted thanks to the Recovery Act. The payroll tax cuts and prolonged unemployment insurance benefits are still helping to boost the economy today.
Starting with the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Recovery Act, and the most recent payroll tax cuts and extended unemployment insurance benefits, here’s a review of the 10 ways recent economic and financial data prove that each of these three policy initiatives succeeded as intended.
Loan tightening eased with the introduction of the Troubled Asset Relief Program
In the fourth quarter of 2008, a net high of 83.6 percent of senior loan officers said they were tightening lending conditions for commercial and industrial loans, up from 19.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007. Throughout 2009, this ratio decreased steadily. The senior loan officer ratio is an oblique but informative indicator of how simple or difficult it is for firms and individuals to obtain a bank loan.
Similarly, in the fourth quarter of 2008, a net 69.2 percent of senior loan officers said they were tightening prime mortgage criteria, up from 40.8 percent in December 2007, before declining to 24.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009. After the Troubled Asset Relief Program stabilized the US financial sector, banks began to relax lending criteria. Following TARP, the business and mortgage credit markets became less tight.
Interest rates ease shortly after the Troubled Asset Relief Program is enacted
The risk premium, or the difference between the interest rate on risk-free U.S. Treasury bonds and the interest rate on mortgages, peaked at 2.2 percent in December 2010, up from 1.5 percent when the Great Recession began in December 2007. After money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program came into credit markets, the gap narrowed to 1.6 percent by January 2009. During normal economic times, this risk premium is normally approximately 1%.
Corporate bond risk premiums rose from 0.9 percent in December 2007 to 1.9 percent in December 2008, before decreasing to 1.6 percent in January 2009. The risk premium rose at first as lenders became concerned about the health of other banks, then declined as the Troubled Asset Relief Program stepped in to help struggling institutions. Because the program’s effectiveness reduced financial market risk, homeowners and businesses had to pay less for their loans.
The specter for deflation disappeared after the passage of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the Recovery Act
Falling inflationary expectations have the potential to lead to deflation, or a downward spiral in prices. Deflation exacerbates a recession by causing firms and consumers to postpone big purchases in the hope of lower costs. In the fall of 2008 and winter of 2009, the United States’ economy was threatened by deflation; however, the adoption of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the Recovery Act put people’s minds at ease.
Based on the difference between inflation-protected and noninflation-protected U.S. Treasury bonds, the predicted inflation rate for the next five years was -0.24 percent in December 2008, down from 2.2 percent in December 2007, indicating that deflation was a real concern among investors. The difference between Treasury Inflation Protected Securities and Treasury bonds of the same maturity is what determines the predicted inflation rate for that particular maturityin this case, five years. By May 2009, inflation predictions had surpassed 1% once more, and by December 2009, they had risen to 1.9 percent. Expected price rises of roughly 2% will encourage businesses to invest more and consumers to spend more than they would otherwise, while lesser price increases will cause them to hold off on their purchases.
Economic growth prospects brightened with the passage of the Recovery Act
Expectations for future economic growth are important for actual growth because businesses will invest more, banks will lend more, and consumers would spend more than they would otherwise if they believe the economy will improve more quickly. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office raised its growth forecasts for 2010the first full year following the Recovery Act’s enactmentfrom 1.5 percent to 2.9 percent in March 2009. And, sure enough, economic activity accelerated.
Three of the four quarters of 2008 saw the economy contract, and annual inflation-adjusted GDP growth in the first quarter of 2009 was -6.7 percent. However, once the Recovery Act was signed into law in the second quarter of 2009, our GDP only shrank by 0.7 percent in that quarter as government spending increased. The economy then increased by 1.7 percent and 3.8 percent in the third and fourth quarters of 2009, owing in large part to the tax cuts and expenditure measures approved under the Recovery Act starting to trickle into people’s and businesses’ pockets.
Job losses quickly abated due to Recovery Act spending
Job losses fell by 82.3 percent in the final three months of 2009, from an average of 780,000 per month in the first three months of 2009, when the law was passed, to 138,000 per month in the final three months of 2009. During the same time period, employment losses in the private sector fell by 83.2 percent, from 784,000 to 131,000 on average. The first quarter of 2009 was a clear turning point in the labor market, with the steepest employment losses of the Great Recession.
