Following Up: More Data on America’s Dependence on Foreign Healthcare Goods

Tags

Barack Obama, Department of Health and Human Services, facemasks, Following Up, George W. Bush, health security, healthcare goods, imports, Lena H. Sun, manufacturing, masks, Mike Bowen, Prestige Ameritech, Rachel Siegel, supply chain, The American Conservative, Trump, Washington Post

Since news organizations can be so unreliable, I always do whatever I can to use information from primary sources instead of items in the media. I’m making an exception this morning, however, because I’ve failed to find a government document mentioned in several news articles, and reportedly it contains such important data that it deserves mention. Specifically, this document seems to add vital detail to my recent description in The American Conservative of how extensively the United States relies on foreign sources for crucial health care goods, and how long this gaping hole in the nation’s healthcare security has existed.

The document I can’t find has been described in this Washington Post piece as “a 2014 briefing released by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.” Among its findings, according to Post correspondents Lena J. Sun and Rachel Siegel:

“Up to 95 percent of surgical masks are made outside the continental United States, in places like China and Mexico….”

The 2014 date, of course, is revealing in that it was two years before Donald Trump was elected President. Also revealing: The authors interviewed a domestic mask manufacturer who showed them letters he’s written to American Presidents warning that mask availability could be disrupted during a pandemic outbreak.

The first was written to Barack Obama in 2010. And apparently little or nothing was done. But the manufacturer, Mike Bowen of Texas-based Prestige Ameritech, says he reached out to George W. Bush’s administration as well – with the same results.

But just in case you think this is an establishment-bashing exercise, it’s important to note also that Bowen says he sent the same warning in 2017 – when Mr. Trump did occupy the Oval Office.

Contrary to much (self-serving) conventional wisdom, I’m not at all opposed to finger-pointing and blame-casting, even during a crisis. In fact, I view it as critical to ensuring that mistakes aren’t repeated. But I am opposed to cherry-picking finger-pointing. Because by now it should be abundantly clear that when it comes to U.S. national leaders and American health security, both Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives and even populists have let the country down.

And the faster all partisans get off their high horses and focus on identifying lessons that need to be learned regardless of political effect, the faster Americans will overcome this crisis and the lower the chances of a rerun.

Im-Politic: Selective CCP Virus Finger-Pointing

Tags

Barack Obama, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Dan Diamond, Daniel Lippman, Defense Production Act, DPA, George W. Bush, health security, healthcare goods, Im-Politic, Jessica Silverman-Greenberg, Mainstream Media, MSM, Nahal Toosi, National Security Council, Nicholas Kulish, pandemic, regulations, Sarah Kliff, The New York Times, Trump, ventilators, Wuhan virus

Mainstream Media accounts of the Trump administration’s CCP Virus response keep appearing emphasizing how lousy and lackadaisical it’s been compared with the federal response to potentially dangerous disease outbreaks during the Obama years – and especially given supposedly prescient pandemic warnings that the Obama-nauts sounded to their successors that allegedly were ignored.

So RealityChek is going to have to keep pointing out major flaws in these accounts that both reporters and their editors should have noted, and questions they should have asked.

Keep in mind, moreover, that today’s pushback comes on top of (1) this blog’s description of a 2011 Commerce Department report on America’s increasingly dangerous vulnerability to foreign cutoffs of vital healthcare goods that was completely ignored; and (2) a similar presentation of federal economic data making clear the nation’s healthcare security – another way to think of this vulnerability – has been weakening for at least two decades.

Let’s start with the article in today’s New York Times detailing how a George W. Bush administration plan continued under Barack Obama failed to plug what its public health officials viewed as “one of the medical system’s crucial vulnerabilities: a shortage of ventilators.” The effort entailed finding businesses willing to try to build ventilators that were cheaper, more portable, and easier to use than were then available, and then awarding the contract to the best proposal.

According to Times reporters Nicholas Kulish, Sarah Kliff, and Jessica Silver-Greenberg (and presumably their editors), the eventual failure mainly highlighted “the perils of outsourcing projects with critical public-health implications to private companies; their focus on maximizing profits is not always consistent with the government’s goal of preparing for a future crisis.”

