Morning Report: Ratio of job openings to unemployed back to pre-recession levels 9/9/16

Vital Statistics:

Last Change
S&P Futures 2159.0 -12.0
Eurostoxx Index 347.1 -2.0
Oil (WTI) 46.7 -0.9
US dollar index 86.4 0.3
10 Year Govt Bond Yield 1.65%
Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA 103.3
Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA 104.2
30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage 3.52

Stocks are lower as emerging markets sell off. Bonds and MBS are down.

Risk-off feel today, but bonds aren’t rallying. What is going on? Global bond yields are increasing, especially in Japan where the BOJ is taking a breather purchasing bonds. The German Bund is down as well. Some strategists are beginning to sense that the Japanese bond market could be headed lower. So, despite weak US economic data, a global bond sell-off will affect US Treasuries as well.

Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren is sounding hawkish, which is not his natural home. His argument is that a campaign of slow, steady rate hikes will prolong the expansion more than waiting and then having to move more aggressively. Of course it all comes down to wage growth, which decelerated in the last jobs report.

Barry Ritholz took a look at the the lack of wage growth and comes up with an interesting chart: the ratio of the unemployed to the number of job openings. This ratio is back down to pre-crisis levels. While we have yet to see much evidence of increased turnover in the quits rate, it does appear at least anecdotally that we are seeing more turnover. Certainly the stage is set for further wage inflation.

jolts-to-unemployed

Mortgage credit tightened slightly in August, according to the MBA. Apparently, one investor is exiting the correspondent business and that accounted for the tightening. Credit is easing in the jumbo space however.

55 Responses

  1. The hierarchy of victimhood in action:

    “The new nondiscrimination policy, though, isn’t quite so expansive. Owners of shared accommodations may still decline to rent to a guest based on gender. Women who share living spaces with guests may refuse to rent to men. But they may not refuse to rent to trans women.”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/09/08/airbnb_goes_after_racist_hosts_with_a_new_anti_discrimination_agreement.html

    Like

    • AirBNB busy going out of business. Yay, social justice and bankruptcy!

      Like

    • Am I reading this right?

      Likewise, it appears that men could show bias toward men, but not—à la Couchsurfing—toward female travelers.

      That is, men can discriminate against booking other men, but can’t refuse to rent to female travelers? But women can discriminate against men? What?

      The optics of this can’t be great for AirBNB. But I suppose there are enough identity-politics types worldwide to keep them in business.

      Like

      • If you read the link, the competing forum Couchsurfing lets men only rent to women if they choose.

        AirBnB is apparently allowing them to retain a preference for only renting to men (so as to allow women to only rent to women) but not what Couchsurfing.

        And of course they are forcing everyone to count transgender women as actual women.

        Like

    • “summer hire” Eric Holder?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Well, cuz it’s gross, first of all. But even if incestuous marriages weren’t illegal, it sounds like the mother has serious mental problems, and may have coerced or otherwise manipulate the daughter in their, uh, alternative lifestyle choice marriage.

      Like

      • I’ve been told that the “ick factor” is bigotry by another name, and isn’t coercion always wrong? So, if no coercion, why is it illegal?

        Like

        • McWing:

          and isn’t coercion always wrong?

          Not to the people who characterize the “ick” factor as bigotry, at least as a general matter. Quite often those people are actually big fans of coercion. See, for example, the Christian baker issue.

          Like

      • Kevin:

        Well, cuz it’s gross, first of all.

        Why gross? I thought the article said that it was a non-sexual relationship.

        edit: I just re-read it. It did not say that. It only pointed out that it was illegal regardless of whether there was a sexual relationship.

        Like

        • The implications of marriage is that there is some sexual component. Even if that is not the rational conclusion, based on the factual experience of married people.

          I think the authority/subordinate relationship would still make it seem generally objectionable to most people.

          Like

    • McWing:

      Serious question, why should this be illegal?

      Marriage “equality”, baby!