Personal disposable incomes started to rise again with help from the Recovery Act
People lost jobs in droves from the middle of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009, resulting in a drop in personal disposable after-tax income. Higher unemployment insurance benefits, bigger Social Security payments, and lower personal taxes, all of which were part of the Recovery Act, boosted personal disposable earnings in the second quarter of 2009. This provided immediate assistance to families in need.
Families ended up with more money in their pockets as a result of the new law’s immediate expenditure, despite job losses continuing at the same time. However, other Recovery Act provisions that took a bit longer to promote consumer spending aided in improving employment prospects by putting more money in people’s pockets.
Industrial production turned around with infrastructure spending spurred by the Recovery Act
From December 2007 to June 2009, industrial productionthe output of manufacturing and utilitiesdeclined steadily. When infrastructure expenditure from the Recovery Act began to pour into the economy in July 2009, industrial production began to grow again. After six months of sustained growth, industrial production was 3.7 percent higher in December 2009 than in June 2009.
After-tax income grew more quickly following the payroll tax cut
In the first quarter of 2011, when the payroll tax cut and an extension of extended unemployment insurance benefits were granted, after-tax income increased by 1.3 percent, the quickest rate of growth since the second quarter of 2010. As the labor market continued to add new jobs at a slow pace, the payroll tax cut put more money in people’s pockets. The new funds bolstered an economy that was still struggling to establish its feet, assisting in the expansion of jobs.
Job growth accelerated with the payroll tax cut
Indeed, during the first three months of 2011, the labor market added an average of 192,000 jobs each month, up from 154,000 jobs in the previous three months. The payroll tax cut gave a sluggish labor market some more impetus.
Household debt burdens fell more quickly with the payroll tax cut
Households had more money in their pockets, and they used some of it to pay down their crushing debts. In the first quarter of 2011, the ratio of total household debt to after-tax income declined 2.5 percentage points, more than twice as fast as in the fourth quarter of 2010 and quicker than in any other quarter of 2010.
These ten reasons why the federal government’s rapid and decisive action changed an impending second Great Depression into the difficult but steady economic recovery we are witnessing today are based on credible economic statistics. There is plenty of room for argument regarding the amount to which the government should be involved in the day-to-day operations of the economy, but there is no reason to doubt why our economy isn’t locked in a long-term depression like to the Great Depression of the 1930s. In this situation, well-intentioned government measures did exactly what they were designed to do.
Endnotes
The net percentage is the difference between the share of loan officers who say lending standards are tightening and the share who say lending standards are loosening. A positive number indicates that more loan officers tightened lending criteria than loosened them, whereas a negative number indicates that more loan officers softened loan standards. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Board of Governor “Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices,” Federal Reserve Board Docs, http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/snloansurvey/201205/fullreport.pdf.
Calculations are based on the following: “http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/, “H.15 ReleaseSelected Interest Rates.” The interest rates on conventional mortgages are shown below. Bond rates are for corporate bonds with a AAA rating.
The interest rate differential between nominal five-year US Treasury bonds and inflation-indexed five-year Treasury bonds is known as inflation expectations. Similar tendencies can be seen when comparing Treasury bonds of various maturities. Calculations are based on the following: “H.15 Interest RatesSelected Rates.”
New growth data for 2008 and 2009 was added by the Congressional Budget Office, indicating that the recession was worse than previously anticipated. Congressional Budget Office, “Budget and Economic Outlook” (2009); Congressional Budget Office, “A Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Budget and an Update on CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook” (2009); Congressional Budget Office, “A Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Budget and an Update on CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook” (2009). (2009). For 2010, the real inflation-adjusted economic growth rate was 3%. National Income and Product Accounts, Bureau of Economic Analysis (Department of Commerce, 2012). The brighter forecast for 2010 helped to offset a recession that was worse than expected. The CBO lowered the 2009 growth rate from -2.2 percent in January to -3 percent in March. However, the CBO forecasted a -1.5 percent growth rate from December 2008 to December 2009 in both January and March 2009. If the economy is predicted to enter a worse recession and then recover more swiftly in 2009, the changes from December to December can stay the same, even if total year growth rates fall. That is, the CBO predicted that the Recovery Act would add quickly to growth in the second half of 2009, offsetting a higher forecast fall in the first half. However, there are no quarterly growth predictions provided.
National Income and Product Accounts of the Bureau of Economic Analysis were used to compile this data.
