(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Is Manufacturing Employment Being Undercut by Boeing Along with Trade Wars?

Tags

737 Max, aerospace, aircraft, aluminum, Boeing, China, Jobs, manufacturing, metals, metals tariffs, metals-using industries, steel, supply chain, tariffs, trade war, {What's Left of) Our Economy

One of the biggest questions raised by the new (lousy) manufacturing results of this morning’s monthly U.S. jobs report concerns whether industry’s dismal recent performance is being impacted more by President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policies or by Boeing’s aircraft safety woes. The bulk of the evidence released this morning seems to point to the trade wars as the continuing main culprit, but also to some Boeing-related puzzles. 

Overall, the sector lost 12,000 jobs on month in December – its worst such result (excluding October, whose figures were distorted by the General Motors strike) since August, 2016’s 23,000 decrease).  Moreover, the year-end annual manufacturing jobs gain of 46,000 was the lowest such figure since 2016’s 7,000 loss.  (For comparison’s sake, 2018’s annual manufacturing employment increase of 264,000 was the best such result since 1997’s 304,000.  

The trade wars evidence for the recent deterioration comes in the form of comparisons between the major metals-using industries during the early months following the imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum, and afterwards (when many Trump critics argue that the trade curbs’ impact began sinking in). As always, the impact of Mr. Trump’s levies on imports from China remain too diffused throughout the manufacturing sector – and too unevenly so – to be gauged reliably. For good measure, they’ve also been threatened and applied in a confusing, on-and-off manner, and the recent Phase One trade deal and announcement of follow-on negotiations looks unlikely to end much of the measurement uncertainty.

First, here are the data on employment changes in those metals-using sectors from April, 2018 (the first full month during which the tariffs were in effect) through last month. Figures for the U.S. private sector overall, manufacturing overall, and manufacturing’s durable goods super-sector (in which most of the main metals users are classified) are included for comparison’s sake. Keep in mind that the results for household appliances also reflect a separate set of tariffs for large household laundry machines that have been in place since February, 2018.

                                                  Old thru Nov      New thru Nov       Thru Dec

entire private sector:                +2.82 percent      +2.81 percent    +2.92 percent

overall manufacturing:            +1.83 percent      +1.84 percent    +1.75 percent

durable goods:                         +1.99 percent      +2.02 percent    +1.94 percent

fabricated metals products:     +1.51 percent       +1.45 percent   +0.96 percent

non-electrical machinery:       +1.26 percent       +1.56 percent   +1.37 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:   -0.45 percent        -0.73 percent    -0.81 percent

household appliances*:            not available        -5.84 percent     not available

aerospace products & parts*:  not available        +9.02 percent     not available

*data are one month behind

There’s no mistaking that net new hiring in the metals-using sectors has been slower than in the rest of manufacturing and the private sector. As is clear from the table below, that’s a substantial change from the early post-metals tariffs period (presented here as April, 2018 through December, 2018 and January, 2019), when most metals-users were leaders in boosting payrolls:

                                                                Thru December           Thru January

entire private sector:                                +1.36 percent            +1.60 percent

overall manufacturing:                            +1.39 percent            +1.49 percent

durable goods:                                         +1.72 percent            +1.97 percent

fabricated metals products:                     +1.57 percent            +1.78 percent

non-electrical machinery:                        +2.33 percent           +2.57 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:                   +1.07 percent           +1.15 percent

household appliances:                              -2.05 percent –           2.52 percent

aerospace products & parts:                    +5.47 percent           +5.87 percent

But what about the Boeing effect – which figures to be considerable given the major role played by the aircraft and aerospace giant not only in American industry but the entire economy? As the data below show, the impact of the company’s production slowdown and more recent suspension of the previously best-selling but flawed 737 Max model (not to mention worldwide groundings) is anything but clear-cut. Presented here are the job change figures for aircraft and related parts industries, along with the numbers for other major supplier industries and the usual comparison sectors for the eight months preceding and following the announcement of global 737 Max groundings last March. The latest available data for the aerospace-specific industries only go through November, so that’s the final month used for the entire table.

