(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Private Sector Job Creation is Still Overstated, but its Comeback Continues

Tags

government, health care services, Jobs, private sector, recovery, subsidized private sector, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Since we get a breather till the last week of the month in the flow of major nation-wide U.S. economic data, why not revisit one of my favorite unofficial measures of the American economy’s health? That’s the share of job creation that’s accounted for by what I call the subsidized private sector – those parts of the economy – notably healthcare services – that are officially classified as private sector industries, but that don’t really deserve the label because they depend so heavily (including for employment levels) on massive government subsidies.

This distinction matters, or should matter, because nearly all Americans rightly believe that the private sector, not the government, is the economy’s best hope for productive, sustainable growth. In turn, genuine private sector job creation is a much better gauge of the economy’s health than private sector job creation whose numbers are inflated by including the subsidized industries’ performance.

So I’m glad to report that the results for the first three-quarters of this year (through September) show the continuation of a trend I’d spotted a while ago: The subsidized private sector’s share of new total jobs and new private sector jobs is considerably lower so far during the Trump years than during Barack Obama’s presidency. At the same time, the subsidized private sector is still punching above its weight in terms of job creation, which isn’t such good news.

Let’s start, as usual, with 2013, since it was a year by which time the current economic recovery (which began in mid-2009) was well established. Conveniently, it also permits examining progress over a five-year period.

Between January and September, 2013, the subsidized private sector generated 11.14 percent of the economy’s total net new jobs created, and 10.83 percent of all the such jobs credited to the private sector as conventionally defined. The “real private sector,” meanwhile, produced fully 91.79 percent of the economy’s new hires, and 89.17 percent of the employment improvement placed in the conventional private sector category. (A drop in government employment accounts for the failure of these percentages to add up to 100.)

But what a change by 2016 – the last year of the Obama administration. During the first nine months of that year, the subsidized private sector’s share of total payroll increases had more than doubled – to 23.04 percent. And its share of all the conventional private sector jobs added during this period rose even faster – to 27.92 percent. Largely as a result, the real private sector accounted for only 59.43 percent of all net new U.S. employment. And the real private sector’s share of job gains credited to the conventionally defined private sector dropped to 72.06 percent.

So far this year, the subsidized private sector’s share of all U.S. job creation is down to 19.73 percent. The real private sector share of this total bounced all the way back to 76.27 percent, and its share of conventional private sector job gains was up to 79.44 percent.

But between 2017 and 2018, progress along these lines was much slower than during the previous year. In fact, when examined on a stand-still basis (different from the dynamic basis represented by the above employment change numbers), the subsidized private sector’s share of total U.S. employment actually has edged up over the last year – from 15.85 percent to 15.89 percent, and these industries’ share of conventionally defined private sector employment remained at 18.69 percent. 

With the subsidized private sector’s share of total job-creation this year nearly four percentage points higher (the 19.73 percent referred to in the previous paragraph), it’s clear that these industries keep creating an outsized share of overall new U.S. hiring.   

As always, please remember that I’m not portraying the subsidized private sector as worthless or only marginally important. Of course we need healthcare services in particular, and as the American population continues to age, we’ll continue to need a lot more. All I’m saying is that the nation needs to define its terms properly, and recognize that, without immense government spending (and the consequently greater debts), many of the jobs we’ve come to consider private sector jobs simply wouldn’t exist.

Advertisements

Making News: National Radio Podcast on Trump, China, and Currency Now On-Line

Tags

China, currency, currency manipulation, electronics, Gordon G. Chang, supply chains, tariffs, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I’m pleased to report that I was interviewed on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show last night on the Trump administration’s decision yesterday to absolve China of charges of manipulating its currency to gain trade advantages.

The opportunity (as is often the case lately) came up too late to preview last night, but fortunately, the podcast is available, and you can access it at this link.  The conversation – which also included co-host Gordon G. Chang – also covered the crucial question of whether companies can and will move their supply chains out of China in response to the Trump tariffs.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: More Evidence that Trump’s Metals Tariffs are Winning

Tags

aluminum, Federal Reserve, industrial production, inflation-adjusted output, manufacturing, steel, tariffs, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

One big and neglected result from the Trump administration’s metals tariffs comes ssthrough loud and clear from going deep into the weeds of yesterday’s report on September industrial production from the Federal Reserve: American steel production is growing robustly – refuting charges (see., e.g., here and here) that the steel makers would simply sit on their hands and enjoy bigger profits – as is the output of primary aluminum.