And although this point wasn’t made, the obvious message that the piece meant to send readers is that the President continues making a big mistake by not unleashing the full power of the Defense Production Act (DPA)– which creates vast government power to order whatever companies it wishes to make whatever products it considers necessary as quickly as possible, and to prioritize sales to Washington, not other customers. Underlying this position, of course, is the (completely ignorant) belief that this 1950 law (amended several times since) enables a Chief Executive to snap his fingers and instantly start assembly lines churning out ventilators and face masks and pharmaceuticals, etc.

But let’s leave aside this DPA fetishism. As I tweeted, the following sentence in the piece isn’t completely uninteresting given the unmistakable importance of quick results: After an initial failure (that shouldn’t be pinned on either of those two administrations), “The federal government started over with another company in 2014, whose ventilator was approved only last year and whose products have not yet been delivered.”

That doesn’t sound like the regulatory process reflected particular urgency – and clearly the problem extended into the Trump administration. But this business-as-usual attitude reigned even though, as the article noted, the ventilator project “came in the wake of a parade of near-miss pandemics: SARS, MERS, bird flu and swine flu.” In other words, evidence abounded that pandemics weren’t a rarity. Recently, they were becoming frequent. And still apparently no thought was given to any regulatory fast-tracking.

Finally in connection with this episode. It’s commendable that these pre-Trump public health officials tried to do something new. Less commendable, and less understandable, is why none of them recognized the foreign vulnerability problem and the offshoring-happy trade policies that fostered them.

Two other recent articles seeking to pin the blame for U.S. CCP Virus unpreparedness on Mr. Trump came out March 16 and March 25 in Politico. The first documented that on January 13, 2017 – seven days before the Trump inauguration – a team of outgoing Obama administration officials held a briefing for a team of incoming Trump-ers “intended to hammer home a new, terrifying reality facing the Trump administration, and the incoming president’s responsibility to protect Americans amid a crisis” – the distinct possibility that a major, deadly pandemic would sweep over the United States from abroad.

Further, the briefers specified that the new administration “could face specific challenges, such as shortages of ventilators, anti-viral drugs and other medical essentials, and that having a coordinated, unified national response was ‘paramount’….” Unfortunately, continued the article by Nahal Toosi, Daniel Lippman, and Dan Diamond, the Trumpers seemed pretty apathetic. And that’s pretty damning, right?

In principle, yes. But why did the Politico staff bury this observation: “None of the sources argued that one meeting three years ago could have dramatically altered events today”? Because it would take much of the punch out of this supposed bombshell?

Also buried: An observation in the apparently actual briefing document that, when in terms of “U.S. hospital preparedness and response,” “State and local governments lead public health response.” That’s an important piece of the current American response – even though it’s been relentlessly portrayed in the press another example of the administration’s failure. And P.S. – this document said nothing about ensuring adequate national screening capability.

Politico wasn’t finished, however. Nine days later, it ran another piece – by two of the same reporters – charging that the Trump administration’s CCP Virus policies have “failed to follow” a detailed pandemic playbook prepared by the Obama National Security Council that, it seems, would have prevented much of the virus damage inflicted on the nation.

Again, it’s a plausible claim – although, like the first Politico piece, this article left out the development of the Trump administration’s own pandemic strategy by the fall of 2018 (which means that work on it throughout the federal government began months before).

Also, like the first article, it failed to pose these crucial questions: If the Obama pandemic specialists were so utterly convinced that a pandemic would strike sooner rather than later, and that Team Trump was falling down on the preparation job, why didn’t they alert Democrats in Congress, or Never Trumper Republicans? Certainly there’s been no shortage of lawmakers (especially Democrats) looking for any opportunity to slam the administration (especially if this activity could do some good).

Additionally, if these pandemic warriors did send their message to these lawmakers, why did the public hear so little about it?

My hunch: For three years, the Never Trumpers of both parties had much higher priorities. Think “Russia” and “impeachment.”