                                                 July, 2018 thru March           March thru Nov

entire private sector:                     +1.38 percent                    +1.03 percent

overall manufacturing:                 +0.98 percent                    +0.28 percent

durable goods:                              +1.17 percent                    +0.11 percent

fabricated metals products:          +0.89 percent                     -0.31 percent

non-electrical machinery:            +1.38 percent                     -1.16 percent

aerospace products & parts:        +4.34 percent                    +2.27 percent

aircraft:                                        +6.59 percent                    +2.09 percent

aircraft engines & engine parts:  +1.04 percent                    +3.67 percent

non-engine aircraft parts/equip: +3.06 percent                     +1.22 percent

The pattern seems to show employment slowdowns nearly across the board. But the two non-aerospace-specific supplier industries – fabricated metals and non-electrical machinery – saw net hiring increases turn into net hiring decreases. Moreover, in aircraft engines and engine parts, payroll improvements actually accelerated.

At least some of this apparent paradox might result from the November end date used here. Boeing didn’t decide to suspend outright production of the troubled model until December 16, and the decision won’t even go into effect until sometime this month. Indeed, the company initially announced that no layoffs were accompanying the halt, although significant workforce reduction plans were finally made public yesterday. In this vein, reports of actual supply chain employment effects didn’t begin appearing until mid-December. Moreover, it’s possible that employment pain has been felt by the non-aerospace-specific companies in Boeing’s vast domestic supply chain before it spread to the aerospace-related firms.

So the safest bottom line so far seems to be this: Contributors to manufacturing’s recent jobs slump might now include both trade war- and non trade war-related developments. And anyone singling out one or the other deserves considerable skepticism.

Making News: CNBC Interview on China Trade Talks Set for this Afternoon, New Podcasts…& More!

Tags

aerospace, Boeing, China, CNBC, IndustryToday.com, Making News, manufacturing, manufacturing recession, Market Wrap with Moe Ansari, recession, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade talks, trade war

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to appear this afternoon on CNBC’s “Power Lunch” program in a segment focusing on the latest U.S.-China trade talks underway in Washington, D.C.  The interview is slated for 2 PM EST and, as usual, I’ll post a link to the video as soon as one’s available.

Speaking of podcast-like items, here’s a link to the one featuring my China trade policy interview on Moe Ansari’s nationally syndicated “Market Wrap with Moe” radio program.  Our discussion begins at about the 27:30 mark.

And this link will take you to my segment on the same subject last night on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show.

Finally, on Tuesday, IndustryToday.com re-posted (with permission, of course!) my RealityChek piece from earlier this week on how Boeing’s safety-related woes have helped drag U.S. domestic manufacturing into (a very shallow) recession for reasons having nothing to do with President Trump’s trade policies.  Click here to read.

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

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Boeing Drag on US Manufacturing Unrelated to Trump’s Trade War

Tags

737 Max, aerospace, aviation, Boeing, exports, manufacturing, manufacturing recession, safety, tariffs, Trade, trade wars, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Ever since Boeing ran into safety problems that early this year resulting in the widespread grounding of one of its most successful airliners, authoritative (as opposed to anecdotal) signs have been elusive that the aerospace giant’s woes have been contributing to the slowdown being experienced by domestic manufacturing. This matter matters because a sizable Boeing Factor would rebut claims that President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policies deserve nearly all the blame for industry’s recent troubles.

Boeing’s commercial jets, after all, haven’t been subjected to any retaliatory duties from tariff-ed foreign economies – largely because the company is half of a practical duopoly (along with Europe’s Airbus) in large passenger aircraft production. As a result, no countries (including China) want to be left with a single supplier. (Possible European responses to American levies on Airbus products authorized by a U.S. win at the World Trade Organization in a trade dispute long predating Mr. Trump’s inauguration could change that situation.)

Moreover, Boeing uses enormous amounts of manufactured intermediates to assemble its planes (which also include military aircraft), and especially durable goods ranging from fabricated metals products to machine tools. So hard times for Boeing will clearly mean hard times for all these suppliers if they haven’t already.