Here are the numbers for inflation-adjusted production of steel – including its major sub-sectors – starting in April (because the tariffs began to be imposed in late March) through September, and year-on-year for September:

                                                         April thru Sept            Sept year-on-year

overall iron & steel mill products:   +3.84 percent               +7.54 percent

raw steel:                                          +1.60 percent               +8.30 percent

construction steel:                           +10.73 percent             +14.50 percent

consumer durable steel:                     -3.59 percent                -6.44 percent

can and closure steel:                      +42.48 percent             +15.86 percent

equipment steel:                              +16.87 percent              +14.44 percent

miscellaneous steel:                           -1.47 percent                +5.44 percent

The results are particularly impressive when compared with inflation-adjusted production in the rest of manufacturing during this period:

                                                         April thru Sept             Sept year-on-year

overall manufacturing:                     +0.77 percent                +3.85 percent

The aluminum industry results are decidedly more mixed, because of domestic aluminum companies’ significant reliance on imported primary aluminum and alumina both for their smelting and for other further processing operations. But the primary production jump is impressive. And on a year-on-year basis, the rest of the industry is still performing respectably.

                                                         April thru Sept            Sept year-on-year

overall aluminum:                            +1.86 percent                  +4.89 percent

primary aluminum production:      +13.84 percent                 +47.92 percent

secondary smelting & alloying:      -0.34 percent                     +2.75 percent

misc aluminum materials:               -2.31 percent                     +0.52 percent

aluminum extruded product:           -2.01 percent                      +4.03 percent

Combine these statistics with the strong output recorded for metals-using industries – which are widely reported to be hammered by higher input prices – and a clear picture emerges of a metals tariff policy definitely deserving the description of “winning.” Maybe one day their news media will let Americans in on the story.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Despite Tariff Alarmism, “Victim Industries'” Manufacturing Output Remains Strong

Tags

China, Federal Reserve, industrial production, inflation-adjusted output, manufacturing, metals-using industries, tariffs, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The Federal Reserve’s new (September) industrial production figures contained the latest evidence that President Trump’s metals tariffs are showing no sign of harming America’s metals-using industries. Indeed, on top of their inflation-adjusted output generally remaining impressive compared with that of the rest of domestic manufacturing, industries that had apparently paid a high price for the levies (chiefly major appliances, where separate safeguard tariffs on household laundry equipment have been in place since February) have made up lost ground dramatically.

Moreover, although they began only in July, the industrial production figures so far show no reason to believe that Mr. Trump’s China tariffs are undermining domestic industry, either.

Here’s how major metals-using industries have done in terms of generating real growth between August and September (according to this morning’s preliminary data) – along with the numbers for manufacturing as a whole, and durable goods as a whole (the super-category in which the heaviest metals users tend to be found). This table also includes the previously released and new July-August results.

                                            Old July-Aug       New July-Aug           Aug-Sept

overall manufacturing:       +0.28 percent       +0.29 percent         +0.24 percent

durable goods:                  +1.01 percent         +1.08 percent         +0.59 percent

fabricated metals products: +0.22 percent       +0.51 percent        +0.05 percent

machinery:                          +1.07 percent       +1.87 percent        +0.88 percent

automotive:                         +4.02 percent       +4.27 percent        +1.70 percent

small appliances:                 +0.81 percent      +1.98 percent        +1.34 percent

major appliances:                 -2.76 percent        -1.58 percent        +3.26 percent

As with domestic manufacturing as a whole, the metals-users experienced a sequential production slowdown in September – and in fact one that exceeded that for manufacturing overall. But this slowdown came right after a July-August performance that was much stronger than for the rest of industry, and where revisions were much more positive.