      As so many of us hypothesized and predicted, this is precisely the logical next step to come out of the whole SSM movement and its transformation of marriage from an institution centered around the production and raising of children into a mere financial contract grounded in momentary sentiment. Naturally our hypotheticals and predictions were at the time dismissed out of hand as “straw men” with accusations of false equivalencies.

      Like

      • Any time you notice that the two sides look relatively similar—such as Trump’s likely fraud and graft and HRC’s likely fraud and graft—someone has to pipe up and call it a “false equivalency”. I’ve decided that’s what liberals like to call “objective observations”. 😉

        Of course the whole SSM movement was about the transformation (and marginalization) of traditional marriage. I would still argue polyamory and other forms of marriage will become normalized before parent/child incest (as can be seen by the fact the mother was charged with a crime). Brother and sister? Eh, that’s coming. But there aren’t going to be many takers, so . . .

        Like

  2. Because it’s generally considered gross an inappropriate by most on the left and the right. The ick factor is only bigotry when most liberals don’t think you should consider than particular lifestyle choice to be icky.

    There’s also something else involved in this case that probably makes it more objectionable than a brother marrying a sister or two cousins getting married: the responsibility of the parent toward the well-being of the child, and the potential for abuse of power in the parent-child relationship. My guess is in such parent-child relationships, abuse or coercion is aways going to be assumed. And will rarely be wrong.

    I knew a woman in college whose estranged father talked her into sleeping with him “to grow closer”. Obviously, she had her own problems, and it was technically a voluntary relationship . . . but it also wasn’t. It was manipulation and coercion. And the first red flag is that it was a parent/child relationship.

    I’m guessing if the relationship under discussion was that of two siblings, long separate and now “in love” the objection wouldn’t be nearly so vociferous.

    Robert Heinlein wrote very upbeat sci-fi involving parent-child romantic relationships . . . and my sense is, polyamory and nudism aside, he wasn’t a pervert. But he was never a parent. Thus allowing him to entertain such future fantasies that are divorced from reality.

    Like

  3. Because the most important thing about 9/11 is the impact on “Islamophobia”.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/9/9/12856912/islamophobia-september-11-oversimplified

    Like

    • I find it humorous that the religion-phobic left decided to become BFFs with Islam..

      Like

      • If the Christian’s don’t like them, then they must be okay. Or, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And so on. The funny thing is, they all seem to know a secular or moderate Muslim who agrees with them politically, or close enough, so it proves than radical Islam is mostly a fever-dream of frothing conservatives. Yet the numerous Christian folks they interact with in their lives every day don’t count—only those ostensible Christians who attack them or are otherwise aggressive about proselytizing or condemning others for their sins.

        If there was no Christians, it would be Islam’s turned to be ridiculed and marginalized by all right-thinking liberals. However, if we get to the point where there are no Christians, there will be no liberals, either. Embrace the inevitable caliphate as it has been prophesied!

        Like

    • “groups that claimed allegiance to their version of Islam, ”

      I hate that nonsense.

      Like

      • racist

        Like

        • Q: when were you first called a racist/bigot/nazi

          i was 18 and manning the college republicans table

          Like

        • nova:

          Q: when were you first called a racist/bigot/nazi

          Sophomore year at BC. I fell into a position as Copy Editor at The Heights, the school newspaper, which was filled with left wing loons. I became the token conservative and during editorial meetings, as the sole voice of reason, was called at various times both a racist and a fascist. Can’t remember which came first, though.

          Like

        • For lefties, it seems that “Fascist” is the gateway pejorative.

          Like

        • Being in NROTC at the People’s Republic of Madison…

          Like

        • I was walking across campus at U of A wearing my Marine Corps Uniform and was called a “Fascist”. I told the dude I couldn’t be, I was enlisted.

          Then a ROTC douche demanded I salute him because he was a “Captain.” I told him no thanks.