Last Thursday, however, a Boeing Factor finally became clear in official U.S. economic data – specifically in the monthly trade report (which contained figures through August). These statistics reveal that U.S. exports of civilian aircraft began falling sharply on a year-to-date basis beginning in May – just two months after national aviation authorities and airlines around the world began grounding the 737 Max 8 model or banning it from their airspaces.

Skeptics could still contend that a tariff-induced slump in global economic activity has reduced demand for Boeing’s jets, but the trade data also show significant strengthening of civilian aircraft imports, meaning that, at least in the United States, demand remains healthy.

The most important comparison entails the April-through-August results for civil aircraft exports and imports over the last few years. These ensure the best apples-to-apples findings over respectable periods of time.

According to the trade statistics, the U.S. civil aircraft industry dominated by Boeing hasn’t been killing it recently. From April-through-August, 2017 to April-through-August, 2018, its exports declined by 13.94 percent. And then between the same 2018-19 stretch, the rate of deterioration sped up markedly – to 24.51 percent.

Meanwhile, imports of civil aircraft performed a u-turn. From April-through-August 2017 to April-through-August, 2018, they fell by 7.95 percent. But then between the same 2018-19 period, they actually rose – and by a strong 18.37 percent.

Also pointing to a Boeing/civil aircraft-specific problem – the major difference between civil aircraft’s trade performance in recent years and that of domestic manufacturing as a whole. Between the April-through-August 2017 and 2018 periods, while civil aircraft exports were dropping, overall manufacturing exports rose by 6.76 percent. Between the following April-through-August periods, both kinds of exports decreased, but overall manufacturing exports were down only 3.44 percent versus aircraft’s 24.51 percent. And while civilian aircraft imports were surging, overall manufacturing imports edged up only 0.60 percent.

Could this great recent disparity between civil aircraft’s trade performance and overall manufacturing’s trade performance caused the manufacturing slowdown all by itself? Probably not. Current figures aren’t available for civil aircraft as such, much less for aircraft-specific supply chain output. But a 2016 study from the Federal Aviation Administration reported that in 2014, civilian aircraft and parts manufacturing totaled a little more than $100 billion (in 2012 dollars), and that inputs from the supply chain brought the figure up to just under $258 billion.

Since the Commerce Department pegged total American manufacturing output that year at just under $6 trillion (in those same 2012 dollars), civil aircraft production would have represented 4.27 percent of domestic industry’s total. It’s true that that share isn’t overwhelming. But given that the Federal Reserve’s (inflation-adjusted) manufacturing data show that the sector’s after-inflation output has edged down from only +0.90 percent to +0.89 percent between the April-through-August 2018 and 2019 stretches, civil aircraft’s seriously worsening trade situation may bear noteworthy responsibility. And it certainly could be behind a comparable share of the slight (just 0.36 percent) real output decline over the past year that represents manufacturing’s latest technical recession.

A big complication could still put the spotlight back on the trade wars: Although safety problems have plainly hurt Boeing orders and production, and therefore new business throughout its supply chain, civil aircraft production and sales both feature long time lags between orders and deliveries. Indeed, the company says that its backlog is still considerable – and growing.

Nonetheless, it’s also true that the company’s progress toward regaining its reputation has lagged far behind its initial predictions, and new problems keep emerging with the 737s and other planes . In addition, a leading aerospace industry consultancy reported in August that Boeing-related concerns were depressing civil aircraft production globally. And within Boeing, the damage hasn’t been confined to 737 Max production. The safety crisis is affecting output of other airliners, too.

Moreover, other non-trade-related problems obviously have been weighing lately on U.S.-based manufacturing, too – notably the confusion in Europe created by the ongoing Brexit mess and the long-time abject failures of the European Union and Japan to generate respectable growth. For now, there’s little evidence that Mr. Trump’s trade policies have been a net plus for domestic industry (although the counter-factual needs to be mulled, too – i.e., how would manufacturing be faring under a pre-Trump policy regime?). But the same, at very best, can be said for the Boeing Factor.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Manufacturing’s Productivity Leaders Continue to Surprise

Tags

aerospace, aluminum, appliances, Bureau of Labor Statistics, durable goods, labor productivity, manufacturing, non-durable goods, pharmaceuticals, productivity, semiconductors, steel, {What's Left of) Our Economy

One of my favorite sets of U.S. government statistics came out this morning – “Productivity and costs by industry: manufacturing and mining industries.” However boring it sounds, it’s useful because it sheds lots of light on which specific sectors within domestic American manufacturing should be seen as winners and losers or “industries of the future” (presumably the productivity stars) versus smokestack and other allegedly outmoded types of activity (the productivity laggards).