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Productivity Growth Keeps Lagging Historically, but has Bumped Under Trump

Tags

Barack Obama, election 2020, labor productivity, manufacturing, multifactor productivity, non-farm business, productivity, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Sure, they’re lagging indicators, and don’t tell us much, if anything, about whatever coronavirus effect the American economy might face. Still, today’s new U.S. government data on labor productivity both say something about where the economy has been until recently before pandemic fears hit, and provide a noteworthy point of comparison between the record of President Trump and his White House predecessor, Barack Obama. And although the news for the economy isn’t good at all (especially for manufacturing), the findings should cheer Mr. Trump and his supporters.

The figures, from the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), cover labor productivity – a gauge of output of a good or service per each hour a worker has been on the job trying to create it. It’s the narrower of the two productivity measures calculated by BLS (the other, multifactor productivity, reports on output as a function of many more inputs, like capital and technology), but it’s released on a timelier basis. And the latest numbers not only bring the story up to the fourth quarter of last year (preliminarily). They also incorporate revisions – some of which go back to 1947!

As a result, it’s now possible to take a new look at the nation’s productivity performance during the last three economic recoveries – the most economically valid, apples-to-apples way of comparing trends over significant time spans.

And here’s where the news isn’t good, as will be made clear from the following two tables. The first shows the cumulative productivity changes during those last three expansions before these latest revisions:

                                                                        Non-farm business    Manufacturing

1990s expansion (2Q 1991-1Q 2001):              +23.74 percent      +45.86 percent

bubble expansion (4Q 2001-4Q 2007):             +16.59 percent      +30.23 percent

current expansion (2Q 09 thru final 3Q 19):     +12.74 percent        +9.42 percent

The second shows the same developments with the revisions.

                                                                         Non-farm business    Manufacturing

1990s expansion (2Q 1991-1Q 2001):              +23.75 percent        +44.68 percent

bubble expansion (4Q 2001-4Q 2007):             +16.58 percent        +30.92 percent

current expansion (2Q 09 thru final 3Q 19):     +12.74 percent          +6.32 percent

current expansion (2Q 09 thru prelim 4Q 19):  +13.44 percent          +6.11 percent

The big takeaway is that although the revisions leave the picture for both non-farm businesses (BLS’ main definition of the American economic universe) and manufacturing unchanged in terms of a long and substantial productivity slowdown, they downgrade manufacturing’s performance during the current recovery substantially. In fact, industry’s labor productivity growth is now reported to be about a third slower than previously thought.

Since it’s a presidential campaign year, I thought a Trump-Obama comparison would be appropriate, and here’s where the good news for Trump World, at the very least, comes in.

                                                                   Non-farm business          Manufacturing

last 12 Obama quarters                                 +3.31 percent                -2.27 percent

first 12 Trump quarters                                 +4.17 percent                -0.05 percent

The time frames used make sense because they represent identical numbers of quarters for each President that are also the closest to each other in the current (expansionary) business/economic cycle. The productivity performance under Mr. Trump hasn’t been gangbusters historically speaking for either sector of the economy. But it’s clearly been better than that registered during the most comparable Obama period.

Since most serious students of the economy agree that there’s lots of room for improvement in measuring productivity growth (especially for the services sectors), it would be quite the stretch for Mr. Trump to claim credit for these favorable numbers. Yet when have such substantive considerations ever stopped politicians from pretending they wield such power – for economic good or ill? So unless the productivity arrows start moving down markedly, Americans might finally hear something from the President about productivity before too long.

Making News: Appearances on IndustryToday.com, in The Epoch Times…& More!

Tags

Barack Obama, Breitbart News Tonight, Breitbart.com, IndustryToday.com, John Carney, Making News, The Epoch Times, Tom Ozimek, Trade, Trump, White House Council of Economic Advisers

I’m pleased to announce some new media appearances over the last week or so.

Just today, IndustryToday.com reprinted this morning’s report on the U.S. economy’s biggest exporters and importers for 2019, and how these results compare with that of 2016, the last year of the Obama administration – which not so coincidentally was also the last year of the U.S. trade policies that President Trump is seeking to overhaul.  Here’s the link.