Calculations based on Current Employment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Department of Labor, 2011). Because monthly job changes are rather unpredictable, the bullet point shows three-month averages. However, monthly job changes follow the same pattern as quarterly averages.
Calculations based on Current Employment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Lower taxes and other forms of social spending had a greater impact on rising personal disposable incomes in the second quarter of 2009 than in the following quarters. In the following quarters, neither taxes nor other forms of social spending decreased. Instead, taxes remained low, and social spending remained high, with the exception of Social Security, health care, and unemployment insurance. Throughout the rest of 2009, as more people retired and claimed unemployment insurance benefits, Social Security and unemployment insurance payouts grew. Calculations based on National Income and Product Accounts from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Calculations are based on the following: “http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/default.htm, “Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization G-17.”
Calculations based on National Income and Product Accounts from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
How long did the economy take to recover after the financial crisis of 2008?
Only in the calendar year 2009 did the Great Recession meet the IMF’s criteria for being a worldwide recession. According to the IMF, a decrease in yearly real world GDP per capita is required. Despite the fact that all G20 countries, accounting for 85 percent of global GDP, utilize quarterly GDP data to define recessions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has chosen not to declare or quantify global recessions based on quarterly GDP data in the absence of a complete data set. The seasonally adjusted PPPweighted real GDP for the G20zone, on the other hand, is a good predictor of global GDP, and it was measured to have declined directly quarter on quarter over the three quarters from Q3 2008 to Q1 2009, which more properly marks when the global recession began.
The recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (the official judge of US recessions). It lasted eighteen months.
Is the economy back on track after Covid?
Economic growth has outperformed consensus predictions made at the start of the pandemic when the economy touched bottom in the second quarter of 2020. As a result, real GDP topped its pre-pandemic level in the second quarter of 2021. With the ongoing effects of the fiscal stimulus passed by Congress in 2020 and 2021, pent-up demand from consumers for face-to-face services, and labor market and asset price strength, real GDP appears on track to rise at a rapid pace of around 6% in 2021. To be sure, the Delta variation puts that projection in jeopardy. Consumer purchasing and general economic activity were impressively robust even in the early phases of the epidemic, when people had significantly less information and mitigating tools.
The CBO’s upward revisions to its predictions reflect the surprise strength of the economy and the improvement in expectations (shown in figure 1). The amount of GDP in the third quarter of 2020 was 4.8 percent higher than the CBO’s prediction at the start of the quarter. Furthermore, since July 2020, the CBO has revised up estimated GDP for 2023 by roughly 7%, resulting in a projected GDP level for the end of 2023 that is now 2% higher than the pre-pandemic forecast. Nonetheless, the cumulative deficit in real production compared to pre-pandemic projections is anticipated to be around $400 billion in 2012 dollars by 2023. (CBO 2020a, 2021c). It’s worth noting that the CBO’s predictions show a soft landing, with real GDP only growing modestly by late 2022. It’s possible that the slowdown may be more abrupt and unpleasant than those estimates suggest.
Fact 2: The sharp decline in employment in spring 2020, which was largely concentrated in the services sector, has only partially reversed.
Figure 2 depicts the percent change in overall employment from the peak month preceding recent economic downturns to the month when employment returned to its previous business cycle high. Across the job market, employment is still 5.3 million lower than it was in February 2020, and nearly 9 million lower than it was before the outbreak.
Employment reductions in the leisure and hospitality sector accounted for nearly 40% of the total 22 million jobs lost from February to April 2020. In contrast, since then, a partial rebound in that industry has supported employment growth. Monthly employment increased by more than 700,000 on average from February to July of this year. However, in August, the pace slowed substantially. The pandemic’s comeback certainly slowed the rebound in the leisure and hospitality industry, which had no net job gains in August. Employment in that sector is still down 1.7 million jobs since February 2020.
In comparison to past recessions, the COVID-19 recession has been particularly harsh for the services sector. Consider the average outcomes of the four recessions from 1981 to 2019, 18 months after they began: employment in the service sector was 1% lower than it had been before the recession, while employment in the goods sector was 10% lower. In comparison, employment in the service sector was still 4% lower in August 2021 than it was in February 2020, while employment in the products sector was 3% lower.
Fact 3: Millions of workers are no longer eligible for Unemployment Insurance.