In addition (and this will be covered in an upcoming post), these detailed figures on manufacturing labor productivity (the narrowest of the two types of productivity tracked by the feds, but the measure that comes out on the timeliest basis) go far toward showing whether job loss in manufacturing lately has mainly been due to trade and globalization, or to industry’s improved efficiency. This debate of course has long been near or at the heart of the broader, decades-long debate about the effectiveness of American trade policies.

First let’s look at the overall numbers – which are anything but flattering to manufacturing. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (which compiles these data), in 2018, when manufacturing’s labor productivity as a whole rose by 0.80 percent, it fell in absolute terms in 67 out of the 86 sectors examined. That was a worse performance than in 2017. Even though that year, overall manufacturing labor productivity improved by slightly less (0.70 percent), it decreased in 54 of those 86 industries.

Broken down by super-categories, in 2018, in the 51 durable goods industries followed by the Bureau, labor productivity declined in 41. In the non-durables super-sector, labor productivity dropped in 26 of 35 sectors studied. For 2017, the comparable numbers were 34 of 51 and 20 of 35, respectively.

Even more interesting, in my view, are the results for these 86 individual industries. First, the ten best labor productivity performers in 2018 and their annual percentage gains. As you’ll see, the list that isn’t exactly dominated by advanced technology, at least according to the most popular definitions and portrayals. (FYI, “magnetic media” are a fancy name for products like audio tapes and compact disks – which this aging baby boomer is constantly told are hopelessly outdated.)

magnetic media mfg & reproducing:               +9.1 percent

computer & peripherals mfg:                          +7.7 percent

leather/hide tanning & finishing:                    +6.5 percent

grain & oilseed milling:                                  +5.3 percent

miscellaneous textile product mills:               +5.2 percent

turbine & power transmission equip:             +4.6 percent

resin, rubber, & artificial fibers:                    +3.5 percent

cut and sew apparel:                                      +3.2 percent

agricultural chemicals:                                  +2.2 percent

miscellaneous transport equip:                      +2.1 percent

And here’s a list of the 2018’s ten worst labor productivity performers. Most appear to be “lower tech.” But look at aerospace at Number Five! That’s the economy’s biggest trade surplus winner! The huge automotive sector had a terrible labor productivity year, too.

lime & gypsum products:                             -11.8 percent

textile fabric & finishing mills:                    -11.3 percent

motor vehicle bodies & trailers:                  -10.1 percent

sawmills & wood preservation:                    -9.5 percent

aerospace products & parts:                         -8.1 percent

petroleum & coal products:                         -7.8 percent

motor vehicles:                                            -7.6 percent

sugar & confectionary products:                 -7.1 percent (tie)

apparel knitting mills:                                 -7.1 percent (tie)

audio & video equipment:                           -6.9 percent

beverages:                                                    -6.1 percent

Finally, here are some labor productivity numbers for some manufacturing sectors of special interest. Pharmaceuticals seems a logical choice to kick it off, given the role that healthcare and drug-pricing issues have been playing lately in national policy and political debates. Its 2018 labor productivity fall-off indicates that if the industry improved its efficiency, it wouldn’t need such sky-high prices for many of its products to achieve what it considers adequate profitability. 

pharmaceuticals & medicines:                    -3.4 percent

iron & steel mills & ferroalloys:                 -2.4 percent

alumina & aluminum production:               -2.3 percent

household appliances:                                +1.6 percent

The next three sectors have been prominent in trade policy controversies. The two metals sectors faltered on the labor productivity front last year. (In 2017, both produced considerably better results). But if you look at their labor compensation costs (also provided in today’s productivity release), you’ll see that they’ve at least shared many of the benefits of the protective tariffs they’ve received with their workforces.