          Liked by 2 people

        • 1] I was first called a Fascist in 1966 or ’67 by a UT Asst English Prof [I was in Law School, so it wasn’t in any way intimidating].

          2] Previously I had been with my dad in 1949 on the Columbia U. campus when he admitted to being a fascist warmonger.

          Story behind #1: buddy and I are drinking beer with two women in an Austin bar when my date’s older sister shows up with her date, a pencil necked young English prof. He is soon railing against the War.

          Finally, my buddy says “yeah, thanks to my ROTC time as an undergrad I’ll be there by September ’67.” And then I added that I was signing up for Navy OCS, so I hoped the war would be over before I finished at Newport.

          So he says he doesn’t mean the war is unfortunate or an inconvenience, he means it is evil and we are fascists for agreeing to fight in it, even if reluctantly. We listen politely and suggest politely that we were not making the same political judgment as he, which was an acute insight into the obvious.

          He then said “you are as bad as the Nazis who just followed orders and killed the Jews”. I said that I was a practicing Jew. He then said “You have an identity crisis.” I pulled out my wallet and looked at my TDL for about 10 seconds, showed it to my buddy and asked him “This is me, right?” The professor was incensed and left, but his date, who was my dates’ older sister, refused to leave with him.

          The story behind #2: Dad had a friend in the geology department at Columbia we went to visit. In 1949 there was a Commie front group called the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Student members were sitting at a table outside trying to get signatures on a petition friendly to Joe Stalin.

          When asked to sign, my dad said “No thanks. I am a well known Fascist Warmonger.” I asked him about it many times before I understood it, when I was about ten.

          #3. The 9-11 memorial quotation is up.

          Like

        • Douglas C Neidermeyer, Sergeant at Arms

          Like

        • No kidding, the dude called my CO, who told him to fuck off. One of the few decent things I’ve seen an officer do. 😃

          Like

        • “I was walking across campus at U of A wearing my Marine Corps Uniform and was called a “Fascist”. I told the dude I couldn’t be, I was enlisted.”

          Fascist: a person I don’t like because of his clothes and what I assume, like a giant asshole, that his uniform tells me about him as a human being.

          Like

        • “Q: when were you first called a racist/bigot/nazi”

          Was called sexist and misogynist in college. But so was the college, and the life drawing teacher who couldn’t have been more of a low-key, peace-loving, hippie-style liberal. Because he showed pictures of nudes from the 1800s and early 1900s without contextualizing them into a narrative of female oppression and exploitation.

          Racist/bigot/nazi directed at me didn’t show up until I was on the Internet. God bless technology.

          Funny thing is, I can recall saying things I thought were innocent at the time, in high school, to African-Americans, that upon reflection could be considered racist. And would be today, I’m sure. But nobody called me racist then. Woe, my ignorance: I was a racist and didn’t know it, because there were no liberals available (or at least willing) to tell me.

          Like

      • What’s interesting is that ALL Christians are the same as Westboro Baptist Church, but Jihadist’s are false muzzies in this highly nuanced, incredibly complex Religion of Peace.

        Like

        • I also get the Christopher Hitchen’s position: that there is no difference between Islam and Christianity, and they are both oppressive and evil and the cause of all wars.

          Like

    • Islamophobia in America is linked to Muslims murdering 3000 Americans in an attempt to Murder 10,000 Americans and destroy the American economy so hundred of millions of us would starve? That’s crazy!

      I cite a few numbers off the top of my head to note that, in no place in that article, is 9/11 referred to us an event that ended in the murder of 3000 people, in an attempt to cause much more statistical carnage.

      A May 2016 report by Georgetown’s Bridge Initiative counted approximately 174 reported incidents of anti-Muslim violence and vandalism during 2015. These included 12 murders, 29 physical assaults, 50 threats against persons or institutions, 54 acts of vandalism or destruction of property, eight acts of arson, and nine shootings or bombings.

      That’s 154 more anti-Muslim hate crimes than were reported in 2014, and a huge increase since before 9/11: American Muslims are now approximately six to nine times more likely to suffer these kinds of attacks.