In certain areas, enhanced UI will expire in the summer of 2021, whereas in others, it will end in the first week of September 2021. That set of regulations dramatically boosted eligibility for workers who were not eligible for regular UI (Pandemic Unemployment Assistance), increased the amount of weeks a worker may receive UI (Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation), and raised the generosity of benefits (Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation ). Only 30% of workers were eligible for unemployment compensation prior to the CARES Act, which established PUA, PEUC, and FPUC.
Weekly ongoing UI claims for standard UI benefits and Extended Benefits, which automatically extends weeks of eligibility based on a state’s economic situation, as well as claims for emergency programs: PUA and PEUC, are superimposed on the total number of unemployed workers in Figure 3.
It’s worth noting that the unemployment rate drastically underestimates the number of people who lost their jobs as a result of the outbreak. A person must be actively looking for employment to be classified as legally jobless; yet, millions of people have essentially exited the labor force since March 2020 and were eligible for the extended UI benefits. There was a gap of more than 5.5 million workers in the job market who were unemployed but not receiving UI after the emergency programs expired. We expect the difference to narrow just little by the end of the year.
Fact 4: The number of job openings and the number of workers quitting their jobs is higher now than in the past 20 years.
Despite the fact that job vacancies are at their greatest level since the end of 2000 (the most recent statistics available), many factors are limiting employment growth. One factor is that the number of people quitting their jobs each month has reached an all-time high. Because workers are more inclined to switch occupations in a strong labor market, the quit rate often changes with the job opening rate, as seen in Figure 4. Furthermore, the mix of labor demand is shifting in the current context, and workers may be taking time off from temporary positions taken during the pandemic. Record job openings, sluggish job matching, and low labor force participation have all combined to put downward wage pressure on workers, especially those in the service industry, younger workers, and those with less formal education.
Aside from the low rate of job matching, the lack of improvement in the labor force participation rate, which is the percentage of the population that works or is actively looking for employment, is also concerning. Between February and April of last year, when roughly 8 million people exited the workforce, this figure plummeted from 63 percent to 60 percent. By June 2020, the participation rate had regained almost halfway, but has remained stubbornly low since then.
Fact 5: Even with recent jumps in inflation, lower income workers are seeing increases in real wages.
Wage inflation has been excellent news, especially for low-wage workers and those in certain industries. Wages in the bottom quartile of the wage distribution are risen 7.0 percent from pre-pandemic levels, or 4.6 percent annually, as illustrated in figure 5. That rate of growth is comparable to what that group saw in 2019, when the job market was thought to be relatively tight. Wage growth has been particularly substantial in several industries. For example, average hourly earnings in the leisure and hospitality sector have increased nearly twice as fast as the total private industry average over the last 12 months. Retail commerce, transportation and warehousing, and financial operations are all enjoying considerable increases in hourly earnings.
Workers’ purchasing power is not increasing as quickly as nominal salaries due to recent increases in the rate of inflation. From March to June 2021, actual wages fell as a result of recent price hikes. These decreases somewhat offset increases in real wages for wage earners in the bottom quartile early in the epidemic, when inflation was low and nominal wages were rising. Real wages for that group accelerated considerably in July and August. Overall, real earnings for the poorest quartile increased by 2.4 percent, or 1.6 percent per year, from February 2020 to August 2021. This is significantly lower than the 2.4 percent annual rate of real pay growth seen in the bottom quartile in 2019. Furthermore, in contrast to a 0.8 percent increase in 2019, actual salaries for individuals in the top quartile are essentially unchanged.
Fact 6: Post-pandemic, income after government taxes and transfers, as well as household saving, have been above their recent trends.
In 2020 and thus far in 2021, disposable personal income (DPI, or total aftertax income) was larger than it would have been if DPI had merely grown at its five-year trend rate. Since the beginning of the epidemic, DPI has been higher than trend by a total of $1.4 trillion.
Household savings have risen as a result of huge increases in DPI and constrained services spending during the pandemic. From March 2020 through April this year, the rate of saving was larger than it had been in the previous four decades in every month; in some months, it was nearly double the record postWorld War II peak. In total, households had $2.5 trillion more in savings than they would have had DPI and spending risen at trend rates in the five years before to the pandemic. Furthermore, property and stock market prices have risen dramatically, resulting in significant gains in household wealth. Those funds will be used to fund the unmet demand for foregone spending. Households will eventually see increased savings and wealth as financial resources to sustain long-term, reasonably consistent consumer expenditure.