Such compensation rose by 7.2 percent for iron and steel-makers, and five percent for the aluminum industry. Both increases handily beat the 1.70 percent average for all manufacturing, and the 1.40 percent for durable goods production.

Household appliances – which include tariff-ed large household laundry machines) – turned in the opposite performance. Labor productivity was up at a relatively strong pace. But labor compensation was off by 2.20 percent. (Even more unusual, its labor productivity fell in 2017, while labor compensation surged.)

Finally, let’s examine the semiconductor sector, since it’s commonly described as a main “building block” of the entire high tech portion of the American economy. In 2018, its labor productivity fell (by 1.20 percent) – and for the third straight year. But here, labor compensation was way up (by 5.60 percent).

Intellectually honest economists will admit that measuring productivity is one of their most challenging tasks. But it’s also inescapable.  And the new detailed manufacturing labor productivity data make clear that identifying the nation’s most and least valuable and promising manufacturing industries remains just as challenging. 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Real Deal with the U.S.-Canada Trade Balance

Tags

aerospace, Canada, China, crude oil, dairy, energy, Justin Trudeau, lumber, natural gas, subsidies, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! The nation’s globalist political and media classes have gotten it right on a major U.S. trade policy issue!

I’m talking about the numerous complaints issuing from American politicians, journalists, talking heads, and purported academic and think tank experts about President Trump’s decision to make Canada the focus of so much of his trade-related ire.

Mr. Trump is right about Canada maintaining sky-high tariffs and lavish subsidies in certain sectors of its economy, like dairy and lumber. (I’d add aerospace to this list.) But the idea that Canada represents one of America’s biggest trade headaches, and has been taking advantage of the U.S. economy left and right due to poorly negotiated trade deals, is completely belied by the numbers. And P.S. – it’s not even necessary to point to America’s services trade surplus with its northern neighbor to debunk the numbers.

The keys are recognizing the immense role played by energy in bilateral goods trade. Commerce in crude oil and natural gas is almost never the subject of the U.S. trade deals and broader trade policy decisions that the President – for the most part – has correctly lambasted.

Energy’s predominance is most apparent when U.S.-Canada trade in goods is calculated according to the measures used most prominently by the American government – total exports, and general imports. In fact, these headline data show that the U.S. oil and gas shortfall has typically been twice the size of the overall American merchandise trade deficit with Canada – meaning that when it comes to other goods (like manufactures) the United States has been running a surplus.

For example, in 2009 (the year the current U.S. economic recovery began), according to these figures, the United States ran an overall $20.18 billion goods trade deficit with Canada, a $45.75 billion deficit in crude oil and natural gas, and a $30.02 billion surplus in manufacturing.

Last year, the overall U.S. merchandise deficit with Canada had fallen to $17.50 billion – largely because the energy deficit had sunk to $16.45 billion. And the American manufacturing surplus reached $41.07 billion.

As many trade policy critics have rightly pointed out, the total exports and general imports numbers aren’t the best data for measuring U.S. bilateral trade balances. (They’re fine for America’s global trade balances, though, as the discrepancies that emerge in the bilateral accounts cancel each other out on a worldwide scale.) Instead, the most accurate picture is provided by looking at domestic exports and imports for consumption – i.e., the trade flows that concentrate on exports that are actually made in America (as opposed to being transshipped through the United States from countries where they originated), and on imports that Americans actually purchase for their own use (as opposed to products being transported through the United States to their final destinations).

But although these statistics reveal a much larger U.S. merchandise gap, along with deficits in manufacturing, oil and gas predominate in these figures as well. In 2009, the domestic exports etc numbers show a total American goods trade deficit with Canada of $52.89 billion – nearly 87 percent of which was in oil and gas. The manufacturing shortfall, moreover, was tiny – only $200 million.