      They had those numbers right at hand. Huh.

      And this:

      Since the start of the presidential election cycle, researchers found that American Muslim men have been twice as likely to be victims of physical assaults as American Muslim women and about 11 times more likely to be the victims of murder than their female counterparts.

      By who? They are clearly implying that these are Trump supporters murdering American Muslim women. Presumably, no honor killings or other Muslims killing these women.

      Poking around, I found another stat that says American women in general are 11 times more likely to be murdered. Odd, that number. Also “female counterparts”? Did they mean “male” counterparts or non-Muslim counterparts?

      By the way, you are more likely to be killed (7 times more likely) by a conservative terrorist than a Muslim terrorist! Because of all those conservative terrorists killing Muslims because they believe in smaller government and lower taxes, which automatically turns into terrorism. While Islam is the religion of peace.

      http://addictinginfo.org/2015/11/30/youre-7-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-conservative-terrorist-than-a-muslim-extremist/

      Despite public anxiety about extremists inspired by Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, the number of violent plots by such individuals has remainedvery low. Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.

      Not counting 9/11, of course. But even so, does that sound right? 50 in 13 years? Feels like it’s more. But perhaps we aren’t counting a number of them because they were disgruntled employees or “not really Muslim” or whatever?

      I like this:

      Conservatives can continue to fear monger away about the “threat” presented by Syrian refugees all they want, but the fact is that of 784,000 refugees settled in the United States since 9/11, only three have been charged with plotting a terrorist attack.

      Well, if it’s only 3 (so far), then no harm, no foul. Of course, there weren’t that many 9/11 hijackers, either.

      Like

  4. Interesting. I was kind of suspecting the senate would flip (and HRC would win) in 2016 and then in 2018 the senate would flip right back. Despite the destructive force that is Donald Trump, I expect the GOP will come right back with their strong midterm game.

    Like

  5. Agree with Graham here:

    ““The Israeli prime minister told me the administration is refusing to sign the MOU until I agree to change my appropriation markup back to $3.1 billion,” Graham said. “I said, ‘Tell the administration to go F themselves.’ ””

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-israel-deal-held-up-over-dispute-with-lindsey-graham/2016/09/11/74644cc0-76bb-11e6-b786-19d0cb1ed06c_story.html

    Like

  6. Re: HRC’s health issues. I think Adams is overreaching and Trump certainly hasn’t locked up the election based on her pneumonia, but all the careful coordination between the Democrats and the MSM to downplay the issue just went out the window.

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150264994381/the-race-for-president-is-probably-over

    She collapses in one of the debates, then it really is over.

    Like

    • jnc:

      Maybe I am mis-remembering, but didn’t Adams declare the election over in HRC’s favor just a few weeks ago?

      edit: I see now that Adams qualified his old prediction about HRC with “If nothing changes”. Which is a bit cheap, given that in a campaign something is almost always changing.

      Like

    • CNBC just reported as a straight up fact that “Hillary was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday.” Shouldn’t that have been “Clinton spokespersons claim that Hillary was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday”?

      Like

    • If this is pneumonia, the worst thing to do would be active on the campaign trail.

      Like

      • nova:

        If this is pneumonia, the worst thing to do would be active on the campaign trail.

        I would imagine getting up close and personal with a little girl for a staged post-fainting photo-op would be a pretty stupid thing to do too, if one actually had pneumonia.

        The Clinton’s must simply bust a gut in private over the preposterous lies they tell without getting called out by the media.

        Like

  7. I could be w-w-rong, but Tim Kaine would be a stronger nominee than HRC, in that I would vote for him, rather than for Gary.

    If government at various levels recognizes domestic partnerships [2 persons living together sharing income and expenses on a long term basis] as “marriages” it doesn’t mean any church, synagogue, or mosque need do so. And we will all know the difference.