Yesterday, Tom Ozimek of The Epoch Times quoted my views on the latest annual report of the White House Council of Economic Advisers – and on how the Trump economy has differed so far from the Obama economy.  You can read his piece here.

On February 12, Tom devoted an entire article to my first analysis of the final 2019 full-year U.S. trade figures.  Click on this link to read.

This past Wedensday night, I was interviewed on Breitbart News Tonight on Sirius XM Patriot radio on the impact of the coronavirus on the Chinese, U.S., and global economies.  To listen, click here, and then scroll down till you see my name for a February 19 segment.

On Valentine’s Day, Breitbart.com‘s John Carney cited my explanation for some of American manufacturing’s output performance in January.  Here’s the link.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Which Industries Were 2019’s Biggest U.S. Trade Winners & Losers?

Tags

Barack Obama, manufacturing, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade surpluses, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

President Trump has set out to overhaul America’s trade policy, and RealityChek has presented abundant evidence showing that, from the proverbial 30,000-foot level and somewhat below, his years in office have seen impressive progress that’s laying the foundations for a healthier economy.

But what about the makeup of U.S. trade flows? Similar progress has been documented here in the recent leveling off of the still-enormous American trade gap in manufactured goods (despite the safety-related woes of aircraft giant and mega-exporter Boeing) and minimal growth in the Made in Washington trade deficit – the shortfall in those flows most strongly influenced by American trade policy decisions (i.e., which leave out oil and services trade).

At the same time, a detailed industry-by-industry examination of U.S. trade patterns reveals changes that have been more modest, though worth examining, especially when a reasonably obvious comparison is made with their counterparts during the last year of the Obama administration – which the President and his supporters (including me) view as a trade policy failure. Specifically, over these three years, the lists of the American industries that ran the biggest trade surpluses and deficits remained practically the same. By contrast, the lists of sectors that saw their trade balances improve or worsen to the greatest extent had almost nothing in common.

Let’s begin with one of Mr. Trump’s priority objectives – reducing the trade deficit. Despite the different look of aggregate deficits, one key measure of the industries winning and losing out most from trade looks remarkably similar last year to its appearance in the final Obama year, 2016. That’s the sectors of the U.S. economy with the biggest trade surpluses. Below are the Top 20 for 2019, in descending order. The magnitude of the 2019 surplus in value terms comes after the sector’s name, and the right-hand column shows how these industries ranked in 2016. Last year’s trade surplus champions that didn’t make the 2016 list are designated with a hyphen.

The categories come from the federal government’s North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which has become Washington’s predominant system for slicing and dicing the domestic economy. They represent NAICS’ most granular level of disaggregation – the sixth level. And they leave out a catchall aerospace category that includes both planes and their parts – as opposed to many other NAICS-6 categories, which present the two separately.

Leading 2019 trade surplus sectors                                  2016 rank

1. petroleum refinery products: $30.71b                               1

2. special classification goods: $26.27b                                3

3. plastics materials & resins: 18.74b                                   4

4. soybeans: $18.46b                                                            2

5. waste and scrap: $13.11b                                                 5

6. non-anthracite coal & petroleum gases: $9.27b            16

7. used or second-hand merchandise: $9.16b:                  10

8. motor vehicle bodies: $9.12b                                         7

9. corn: $7.57b                                                                   6

10. non-poultry meat products: $7.36b                            11

11. cotton: +$6.23b                                                          14

12. semiconductors: +$5.91b                                            –

13. wheat: $5.84b                                                            13

14. tree nuts: +$5.10b                                                      15

15. computer parts: +$4.76b                                             9

16. misc basic inorganic chemicals: $3.88b                     –

17. prepared or preserved poultry: $3.75b                      18

18. in-vitro diagnostic substances: $3.39b                      20

19. surface active agents: $3.23b                                    19

20. paperboard mill products: $3.12b                              –

As the table makes clear, there’s been some reshuffling in this group, but not much. Indeed, 17 of the 2016 Top 20 made the 2019 Top 20, and all of the top five in 2016 were top five in 2019, though three of these industries switched orders. And the only major ranking changes occurred in non-anthracite coal and petroleum gases (which move up six places), and in computer parts (which moved down six).