By 2017, according to this measure, the annual U.S. goods deficit had risen to $64.84 billion. But the oil and gas deficit – which had shrunk dramatically in absolute terms due to the U.S. energy production revolution – still comprised a little over 73 percent of this total. And the manufacturing deficit was only $4.28 billion (out of a U.S. global total of more than $937 billion).

I can understand why President Trump views Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a pro-globalist showboat. I agree. But when it comes to trade, and turning it into an engine of growth and domestic job creation, Mr. Trump has much bigger fish to fry – starting with the thoroughly and increasingly predatory trade policies pursued by his “good friend,” Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

Making News: National Radio Interview Now On-Line – & More!

Tags

aerospace, China, Gordon G. Chang, Making News, ShareAmerica, State Department, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that if you missed my interview last night on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show, you’re in luck!  The podcast is now on-line.

So click here to listen to a stimulating and timely conservation among John, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and me about President Trump’s recent seemingly confusing moves on the China trade issue.

In addition, a May 8 article on the State Department-sponsored website ShareAmerica, featured my views on China’s efforts – many of them illegal according to world trade law – to develop its civilian aerospace industry. Here’s the link.

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

Making News: Newsmax TV Interview on China’s Threat to Boeing…& More!

Tags

aerospace, BBC, Boeing, China, Lifezette.com, Making News, Newsmax TV, Ozy.com, ports

I’m pleased to announce that an interview I did this afternoon on Newsmax TV has just gone on-line. The subject: my Lifezette.com article Tuesday on how China’s new domestically produced commercial jet could become a major threat to America’s Boeing and to the nation’s longstanding aerospace predominance.  Click on this link to watch.

Also, it was great to be quoted yesterday in this Ozy.com article on how President Trump’s trade policies could affect the ports in the southeast part of the country.

Finally, I’ve got an interview coming up Sunday with the BBC on China’s “One Belt One Road” initiative, which many observers fear (or hope?) will make the People’s Republic the globe’s economic leader in the twenty first century. Check in with RealityChek for the details on broadcast time, and for news of other upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Making News: Talking China Tonight on John Batchelor’s Nationally Syndicated Radio Show…& More!

Tags

aerospace, Boeing, China, Dominic Gates, Gordon Chang, Making News, manufacturing, The John Batchelor Show, The Seattle Times, Xi JInPing

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to appear on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show tonight to discuss U.S.-China relations in light of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States.  Click on this link to listen live at 10 PM EST to what I’m sure will be a timely discussion with John, co-host Gordon Chang, and me.  And if you can’t tune in, I’ll post a link to the podcast as soon as one is available.

Also, it was great to be quoted today in Dominic Gates’ Seattle Times article on Boeing’s decision to build its first overseas factory in China.  In fact, it was my conversation with Dominic about U.S. policy options to fight China’s investment and technology blackmail that inspired today’s post on new American approaches to the China economic challenge.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: If Washington Was Serious About the China Economic Challenge….

Tags

aerospace, allies, Boeing, China, Cisco, cyber-security, Edward Snowden, forced technology transfer, imports, investment, lobbying, manufacturing, multinational companies, national security, offsets, offshoring, South China Sea, subsidies, telecommunications, Trade, Xi JInPing, {What's Left of) Our Economy

However understandable, the intense administration and media focus during Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s U.S. visit on Beijing’s cyber-hacking has overshadowed several other major Chinese threats to American national security and economic well-being – and the need to fix U.S. strategies that are failing badly to cope with them. High on the list is China’s widespread practice of extorting corporate investment and technology transfer by threatening to shut uncooperative companies out of its large and potentially bigger market. And this blackmail deserves special attention this week because two big examples of it have made it into the news recently.

The first involves Boeing, which apparently will build its first foreign factory in China – a move that not so coincidentally coincided with China’s announcement that it would buy 300 Boeing jets. The second was Cisco Systems’ decision to start cooperating with a Chinese server company on projects that reportedly could include developing new telecommunications hardware products. This deal has followed several years in which Cisco has encountered big trouble in China due to fall-out from Edward Snowden’s techno-spying revelations and charges, and to Beijing’s policy of punishing American companies after Congress in effect froze China’s version of Cisco out of the U.S. market due to espionage concerns.