    Anybody see the Key and Peele episode where the ceremony of the upcoming gay wedding of a cousin is explained to the extended family by a gay friend of one of the cousins?

    Like

    • mark:

      If government at various levels recognizes domestic partnerships [2 persons living together sharing income and expenses on a long term basis] as “marriages” it doesn’t mean any church, synagogue, or mosque need do so.

      It shouldn’t mean that, but recent history suggests that it would be highly naive to think the left won’t use whatever tools are at its disposal (tax laws, Title IX regulations, licensing regulations) to make it mean precisely that.

      If various levels of government recognize men who think they are women as “women”, it doesn’t mean that any private school or business need do so. But that is what the left is trying to make it mean.

      If various levels of government recognize homosexual relationships as “marriage”, it doesn’t mean that religiously inclined universities or bakeries need do so. But that is what the left is trying to make it mean.

      If various levels of government recognize abortificents as morally acceptable drugs to be dispensed, it doesn’t mean that Christian pharmacists need do so. But that is what the left is trying to make it mean.

      At some point it is incumbent upon objective observers to expect the political left to act in the same what it has been acting for nearly a century.

      Like

    • mark:

      I could be w-w-rong, but Tim Kaine would be a stronger nominee than HRC, in that I would vote for him, rather than Gary.

      If I recall correctly, you voted for Johnson in 2012. Which implies that you find Kaine a more suitable candidate than Romney. What did you find objectionable about Romney that is not objectionable about Kaine?

      Like

      • I don’t accept your question as reasonable. The current choice is between HRC, whom I do not regard as having personal integrity, and DJT who cannot be properly described without mentioning that he is a con artist.

        Johnson has personal integrity, from everything I have ever read or seen about him. I would vote for him even if he did not know where Austin was, in this field.

        Tim Kaine is admired for his integrity even across the aisle in the Senate. So Johnson loses that edge and I can choose between major party nominees.

        Like

        • mark:

          I don’t accept your question as reasonable. The current choice is between HRC, whom I do not regard as having personal integrity, and DJT who cannot be properly described without mentioning that he is a con artist.

          I’m not sure why you think HRC or Trump would be relevant to my question.

          The common denominator between the two elections is Johnson. If you preferred Johnson to Romney (which your 2012 preference suggests), and you prefer Kaine to Johnson (which your current comment suggests), it seems logical and reasonable to conclude that you prefer Kaine to Romney. The only thing that might make that conclusion not reasonable would be if there was some information about Johnson, which you did not have in 2012 but you do have now in 2016, that altered your assessment of Johnson.

          Johnson has personal integrity…Tim Kaine is admired for his integrity even across the aisle in the Senate.

          So can I assume that you think Romney’s integrity is something less than that of Johnson?

          Like

        • This formulation still makes no sense to me, Scott. Thus I have no way to address it. Sorry.

          Like

        • mark:

          This formulation still makes no sense to me, Scott.

          OK. I was just trying to understand what guides your preferences, that’s all. You preferred Johnson to Romney in 2012, and now you prefer Kaine to Johnson. So it seems logical to me to conclude that you prefer Kaine to Romney. And I was just trying to understand why.

          Like

        • I see, Scott. The simple answer to that is that personal integrity was not an issue for me in the 2012 campaign because I thought all three were satisfactory in that regard.

          This is the first time in awhile that character issues – integrity – are up front number one for me, in a POTUS election.

          If Kaine were running in a hypothetical race with Romney character issues would not be important to me because I would assume the basic integrity of both, and I could listen to them on FP and the like.

          Like

        • Mark:

          If Kaine were running in a hypothetical race with Romney character issues would not be important to me because I would assume the basic integrity of both, and I could listen to them on FP and the like.

          I assume in your hypothetical Kaine v Johnson race, basic integrity would also be a non-issue. So I think it would be interesting to know what is it about Kaine that recommends him to you over Johnson, especially relative to Obama and Romney, who you did not prefer to Johnson.

          Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: