In the past few months, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has gone out of its way to show that U.S. worker compensation is finally rising. There is one problem with that: while that may be true on an hourly basis...

... on a weekly basis, the picture is vastly different. What is happening is that weekly wage growth have gone nowhere in years, but because the average hours worked per week has declined and today hit a 2 year low of 34.4, it translates into more money per hour worked.

But let's assume that wages, or at least the perception thereof, is indeed rising - is this helping the average American? Well, as we showed earlier this week, the net "after expense" income of average Americans measured in real dollars has declined from $17K in 2004 to $6,000 in 2014 because as wages have declined dramatically, expenses have surged. In fact, according to the recent Pew study, by 2014, median income had fallen by 13 percent from 2004 levels, while expenditures had increased by nearly 14 percent, As such a 2.5%, or 3.5% or even 10% increases in wages will not manage to offset the surging expenditures, mostly on rent.

All of this you will never see discussed in a sellside research report, which instead relies on the basic hourly earnings headline numbers. Instead, you will see charts like this from Wells Capital's Jim Paulsen.

And yet, even the analysts who are only looking at the most rudimentary data are now warning that a new problem is emerging for the US economy, a problem which is always present whenever wages are rising, while overall economic growth is stalling (as it is currently according to the Atlanta Fed with a 0.7% Q1 GDP) and corporate profits are about to plunge by the most since the financial crisis: stagflation.

In a note earlier today, Deutsche Bank laid out the following ominous warning:

Worry not about the eight per cent drop in forecast earnings in the upcoming quarter reporting season. That aggregate figure is well telegraphed. Instead, pay attention to those companies with wafer-thin margins. Every year since the crisis, S&P500 stocks in the lowest quartile of ebitda margins have outperformed the market. Until, that is, last year when these least profitable companies trailed by 11 per cent. That is because after holding steady for six years, their already low margins nearly halved to 4.5 per cent while the median for S&P500 companies barely budged from 20 per cent. Benign cost pressures in recent years have allowed even the laggards to keep up. But if commodity prices start to rally, for example, or low unemployment finally gives employees some bargaining power, those companies living on minuscule margins may really start to sweat.

What Deutsche Bank is referring to is the following chart which shows the explicit and inverse correlation between corporate profits and employee wages. What it demonstrates clearly is that if indeed labor income, i.e., wages, are rising, then profit margins have no choice but to fall even more; this means that if the stock market wishes to continue rising even higher it will only achieve this with margin expansion, which however can only be achieved by even more Fed intervention and more stimulative inflation, which then pushes wages even higher generating a self-defeating feedback loop.

This is something we touched upon early in January when we made an observation on small business operating margins, namely that "If Companies Are Telling The Truth, Profit Margins Are About To Collapse The Most In The 21st Century."

Which brings us to the following Bloomberg TV interview with Wells Fargo's Jim Paulsen in which the otherwise jovial permabull focuses on only one thing: the rising threat of stagflation. This is what he said:

I think stagflation is starting to show - that idea of stronger nominal growth but weaker real growth is starting to show up across the economy. It certainly is showing up with real personal consumption slowing; it's showing with slower job creation growth as the wage rate rises, and it's showing up in weaker profits as the share of labor income rises reducing profit margins for corporations.

I think to some extent companies are starting to feel that pinch of higher labor costs and since margins are near post-war highs to begin with, they don't have much ability to raise them much further, but if labor costs now start to go up, they'll probably suffer some margin erosion.

What scares me about this is we've had a very weak growing recovery by historic standards, about 2% real growth, but what's made it palatable to some degree, is that inflation has been so low and because of that interest rates have been so low. So even though laborers have only gotten 2% wage increases which doesn't sound very good, until you recognize that because inflation has been virtually non-existent, real purchasing power, real wages have been growing very nicely.

... At this point we would like to interject that while we love the strawman argument that real wages are "growing fast" as much as the next guy, the reality is that this is bullshit as the previously shown chart from Pew has demonstrated: whether Americans are spending for more items, or actual prices are soaring, the consumer's net income as shown below, has plunged.

Anyway, back to Paulsen who then says this:

And now for the first time you start to have core costs rising, then even if we get a little faster nominal growth, the final result on the real outcome might not be nearly as positive as hoped. Yellen is trying to raise the inflation rate and I am thinking you better be careful what you wish for.

Can this scenario tip us into a recession Paulsen is asked, his answer: "it's possible. I am concerned that the Fed is so dovish in the face of rising core inflation."

Which means that now that the "very serious economists" are talking about it, get ready to hear much more about the "threat of stagflation" for the US economy, a threat which the Fed is powerless to defeat unless it is willing to launch another market crash.