Since aerospace and telecommunications are clearly central to military strength, these American corporate cave-ins could easily endanger national security – unless you believe that they’ll forever remain in their current limited form. So more effective responses are urgently needed – unless Washington wants to face ever more harmful Chinese cyber-hacking (see this article of mine on how American firms have undoubtedly shared advanced cyber-war-related technologies with China), or ever better armed Chinese forces in possible future military showdowns in the South China Sea and other disputed Asian waters.

The companies themselves explain their agreement to China’s trade and investment conditions with the “half-a-loaf” argument, and it’s not completely unreasonable. They’re obviously not thrilled to be helping create likely new competitors (whether they care about American security is another matter entirely), but they point out that any China business they preserve or gain via their cooperation is more than they’d have without the China market. In fact, Beijing has used its leverage to string them along effectively enough that they’re reluctant even to complain about their China troubles to Washington – for fear of becoming targets for Chinese retaliation, and of excessively rocking the boat of bilateral economic relations generally.

But although the companies’ behavior may be justifiable from their own individual standpoints, their unavoidably narrow, self-interested perspectives make clear why they can’t be relied to protect or advance broader U.S. interests. Washington needs to take the lead. But can it do so without imposing heavy costs on these firms? To me, the answer clearly is “Yes” – and not just because China’s economy is slowing down. The key to success is understanding that a case-by-case approach inevitably leaves China in the driver’s seat, and that the United States can and should capitalize on position as an export market desperately needed by China to ensure adequate growth.

Severely restricting China’s access to this American market would grab Beijing’s attention not only for economic reasons. Chinese leaders would begin worrying about their political futures – and their own personal well-being – since their hold on power depends so strongly on delivering jobs and rising incomes to the country’s increasingly restive population. Moreover, even keeping in mind that short-term costs for the U.S. economy are inevitable – because policy shifts of this magnitude are always disruptive, and because it may take Beijing a while to get the message – the most obvious objections are surprisingly easy to dismiss.

Where will affected companies find customers to replace those they may temporarily lose in China? In many cases, in the American market, because the smaller U.S. trade deficit with China that would result from import curbs would spur more American growth overall. Moreover, so much U.S.-China trade nowadays is “head-to-head,” (in which the same goods compete with each other), that many American firms could fill the gap left by missing Chinese imports. And when it comes to U.S. companies that can’t make up China losses this way, government compensation seems appropriate.

Given Washington’s willingness to bail out Wall Street and auto-makers for blunders largely of their own making, subsidies look defensible for firms in the line of fire of whatever trade conflict develops. (One possible caveat: Many larger, multinational companies rely on China business heavily because they lobbied so effectively for the U.S. China trade policies that have created their vulnerabilities – and other major damage to the American economy – in the first place. So there’s also a case for letting them take their lumps, at least to some extent.)

If such subsidies don’t pass muster politically in the United States, another alternative is available to Washington: using the power of the American market to dissuade non-Chinese competitors to U.S. firms from seizing the opportunities created by these new American policies to boost their own China sales. Although the American firms’ China sales would remain lost, they at least wouldn’t lose competitve ground to foreign rivals.

Further, giving these third-party companies and countries the choice of doing business with China, or with the far bigger – and more reliable – United States would have the added benefit of adding international support to American efforts to fight Chinese protectionism and economic predation.  Working with Washington would also aid foreign governments and companies by reducing China’s scope to play trade partners off against one another. 

Finally, it’s true that the kind of jobs and even technology extortion used by China are standard operating procedures – especially in aerospace and in military aerospace – for many foreign governments, including those of U.S. allies. So how could Washington justify singling out China for counter-measures? Yet when it comes to allies and their policies (called offsets), the answer couldn’t be more evident: They’re allies and China manifestly is not. It makes no sense whatever to treat all foreign governments and economies the same when their relationships with the United States are so dramatically different, and this kind of foolish consistency certainly shouldn’t hamstring America’s approach to China’s economic transgressions.

There is, however, one obstacle to this kind of revamp of U.S.-China economic relations that I don’t see being overcome anytime soon – the continued domination of China policy-making in Washington by those aforementioned multinational, offshoring-happy business interests. The China policy status quo has undermined the American economy’s productive core, and increasingly threatens national security. But the offshoring lobby believes it’s worked well enough for its members. So until a critical mass of national political leaders decides to reject their lavish campaign contributions, expect China to keep taking America to the cleaners. And when Chinese actions sting enough, expect a few grumbles from the multinationals – no doubt mainly for show.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Manufacturing Renaissance, RIP

Tags

aerospace, Boston Consulting Group, defense manufacturing, durable goods, Federal Reserve, industrial production, inflation-adjusted growth, Jim Tankersley, manufacturing, manufacturing jobs, manufacturing renaissance, non-durable goods, Washington Post, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I’m pleased to announce that the Washington Post has just reported on a major recent finding of mine about America’s supposed manufacturing renaissance: In terms of the supremely important measure of inflation-adjusted output, it never happened.

As summarized in a new piece by correspondent Jim Tankersley, revisions last month to Federal Reserve data show that instead of surpassing the highs it reached on the eve of the last recession, more than seven years ago, manufacturing production in real terms still hasn’t recovered the ground it lost. By contrast, in the two previous economic recoveries, manufacturing took much less time to exceed its previous output peak

Shortly after discovering this change, I shared the information with Tankersley and, gratifyingly, he considered it newsworthy.

His write-up adds an angle I wasn’t aware of – much of the shortfall has taken place in defense and aerospace manufacturing. At the same time, the picture can be usefully fleshed out with these details:

>The timing of the revisions couldn’t have been stranger. They came out just a six days after the Federal Reserve released its report on June industrial production. How much easier these results would have been to report on had the Fed either included them in that release, or waited to issue them for incorporation into last week’s July figures!

>Although much of the manufacturing renaissance coverage and commentary has focused on the sector’s job levels (in fairness, the holders of jobs do things like vote), I’ve closely monitored production because it ultimately matters much more. After all, how can robust employment be generated and maintained over any period of time without robust output? This relationship is especially important to keep in mind given manufacturing’s historically strong productivity performance. Even though efficiency has been growing more slowly as of late, the sector has a proven knack for using technology and other innovations to turn out more stuff with fewer workers.

>The revisions were anything but trivial. The last pre-revision figures showed that the sector’s output was 2.68 percent greater after inflation than the level it reached at the last recession’s December, 2007 onset. According to the new data, from December, 2007 through June, 2015, real manufacturing production had actually shrunk — by 2.28 percent.

The subsequent July industrial production figures actually reported a December, 2007-June, 2015 manufacturing output decline that was even greater — 2.50 percent. That’s because the June, 2015 real output level was less than originally reported. Happily, the initial July reading showed a monthly increase big enough to bring domestic industry to within 1.67 percent of its pre-recession high.

>Consistent with Tankersley’s finding of outsized downward revisions in defense-related industries, the worst newly revealed manufacturing losses came in durable goods industries. Previously, their inflation-adjusted output was judged to be up 9.52 percent since its December, 2007 pre-recession peak. Now the improvement is pegged at only 2.27 percent.

>Since its own pre-recession peak (July, 2007), non-durable goods output has been even worse than originally thought, but by only 7.88 percent versus 5.20 percent.

>These revisions themselves will be revised further down the road (as will the latest June and July data).  It’s possible, in fact, that these changes will soon incorporate research strongly indicating that manufacturing output has been considerably over-counted in recent years. Why? Because there’s abundant evidence that government statisticians haven’t done well at assessing the rapidly falling prices – and therefore the prevalence in manufactured goods – of parts, components, and other inputs that are imported. If these price changes indeed haven’t been fully captured, then many final manufactures – especially in information technology hardware – contain higher levels of foreign content, and thus lower levels of U.S.-made content, than we currently think.

>What we know for sure now, though, is that by the most meaningful measure, there never was a U.S. manufacturing renaissance, and that those who have been singing its praises – ranging from President Obama to the Boston Consulting Group – have simply been manufacturing and selling snake oil.