Fact 7: Fiscal support led to a reduction in poverty in 2020.
Poverty climbed from 10.5 percent to 11.4 percent between 2019 and 2020, according to the Official Poverty Measure (OPM). The percentage of the US population living in poverty, as assessed by the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), decreased from 12 percent to 9 percent in 2020 after accounting for the massive economic support offered to households (figure 7). While SPM-measured poverty is normally lower than OPM for children, SPM-measured poverty was lower than OPM for the first time in 2020.
The increase of unemployment compensation and checks to households were the two policies that had the most substantial effects in comparison to previous years since they were the most different from previous policy. SPM poverty would have grown to 12.7 percent instead of declining to 9.1 percent if Congress had not enacted relief for families.
Another factor contributing to the reduction in poverty was the relatively significant salary growth seen by those at the bottom of the income distribution who stayed working (see fact 5). Those salary increases followed robust wage growth in 2018 and 2019, when the tight labor market favored lower-paid workers.
In 2021, ongoing fiscal supportparticularly full refundability and increases in the child tax credit, as well as increases in the maximum benefit of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)along with continued labor market recovery should help to pull households out of poverty. Making permanent some of the actions undertaken to combat the COVID-19 recession will allow for sustained progress in lowering post-tax-and-transfer poverty as assessed by the SPM.
Fact 8: To date, 36 states have made progress in catching up on delinquent rent and mortgage payments.
In the spring of 2020, politicians put in place numerous relief programs to assist Americans struggling to make mortgage and rent payments in the midst of a significant contraction in labor income. These initiatives began with foreclosure and eviction moratoria and eventually expanded to include financial assistance.
Delinquent mortgage borrowers who had a federally backed mortgage, which includes mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration, Veterans Administration, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, and were experiencing economic hardships as a result of the pandemic, were automatically eligible for forbearance through September 30, 2021. Mortgage servicers, who are normally compelled to make payments to investors regardless of whether borrowers are late, have received assistance from the government. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, forbearance plans disproportionately benefited low-income borrowers, particularly those with FHA-insured loans and those who lived in low-income areas (Haughwout, Lee, Scally, and van der Klaauw 2021). In addition, the American Rescue Plan, enacted by Congress, offered over $10 billion to homeowners who were behind on their mortgage and utility payments.
Although some states have extended such safeguards, the federal eviction moratorium expired in August 2021. The federal government has set aside $46.5 billion to assist renters in making back payments as well as landlords who are owed such amounts. Even with recent US Department of the Treasury (2021) recommendations to speed delivery, state and local grantees had only provided $5.1 billion of the first $25 billion allotted for emergency rental assistance through July 2021, according to news reports (Siegel 2021). More than 60% of households receiving aid in the first quarter of 2021 had household incomes that were less than 30% of normal incomes in their geographic area.
Nonetheless, stronger fiscal support and a partial labor market recovery have contributed to a reduction in the number of persons who are behind on their payments. From each state’s high to the most recent data spanning July and August, Figure 8 indicates how much progress has been made in catching up on rent or mortgage payments. Between December 2020 and March 2021, three-quarters of states experienced their greatest rate of missed rent or mortgage payments. Since peaking, the percentage of residents reporting missed rent or mortgage payments has decreased by statistically significant levels in 36 states.
Fact 9: The strength in durable goods spending and weakness in spending on consumer services stands in sharp contrast to previous recoveries.
Together, social alienation and strong government support for households resulted in a boom in durable goods spending while households cut back on services spendinga marked deviation from typical recession behavior. Overall real spending on goods fell 13% from February to April 2020, as shown in figure 9a, but quickly recovered and had surpassed its pre-pandemic level by June. Vehicles, household furniture, and leisure equipment were among the items purchased in 2021; after accounting for inflation, purchases of those durable goods had averaged 25% greater than pre-pandemic spending. During the pandemic, however, spending on servicesmany of which were face-to-face transactions like live entertainment and dining at restaurantsfell sharply. In the spring of 2020, real services spending fell by more than 20%, and it has yet to rebound to pre-pandemic levels.
These trends differ from those seen in previous recessions. During most previous recessions, spending on durable goods remained depressed for an extended period, as in the case of the Great Recession, when goods expenditures were 7% below their pre-recession peak 18 months after the recovery began. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 9b, expenditure on services momentarily plateaued in the first year of recovery in each of the previous three recessions before resuming increase. However, in none of these previous recessions did services fall below their pre-recession levels for an extended length of time, highlighting the COVID-19 recession’s distinctiveness.
As individuals resume routine activities, demand has shifted back toward services in recent months. From March to July, goods purchases fell slightly, while service spending surged by 3%; in particular, expenditure on live entertainment, hotels, and public transportation increased by 35% in those four months.
Fact 10: Retail inventories are unsustainably low.
Much of the consumer demand for goods has been fulfilled by inventory drawdowns through August 2021. The retail inventory-to-sales ratio increased at the start of the epidemic, when spending plunged, as seen in figure 10. However, the ratio has dropped dramatically since then. This is especially true in the car industry, where chip shortages have hampered manufacturing. Production has been insufficient to meet demand even outside of that sector. Orders that haven’t been filled and delivery times that haven’t been met are on the rise across the manufacturing industry. Disruptions in global supply chains have been a persistent stumbling block, particularly backlogs at ports, which have driven up shipping costs to historic highs.
On the one hand, manufacturing capacity utilization has nearly restored to pre-pandemic levels. On the other hand, historical patterns and recent manufacturer surveys imply that once demand returns, manufacturers will expand utilization well beyond that level to replenish stockpiles.
In addition to inventory investments, survey data suggests that capacity and productivity investments are on the rise. Since the second quarter of 2020, private investment in equipment and structures has partially recovered, but has not yet restored to pre-pandemic levels. Investment in business equipment had recovered as a share of potential output as of the first quarter of 2021, although more investment is needed to make up for lost investment during the epidemic. Investment in residential structures has more than compensated for a resurgence in structure investment; in fact, residential structure investment as a percentage of output has returned to levels not seen since 2007. Nonresidential structural investment, on the other hand, continues to fall as a percentage of potential output.
Fact 11: There were more new business applications and fewer bankruptcies in 2020 and 2021 than in 2018 and 2019.
Newly formed firms appear to be a significant source of the goods and services that families require. Figure 11a depicts new business applications from enterprises classified by the Census Bureau as having a high proclivity to hire people. Since the agency began tracking the series in 2004, we have seen the highest amount of applications since the summer of 2020. In the aftermath of the pandemic, applications may have indicated new commercial prospects. The increase in total new applications is concentrated in online retail, which accounts for a third of all new applications, and service sector companies, which saw some of the worst job losses early last year (Haltiwanger 2021).
Due in part to financial support like the Paycheck Protection Program, which granted forgiven loans to small and medium-sized enterprises, fewer businesses have collapsed in the last year and a half than had been expected. In Figure 11b, the total number of commercial bankruptcies during the last four years is compared. In total, there were 17% fewer bankruptcies in 2020 than in 2019, and 2021 is on course to have the fewest commercial bankruptcy filings since at least 2012. (when the data became available). In particular, Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 filings, which reflect asset liquidation and sole proprietorships, respectively, were 16 percent and 45 percent lower in 2020 than in 2019. In contrast, Chapter 11 filings, which have generally reflected large-firm reorganizations, increased by 29% in 2020. That increase is also likely due to laws passed in February 2020 and then expanded through the CARES Act, which let smaller businesses to restructure under Chapter 11 and thus stay in operation.
In a downturn, what is the best thing to do?
Losing a job can make it tough for Americans to pay their bills on a daily basis.
Increasing your emergency fund that is, the cash you set aside particularly for events like downturns can allow you to continue to meet your basic needs while you look for a new job.
It’s critical to emphasize saving even if you’re working off debt. Prioritize putting one month’s worth of living expenses into your emergency fund. After that, pay off your debt and focus on developing a three- to six-month cash reserve, according to Anastasio.
“Even if they’re trying to pay off high-interest debt, everyone needs a liquidity cushion, according to Anastasio. “It’s critical because if an emergency happens when you’re trying to pay off debt, you’ll have little choice but to use your credit cards to meet the cost.”
A high-yield savings account can help you get a better return on your money. Look around for the ideal account for your needs and way of life.
During a recession, who benefits?
Question from the audience: Identify and explain economic variables that may be positively affected by the economic slowdown.