The longer-term statistics tell much the same story – including about a big comeback for appliance production. Here are the real output data since April (used as the baseline since the metals tariffs were imposed beginning in late March):

                                               old thru Aug       new thru Aug       thru Sept

overall manufacturing:          0.54 percent       +0.52 percent    +0.76 percent

durables manufacturing:     +0.48 percent       +0.82 percent    +1.41 percent

fabricated metals products: +0.79 percent       +1.22 percent    +1.28 percent

machinery:                           +0.09 percent      +1.93 percent    +2.84 percent

automotive:                         -0.63 percent        -0.30 percent    +1.39 percent

small appliances:                 -5.33 percent        -2.54 percent     -1.23 percent

major appliances”                -5.25 percent        -4.00 percent     -0.87 percent

Finally, although the China tariffs are much more recent, reports are already appearing claiming that they, too, are backfiring on American industry. Yet just as with the metals tariffs, the official data refute these claims. Here are the real output figures for manufacturing as a whole, and its two super-sectors, for the two months preceding the first tariffs on imports from China and for the two months following them:

                                                         May-July                             July-Sept

overall manufacturing:                 +1.15 percent                      +0.54 percent

durable goods:                              +1.28 percent                      +1.68 percent

non-durable goods:                       +1.01 percent                       -0.63 percent

True, a slowdown is apparent. But it’s entirely due to weak performance in the non-durable goods sector. And it’s likely that this setback owes at least partly to Hurricane Florence, since among the worst results were those in the textiles sector, which boasts a large presence in the Southeastern United States.

As always, the data going forward could change the tariff-impact picture significantly. It will need to for the narrative to start finally matching up with the reality.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why Trump is Making Headway on Trade Deficits

Tags

China, Made in Washington trade deficit, Obama, recession, recovery, Trade, Trade Deficits, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Given that two of President Trump’s main trade policy aims have been to reduce the gargantuan U.S. global trade deficit and the comparably huge trade gap with China, it’s been entirely predictable that the chortlers are out with claims that he’s failing on both grounds. (See, e.g., here and here.)

What’s just as predictable? The chortlers are missing the main story: On both fronts, Mr. Trump’s first full year in office (the time-span for which the latest complete data are available), showed noteworthy progress. The main evidence? For both the world as a whole and for China, U.S. trade shortfalls grew more slowly during his first full year in office, even as the American economy grew faster.

As standard economic theory holds, that’s not supposed to happen. Quite the opposite: As growth speeds up, all else equal, trade deficit increases should be expected, as the growth boosts purchases of imports.

As RealityChek readers know, this pattern has been broken often in recent decades. And Trump Year One is an example, especially when the trade flows most heavily influenced by trade policy decisions are examined.

By that I mean what I call the Made in Washington trade deficit – the gap resulting by measuring imports and exports while stripping out oil and services, because trade liberalization in those sectors is in its infancy.

The contrast between the first full Trump year and the previous comparable period (the baseline for which came during former President Obama’s final year in office) is especially instructive. From the second quarter of 2016 to the second quarter of 2017, the Made in Washington trade deficit grew 1.72 times faster than the gross domestic product (GDP) in pre-inflation terms, and the China merchandise deficit grew 1.65 times faster.

Yet from the second quarter of 2017 through the second quarter of 2018 (using the latest GDP figures available), the Made in Washington shortfall increased only half (0.49 times) as fast as the economy overall, while the China goods deficit increased 1.33 times faster than GDP.

Moreover, the first Trump year compares well with the entirety of the current economic recovery, which of course began in mid-2009, early in the first Obama term. We can toss out the results from the second quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2010, since the second quarter of 2009 marked the end of the previous recession. But from second quarter 2010-2011 to second quarter 2016-2017, the Made in Washington trade shortfall grew as slowly compared with the economy as it did during the first Trump period only once – from the second quarter of 2010 to the second quarter of 2011 (0.44 times faster). In fact, between the second quarters of 2013-2014, and 2014-2015, this trade shortfall surged by 4.68 and 4.07 times faster than growth.

The relative growth rate of the U.S. goods trade deficit with China diminished during the first full Trump year as well – from 1.65 times faster than the economy, to 1.33 times faster.

On China trade, the immediate pre-Trump years overall look more impressive in comparison with the first full Trump year, but hardly in a slam dunk way. Between second quarter 2010-2011 and second quarter 2016-2017, the China shortfall grew slower compared with growth than it did during the first Trump year three times (2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2015-2016) and faster the other four years.