In recent weeks, JPMorgan has turned decidedly sour on the US equity market: one month ago, on March 3, JPM announced that "for the first time this cycle", it has gone underweight stocks.

Equities, credit and commodities have all rallied in the last three weeks, as some of the immediate threats to the world economy have faded from attention, possibly only because the bad earnings season has wound up. But, to us, the fundamentals of growth, earnings and recession risk have not improved, and if anything have worsened. We remain wary of the near-empty ammo box of policy makers.

Our 12-month-out US recession odds have risen to 1/3, while equity-implied odds have instead fallen to near 1/5. But even with no recession this year or next, we see US earnings rising only slowly by low single digits and see little to boost multiples. The eventual recession should bring US stocks down some 30%, creating a strong downward risk skew to returns over the next few years.

We use the rally in stocks to sell it and go underweight stocks, versus HG corporate bonds and cash. The strong rebound of the past few weeks does create near-term momentum, and thus keeps our first UW small.

To be sure, the continued bounce since the JPM call has not been exactly reassuring of the forecast's accuracy. However, what is surprising is that when faced with unpalatable price action, sellside researchers usually flip their call quickly.

Not in this case, because in a surprisingly candid piece released overnight, JPM's Jan Loeys doubles down, and after asking rhetorically "Can central banks really save the day, or cycle?", his answer is no. In fact, after saying now is the time to sell stocks, JPM's head of global asset allocation is now even far more concerned about the over economy where his biggest concern is that central banks are powerless to stop the "collapsing productivity growth."

Loeys begins as follows:

Equities and bonds are both up on the week, fueled by supportive central bank talk. Commodities and the dollar are down, with EM asset classes continuing to outperform. Our overall strategy remains on the defensive side. We started a year ago to dollar-average from the long risk positions we have held over the past seven years towards a more defensive one where we finally arrived last month.

The main drivers of this year-long process are the sense that the cycle in economic and earnings growth is maturing, leading us to the eventual recession, as well as the more structural force of the global collapse in productivity growth. Of the two, we view the latter one as the more ominous, as it is potentially much longer lasting, with no obvious force driving it, nor a policy solution in sight to reverse it.

Both of these negatives to world economies and risk markets have in common that they are of uncertain timing. Hence, our use of the time-honored strategy is going slowly by dollar averaging. Over the past month, data are tracking our economic forecasts, and have kept our global projections on net unchanged.

That is good news after the steady drip-drip of downgrades of the past two years. It has allowed us to reduce our 12-month US recession risk to 28%, even as it keeps us with a view that the US economy is more likely than not to contract over the next 2-3 years in response to falling profits.

And here is why JPM's explanation why central banks are now powerless to stop the ongoing global contraction: 

We are not getting any solace on our fears over collapsing productivity growth, though. Investors have been happy to see the 628K rise in US payrolls in Q1, but at that pace, jobs are growing faster than the economy, implying that GDP per worker/hour, which is productivity, is actually falling. US companies are hiring people frantically as they are unable to get more product and services out of their existing workforce. This is not a good omen for future growth in the economy and earnings, in our view.

This is something we noted last night when we noted the increasing prevalence of warnings about an upcoming US stagflation. It is also what is most troubling to JPM.

Without real upgrades to earnings or growth forecasts, we think that the recent rally in risk assets gained much from dovish actions and messages from central banks, in particular the ECB, Fed and the PBoC. One can only applaud the seriousness and pro-activeness that central banks apply to their mandates. But aren’t investors counting too much on central banks carrying the day if not the cycle?

This analyst thinks so, without disparaging their efforts, as central banks are almost out of ammo, and their tools are not well suited to handle the problems of slowing company profits and productivity.

It is our perception that much of the weaker than expected growth over the past 4 years results from a supply side problem. Lower rates can boost spending, but are not much of a solution to falling productivity growth. The latter needs greater innovation, competition, globalization, and capital investment, in our view. Low rates can boost the latter, but have not helped enough, as rising capex over recent years did not prevent falling productivity growth.

* * *

But perhaps most amusing was the following Freudian slip in the JPM piece:

"We do not see easy money as a bait to lure unsuspecting investors into risky assets."

Then why bring it up... and if you don't, who does

In 60 years, the US economy has not suffered a 16-month continuous YoY drop in Factory orders without being in recession. Moments ago the Department of Commerce confirmed that this is precisely what the US economy did, when factory orders not only dropped for the 16th consecutive month Y/Y, after declining 1.7% from last month...

... but at $454 billion for the headline number, this was the lowest print since the summer of 2011.

Market reaction: stocks rebound on the news and are now well in the green