A recession is a time in which the economy grows at a negative rate. It’s a time of rising unemployment, lower salaries, and increased government debt. It usually results in financial costs.
- Companies that provide low-cost entertainment. Bookmakers and publicans are thought to do well during a recession because individuals want to ‘drink their sorrows away’ with little bets and becoming intoxicated. (However, research suggest that life expectancy increases during recessions, contradicting this old wives tale.) Demand for online-streaming and online entertainment is projected to increase during the 2020 Coronavirus recession.
- Companies that are suffering with bankruptcies and income loss. Pawnbrokers and companies that sell pay day loans, for example people in need of money turn to loan sharks.
- Companies that sell substandard goods. (items whose demand increases as income decreases) e.g. value goods, second-hand retailers, etc. Some businesses, such as supermarkets, will be unaffected by the recession. People will reduce their spending on luxuries, but not on food.
- Longer-term efficiency gains Some economists suggest that a recession can help the economy become more productive in the long run. A recession is a shock, and inefficient businesses may go out of business, but it also allows for the emergence of new businesses. It’s what Joseph Schumpeter dubbed “creative destruction” the idea that when some enterprises fail, new inventive businesses can emerge and develop.
- It’s worth noting that in a downturn, solid, efficient businesses can be put out of business due to cash difficulties and a temporary decline in revenue. It is not true that all businesses that close down are inefficient. Furthermore, the loss of enterprises entails the loss of experience and knowledge.
- Falling asset values can make purchasing a home more affordable. For first-time purchasers, this is a good option. It has the potential to aid in the reduction of wealth disparities.
- It is possible that one’s life expectancy will increase. According to studies from the Great Depression, life expectancy increased in areas where unemployment increased. This may seem counterintuitive, but the idea is that unemployed people will spend less money on alcohol and drugs, resulting in improved health. They may do fewer car trips and hence have a lower risk of being involved in fatal car accidents. NPR
The rate of inflation tends to reduce during a recession. Because unemployment rises, wage inflation is moderated. Firms also respond to decreased demand by lowering prices.
Those on fixed incomes or who have cash savings may profit from the decrease in inflation. It may also aid in the reduction of long-term inflationary pressures. For example, the 1980/81 recession helped to bring inflation down from 1970s highs.
After the Lawson boom and double-digit inflation, the 1991 Recession struck.
Efficiency increase?
It has been suggested that a recession encourages businesses to become more efficient or go out of business. A recession might hasten the ‘creative destruction’ process. Where inefficient businesses fail, efficient businesses thrive.
Covid Recession 2020
The Covid-19 epidemic was to blame for the terrible recession of 2020. Some industries were particularly heavily damaged by the recession (leisure, travel, tourism, bingo halls). However, several businesses benefited greatly from the Covid-recession. We shifted to online delivery when consumers stopped going to the high street and shopping malls. Online behemoths like Amazon saw a big boost in sales. For example, Amazon’s market capitalisation increased by $570 billion in the first seven months of 2020, owing to strong sales growth (Forbes).
Profitability hasn’t kept pace with Amazon’s surge in sales. Because necessities like toilet paper have a low profit margin, profit growth has been restrained. Amazon has taken the uncommon step of reducing demand at times. They also experienced additional costs as a result of Covid, such as paying for overtime and dealing with Covid outbreaks in their warehouses. However, due to increased demand for online streaming, Amazon saw fast development in its cloud computing networks. These are the more profitable areas of the business.
Apple, Google, and Facebook all had significant revenue and profit growth during an era when companies with a strong online presence benefited.
The current recession is unique in that there are more huge winners and losers than ever before. It all depends on how the virus’s dynamics effect the firm as well as aggregate demand.
Why did money become scarce during the Great Depression?
During the Great Depression, the money stock decreased mostly due to banking panics. Depositors’ faith that they will be able to access their cash in banks whenever they need them is crucial to banking systems.
In a downturn, how do you make money?
During a recession, you might be tempted to sell all of your investments, but experts advise against doing so. When the rest of the economy is fragile, there are usually a few sectors that continue to grow and provide investors with consistent returns.
Consider investing in the healthcare, utilities, and consumer goods sectors if you wish to protect yourself in part with equities during a recession. Regardless of the health of the economy, people will continue to spend money on medical care, household items, electricity, and food. As a result, during busts, these stocks tend to fare well (and underperform during booms).