It’s completely legit to criticize Mr. Trump’s focus on the global trade deficit or the China trade deficit or any trade deficit (although I regard such criticism as wrong for various reasons, including the one analyzed here). And it’s completely legit to criticize other elements of the Trump trade policies (as I have numerous times – e.g., here and here). What’s not legitimate, though, is to accuse the President of failing to make headway in his trade deficit reduction goals – unless you have no interest in the most pertinent facts.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: No Signs of Tariff-Led Consumer Price Inflation, Either

Tags

automotive, beer, canned goods, consumer price index, CPI, inflation, Labor Department, Producer Price Index, tariffs, Trade, Trump, washing machines, wholesale prices, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Honestly, I hate to bombard everyone with official U.S. government data showing that President Trump’s tariffs so far have done exactly zero damage to the U.S. economy, contrary to upteen claims. Except official U.S. government data keeps showing that President Trump’s tariffs so far have done exactly zero damage to the U.S. economy, contrary to upteen claims.

Two days ago, this conclusion was borne out by the Labor Department’s latest report on price changes faced by businesses (measured by the Producer Price Index). Yesterday, the same message was sent loud and clear by the Department’s latest report on price changes faced by consumers (measured by the Consumer Price Index), which take the story up to September.

Since Mr. Trump’s first tariffs on imports from China didn’t go into effect until late August, not enough time has passed to assess their impact. But new American levies on steel and aluminum began to be collected in late-March. In addition, separate tariffs have been imposed on imports of large home washing machines since February. So this post focuses on price changes in sectors that use lots of steel and aluminum – the very sectors of course that have complained loudest about the tariffs. And it will present some seasonally adjusted and non-adjusted figures, because the only year-on-year data provided are unadjusted.

First, the main overall results for the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (not the only U.S. government measure of inflation at the retail level, but one that’s widely cited and that the Labor Department emphasizes). Between August and September, the overall CPI was up 0.1 percent on both adjusted and unadjusted bases. Year-on-year on year, these September prices rose by 2.3 percent (again, on an unadjusted basis).

Most students of the economy more closely follow the so-called “core CPI,” which strips out food and energy prices because of their volatility. But they weren’t much different from the overall CPI results. Between August and September, the core CPI increased by 0.2 percent on an unadjusted basis, by 0.1 percent on an adjusted basis, and on year by 2.2 percent (adjusted).

So these numbers don’t exactly scream “Raging inflation!” But what about products with lots of steel and/or aluminum? In most cases, prices went up considerably less than overall prices and core prices, and especially year-on-year – which provides the best indicator of trends over time.

Take new motor vehicles. Their September year-on-year price increase has been just 0.5 percent – less than a quarter the rate of core inflation. And on both adjusted and unadjusted basis, they were down between August and September – by 0.1 and 0.3 percent, respectively. Don’t forget: Both the adjusted and unadjusted monthly figures show that core inflation rose in September.

Take canned fruits and vegetables. Year-on-year, their price is up 1.9 percent as of September – nearly the rate of core inflation and overall inflation. But look beneath the hood: Most of those higher prices were generated by canned vegetables, which were 3.2 percent more expensive this September than during the previous September. So it sounds very much like the price hikes had little to do with cans made more expensive by more expensive metals.

On a sequential basis, the price changes in canned fruits and vegetables seem to make the tariff-induced inflation claims look more convincing. When seasonally adjusted, in particular, prices for the group rose by 0.7 percent in September – much faster than the overall or core consumer inflation rates. But look even more closely at that line item, and you’ll find a footnote making clear that the size of the sample on which the figure is based is “substantially smaller” than the norm. So presumably its reliability isn’t sterling.

Because the CPI data don’t distinguish between canned beer, soda, and soup, and the uncanned varieties, the impact of higher metals prices on these foods is tougher to figure out.

For example, for carbonated drinks, September year-on-year prices rose by 2.1 percent – again, close, but not quite at the overall CPI rate. And of course, many of these drinks are sold in bottles as well. Both the adjusted and unadjusted monthly September consumer inflation rates for these drinks were actually a good deal higher than the overall rate – 0.3 percent and 0.6 percent, respectively. But how many of the drinks surveyed were cans?

The same question arises for beer. The Labor Department distinguishes between suds consumed at home and away from home. For beer (and “ale and other malt beverages”) drunk at home, prices rose in September at an annualized 1.1 percent – less than half the overall inflation rate. On an adjusted and unadjusted basis on month in September, the increases were greater – 0.5 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively. Indeed, they were both greater than the comparable overall inflation numbers. But what was the can-bottle ratio?

For these malt beverages consumed away from home, the annual September price increase was twice as great as for home-consumed drinks in the beer category (2.2 percent). But the monthly increases were in the same neighborhood as for beer etc drunk at home – 0.5 percent adjusted and unadjusted. And there’s still that can-bottle puzzle.

Therefore, there’s no reason to think that price for canned produce and beer-type drinks are rising through the roof due to the metals tariffs.  The case for tariff-led inflation is even weaker for soups – many of which are canned but some of which are powdered or otherwise dried. On-year, their prices were down by 3.8 percent. On month, prices also dropped on both adjusted and unadjusted bases – by 1.4 percent and four percent, respectively. So if anything, prices for soups are deflating.

And finally, let’s take those washing machines. Year-on-year, their September prices rose by a robust 10.6 percent. But the latest figures show that the pricing trend has actually shifted into reverse.  On month, washing machine prices were down by 1.9 percent on an unadjusted basis and by fully 3.8 percent on an adjusted basis.  Moreover, the rate of monthly price drops has been speeding up.  So although producers tried to jack up prices in response to the tariffs, they’re failing to make those price hikes stick.   

As for the future, who knows? But the tariff-led inflation alarmists still haven’t answered this crucial question: If business thinks it will have great scope to boost prices after tariffs are imposed, why isn’t it raising those prices right now? That is, why will companies have the major extra pricing power on Tariff Day Plus One that they will have lacked up until Tariff Day Minus One?

Once that question is answered, tariff alarmism will start looking highly plausible, even if no tariff-led inflation is visible yet. But not one day before.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: More Dreary U.S. Real Wages Results – & Manufacturing’s Long Pay Recession Continues

Tags

inflation-adjusted wages, Labor Department, manufacturing, midterm elections, private sector, real wages, recovery, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s September real wage figures from the Labor Department show that, by this measure, Americans’ take-home pay advances remain surprisingly sluggish even as the official unemployment rate has reached recent historical lows, and that inflation-adjusted wages in manufacturing remain in a technical recession that began in January, 2016.

On a monthly basis, constant dollar hourly pay in the private sector rose by 0.28 percent – the best such performance since March (when the rate was fractionally higher). The initially reported August sequential increase of 0.09 (which is still preliminary) was unrevised. (Like the Labor Department, I don’t try to track real wage trends in the public sector because that compensation is based largely on politicians’ decisions, not economic fundamentals.)

Year-on-year, the private sector’s after-inflation wage change wasn’t anything to write home about, either. Such pay was up by only 0.46 percent. On the one hand, that number represented the strongest annual growth since January’s 0.66 percent. On the other hand, it was lower than the increase between the previous Septembers – 0.56 percent.

As has long been the case, manufacturing’s pay numbers were far weaker. On a monthly basis, its real wages dipped by 0.09 percent. As a result, constant dollar wages in the sector are now 0.28 percent lower than they were in at the beginning of 2016 – a 32-month stretch that more than qualifies as a technical recession – a period of two or more consecutive quarters of cumulative decline. In addition, the real manufacturing wage flat-line between July and August was unrevised.

The dimensions of manufacturing’s wages woes are also clear from the year-on-year results. In September, the sector’s real wages were down 0.92 percent from the previous September’s level. And that wasn’t even manufacturing’s worst such performance in recent months. Between September, 2016 and 2017, real manufacturing wages decreased by only 0.09 percent.

To add insult to injury, since the current economic recovery began – more than nine years ago, in mid-2009 – real private sector wages have risen by a far-from stellar 4.85 percent. Yet even such a meager advance is more than 25 times faster than the after-inflation wages growth for manufacturing – a rounding error-like 0.19 percent.

P.S. Somewhat disturbing for President Trump and Republicans generally – these are the last real wage figures that will be released before next month’s midterm elections.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Raging Tariffs-Led Inflation Still Isn’t a Thing – or Even Close

Tags

aluminum, Canada, household appliances, housing, inflation, metals-using industries, Producer Price Index, producer prices, softwood lumber, steel, tariffs, Trump, washing machines, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Good luck to everyone trying to find some signs in this morning’s producer price report of President Trump’s tariffs igniting ruinous, raging inflation throughout the U.S. economy. How come? Because they aren’t there. Yet again.

Let’s quickly examine some of the main products in the tariff spotlight, starting with washing machines, imports of which were slapped in February with levies aimed at countering sharp surges of product streaming into U.S. markets that harm domestic producers (called “safeguard tariffs).

Even though this Producer Price Index (PPI) data from the Labor Department focus on inflation or lack thereof for wholesalers, it does contain information on the consumer goods in which wholesalers deal. This morning’s report shows that prices for “household appliances” (including several products aside from the tariff-ed washing machines) rose by 4.1 percent from September, 2017 to September, 2018. That’s higher than the 2.7 percent year-on-year overall advance for such goods less the volatile food and energy sectors. But it’s anything but the steepest price rise in this category.

Moreover, on a monthly basis, household appliance prices don’t seem to be going anywhere lately. Between June and July, they actually fell by 0.2 percent. From July to August, they dipped another 0.1 percent. From August to September, they increased by 1.3 percent. Again, that’s greater than the 0.1 percent average for “Final demand goods less foods and energy.” But not excessively so. P.S.: Household appliance prices are affected by many factors other than tariffs.

How about steel and aluminum, where a series of tariffs began to be imposed in late March? Steel mill product prices did indeed jump by 18.1 percent year-on-year in September. But here are the last three monthly prices changes: +1.6 percent, +2.6 percent, and zero percent. So let’s hold off on the inflation alarmism here, too. And don’t forget: Thanks to Chinese and other foreign subsidies, steel prices have long been depressed for reasons having almost nothing to do with free market forces. So the tariffs have mainly been encouraging the restoration of accurate price signals – something that all free market supporters should regard as key to long-term economic health and prosperity.

The ebbing of inflation is even more striking when it comes to aluminum mill shapes. In September, their prices rose by a sharp 10.1 percent on an annual basis. But over the last three months? They’ve actually fallen significantly – by three percent, 2.1 percent, and 0.3 percent, sequentially. So thanks to the tariffs, normality seems to be returning to the aluminum market, too.

Much the same story is being played out in metals-using sectors – where reports of tariffs-caused devastation have been widespread. The pricing developments in fabricated structural metals products are a typical example: up 8.3 percent year-on-year in September, down sequentially by 0.6 percent in July, up by 0.2 percent in August, up by 0.5 percent in September.

Softwood lumber from Canada is another important economic input being tariff-ed by President Trump – this time since last November. Of course, they resulted in forecasts of impending disaster for the U.S. housing industry. But the PPI report shows that softwood lumber prices were up only 5.4 percent on year in September, and have been dropping sharply on month since July – by 2.5 percent, 9.6 percent (I repeat: 9.6 percent!), and 0.4 percent. That looks like deflation, not inflation.

To repeat a point I’ve made often, it’s entirely possible that these pricing trends could reverse themselves in the months ahead. But since we’ve seen nothing of the kind so far, it’s also entirely legitimate to suppose that current trends will continue – and important to start examining possible reasons why. Even though such an exercise will doubtless be more difficult and less fun that repeating forecasts of Tariffs-mageddon.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The August U.S. Trade Report – All Soybeans Edition!

Tags

agriculture, Census Bureau, China, exports, farming, intellectual property theft, soybeans, tech, Trade, trade war, Trump, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. International Trade Commission, USDA, USITC, {What's Left of) Our Economy

This belated report on last Friday’s U.S. trade figures (for August) focuses on soybeans for what should be glaringly obvious reasons. They make up by far the most important sector of the American economy, and any President, like Donald Trump, who risks its well-being for a trifling objective like preventing China’s domination of the world’s industries of the future – via rampant intellectual property theft, extortion, and other predatory practices – must have rocks in his head.

OK, I’m now pulling my tongue from my cheek. But given the massive coverage of U.S. soybean farmers’ woes resulting from Chinese retaliatory tariffs that are ruining their sales in their biggest foreign market by far, it seems appropriate to see what the numbers say. Especially because so far, they’re showing nothing close to a trade-led Soy-Mageddon for American growers.

The latest Census report pegs the August year-to-date current dollar soybeans exports increase at a robust 39.16 percent (from $13.10 billion to $18.75 billion). I’d like to provide the comps for the previous years, but they don’t seem to be terribly consistent with each other.

This rapid growth could well reflect the export front-loading in advance of expected tariffs that’s been widely reported. (For a compelling contrarian view, see here.) As a result, it could disappear completely, or even shift into reverse during the rest of the year. But if soybeans exports do tank between now and year-end, no one would be more surprised than the analysts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). They keep raising their full-year 2018 export forecasts (measured in quantity, not value, terms). So why are prices so weak? Largely because even though they professed to be worried about China tariffs, America’s farmers just kept planting ever more soybeans. And planting. And planting. In fact, this year’s harvest is expected to be the biggest ever.

And speaking of the Agriculture Department, the soybeans story doesn’t end with the Census reports data. Why not? Because they differ dramatically from those calculable from the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (USITC) interactive Trade Dataweb search engine. And since the USITC statistics are the ones used by USDA, they’re worth looking at, too.

These year-to-date figures only go up to July so far, but they don’t point to any tariffs-led Soy-Mageddon, either. As with the Census data, the numbers are in current dollars, and rates of change are to their right:

2016:  $10.062 billion (+25.67 percent)

2017:  $9.076 billion (-10.86 percent)

2018:  $8.452 billion (-6.87 percent)

So yes, soybeans exports are down this year, according to the USITC. But they fell during the same period last year too – at a faster rate, even though no China tariffs or threats thereof were on the horizon. Moreover, prices this year have been falling faster than in years past for various reasons – including the actual and threatened tariffs, but as made clear above, not solely because of them.

As mentioned, these USITC figures don’t adjust for these changing prices. But the Commission helpfully provides quantity numbers as well. Here they are for the same seven-month time period, in metric tons, along with the percentage changes:

2016:  20,113 (+9.96 percent)

2017:  22,366 (+11.20 percent)

2018:  24,635 (+10.14 percent)

That is, adjusted for falling prices, soybeans exports have been rising a little more slowly this year than last, but faster than in 2016. And the rates of increase haven’t changed markedly. 

Farming is a tough business, and with a genuine U.S.-China trade war having broken out, with no end in sight, no one can legitimately blame American soybean producers for feeling nervous about the fallout.  But the evidence keeps getting clearer and clearer that, even in the mixed U.S. economy, supply and demand still play a big role in determining prices, and that soybean growers jacked up the supply enormously in recent years. If they want to get out of their current fix, they’d do well to stop complaining so much about the Trump tariffs and start getting that message.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Metals Tariffs Damage Still Showing Up Everywhere Except the Data

Tags

aluminum, Jobs, Labor Department, metals, metals-using industries, steel, tariffs, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

This morning’s September U.S. jobs figures from the Labor Department once again expose as nonsense the long string of news reports claiming that President Trump’s metals tariffs are already causing tremendous damage to American domestic metals-using industries

As with preceding jobs reports, and other official economic data (such as output and capital spending statistics), the new non-farm payrolls reading makes clear that most of the sectors that are major users of the two tariff-ed metals – steel and aluminum – are more than holding their own on the employment front. In fact, most are out-hiring not only the rest of manufacturing. They’re out-hiring the entire private sector.

And although harm may come in the future, these jobs figures place burden of proof on the pessimists. After all, if, as often noted, many metals purchasing contracts are locked in – for, say, six- or twelve-month periods – why would metals users keep hiring robustly if they were certain they’d face devastating price hikes down the road?

So here are the latest numbers showing the relevant rate of employment changes from April (the first full months in which the metals tariffs were in effect) through July (the newest final – for now – data), through August, and through September:

                                                 through July        through Aug.         through Sept.

entire private sector:              +0.47 percent        +0.67 percent       +0.76 percent

overall manufacturing:          +0.52 percent        +0.56 percent       +0.70 percent

durable goods:                       +0.68 percent        +0.75 percent       +0.96 percent

fabricated metals products:    +0.91 percent        +1.19 percent       +1.44 percent

non-electrical machinery:       +1.23 percent       +1.14 percent       +1.29 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:   -0.31 percent        -0.15 percent         -0.19 percent

household appliances :             -0.31 percent       -0.16 percent          not available

aerospace products & parts:    +2.11 percent      +2.54 percent          not available

There continue to be shifts within this list. But what’s also important to note is that even though the metals tariffs have been broadened overall in scope, as countries such as Canada and Mexico had initially received exemptions, the metals-using sectors out-performed as job creators by roughly the same margins in September as in July.

The next major data set that will spotlight the metals-using sector’s performance will be the September industrial production data that the Federal Reserve will release on October 16. They may reveal a major turnabout in the metals-using industries’ fortunes. But unless they do, a heavy burden of proof will remain with the tariff opponents to come up with any serious reasons to think that the new levies are economic losers – or even close.