Also of note: In 2016, eight of the Top 20 trade surplus sectors were manufactures, and this number rose to only nine in 2019. So despite the Trump administration’s focus on strengthening domestic manufacturing, little change is evident from this list of leading net exporters.

Yet very different results emerge from a different measure of trade excellence – the twenty industries that have seen their trade balances improved the most between 2018 and 2019, and between 2015 and that final Obama year 2016. Here, for three reasons, I’ve limited the total number of industries I’ve examined to the hundred biggest trade surplus and trade deficit industries.

First, these sectors represent the vast bulk of U.S. goods trade. Second, they enable a filtering out of the “small numbers effect” (that is, big percentage moves that are generated when sectors with small trade flows experiencing changes that are small in absolute terms but big in relative terms). Third, including the big deficit industries enables the identification of sectors whose trade shortfalls have shrunk the most – which on in trade accounting means just as much as boosting surpluses. (These sectors are the ones marked “DF,” for “deficits fell.”)

Just as with the first table, also presented here is where 2019’s biggest trade balance improvers ranked in 2016. And the big takeaway is that overwhelmingly, they didn’t rank at all. An amazing sixteen out of twenty sectors that improved their trade balances the most last year weren’t even on this Top 20 list just three years ago.

Leading trade balance improvers 2018-19                                       2016 rank

(including percentage changes)

1. semiconductors: +196.2 percent                                                         –

2. perfumes, makeup & other toiletries: +147.4 percent                        –

3. dental laboratories products: +120.0 percent                                     –

4. non-small arms ammunition: +79.8 percent                                      6

5. dried peas & beans: +60.4 percent                                                    7

6. carbon & graphite products: +55.9 percent                                      –

7. oil & gas field machinery & equip: +49.3 percent                           –

8. animal fats, oils & byproducts: +48.9 percent                                 –

9. petrochemicals: +44.9 percent                                                         1

10. computer storage devices: +42.7 percent                                    19

11. ships: +40.2 percent                                                                      –

12. misc chemicals: +35.1 percent                                                     –

13. cheese: +34.0 percent                                                                   –

14. potatoes: +33.6 percent                                                                 –

15. jewelry & silverware: +32.1 percent (DF)                                    –

16. search, navigation, detection instruments: +31.1 percent (DF)    –

17. printed circuit assemblies: +31.6 percent (DF)                            –

18. missile & space vehicle engines & parts: +30.0 percent             –

19. motor homes: +28.0 percent                                                        –

20. specialty canned foods: +27.6 percent                                         –

But also interesting – despite the extensive turnover, for both years, 13 of the twenty top trade balance improvers were manufacturing industries.

Maybe, however, the story is significantly different on the deficit side of the trade ledger? Not meaningfully. Below is a list of the twenty American sectors with the biggest trade shortfalls in absolute terms, in descending order. The actual deficits are included, too. In the right-hand column is their ranking on a similar 2016 table. And as with the surplus table above, that catchall aerospace category is excluded.

Leading 2019 trade deficit sectors                                                 2016 rank

1. autos & light trucks: $126.60b                                                        1

2. goods returned: $91.06b                                                                 4

3. broadcast & wireless communs equip: $73.74b                             3

4. pharmaceutical preparations: $62.36b                                            5

5. computers: $59.62b                                                                        6

6. female cut & sew apparel: $42.13b                                               7

7. male cut & sew apparel: $30.97b                                                   8

8. aircraft engines & engine parts: $25.68b                                     12

9. footwear: $25.62b                                                                        10

10. misc motor vehicle parts: $23.69b                                             11

11. audio & video equip: $21.71b                                                     9

12. dolls, toys & games: $17.37b                                                    13

13. iron & steel & ferroalloy products: $17.03b                             16

14. non-diagnostic biological products: $16.97b                             –

15. printed circuit assemblies: $16.75b 1                                         4

16. motor vehicle electrical & electronic equip: $14.63b              15

17. aircraft parts & auxiliary equip: $14.02b                                 18

18. light truck & utility vehicles: $13.19                                        –

19. misc plastics products: $13.03b                                                –

20. curtains & linens: $12.18b                                                       17

In this case, 17 of the 2019 Top 20 were in the 2016 Top 20. And the order hasn’t changed much, either – except arguably in the case of aircraft engines and engine parts, iron and steel and ferroalloy products, and curtains and linens. One major change does need to be noted, though: You may have observed that the second biggest trade deficit industry in 2016 didn’t make the 2019 list at all. That sector? Crude oil and natural gas, thanks to the U.S. energy production revolution of recent years.

All the same, the 2016 and 2019 lists of biggest trade deficit industries are pretty much…all the same. They’re also both manufacturing dominated, with that super-category accounting for 19 of the Top 20 deficit sectors in 2019 and 18 in 2016.

Turn to the industries whose trade balances have worsened the most (including sectors whose surpluses have declined), and you see a substantially different 2016-2019 comparison – but one strongly resembling that between the sectors whose trade balances have improved the most in 2016 and 2019: showing big-time turnover. (As with the biggest trade balance improvers’ list, the following are drawn from the hundred biggest trade surplus and trade deficit industries.) Those sectors whose surpluses fell are designated with (SF):

Leading trade balance “worseners”                                                      2016 rank

(including percentage changes)

1. non-aluminum, non-ferrous metal refining/extruding: +74.0 percent     1

2. semiconductor machinery: +70.8 percent (SF)                                       –

3. military armored vehicles & parts: +53.9 percent (SF)                          –

4. tobacco: +51.4 percent (SF)                                                                   –

5. electricity measuring & testing instruments: +50.8 percent (SF)          –

6. construction machinery: +47.4 percent                                                10

7. misc non-ferrous secondary smelting/refining: +47.3 percent (SF)     –

8, iron ores: +45.4 percent (SF)                                                                –

9. corn: +39.2 percent (SF)                                                                       –

10. non-reinforced plastic plate & sheet: +35.3 percent (SF)                   –

11. margarine & edible fats & oils: +34.6 percent (SF)                           –

12. timber & logs: +33.4 percent (SF)                                                     –

13. mobile homes & trailers: +30.5 percent (SF)                                    –

14. missiles, space vehicles & parts: +29.8 percent (SF)                        –

15. misc electrical equip & components: +27.4 percent                         –

16. non-diagnostic biological products: +23.1 percent                           –

17. aircraft engines & engine parts: +19.8 percent                                 –

18. light trucks & utility vehicles: +19.7 percent                                   –

19. chocolate & confectionary products: +18.4 percent                         –

20. fabricated structural metals: +17.2 percent                                     12

No fewer than 18 of the 20 sectors on the 2019 list don’t appear on the 2016 list. As for the two that did, construction machinery worsened its relative performance (moving up from the tenth worst sector in this respect to the sixth worst) and fabricated structural metals improved its relative performance (moving from the twelfth worst to the twentieth worst industry).

Of modest significance, though, for manufacturing: It accounted for only 15 of these Top 20 biggest trade losers in 2019, down from 18 in 2016.

The implications seem strikingly clear – though one is much more surprising than the other. The not-so-surprising conclusion: Because the supertanker of U.S. trade flows is so big, changing it dramatically is a long-haul affair. So industries that are the biggest trade losers and winners in 2016 can be expected to hold the same positions in 2019.

But on a more dynamic basis (improving and worsening trade balances) substantial change is possible in a three-year period – both for better and for worse.

Tomorrow we’ll turn from industries’ trade balances to how well these generalizations hold for the sectors with the most and the fastest-growing exports and imports.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Newest Numbers Show Trump’s Real Wages Problem Continues

Tags

Barack Obama, election 2020, inflation adjusted wages, manufacturing, private sector, real wages, Trump, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The big economic message sent by today’s official U.S. data on inflation-adjusted wages is highly concentrated in the so-called benchmark revisions – which adjust the results going back to 2015. And the big political message sent by these revisions is that President Trump’s economic record still suffers from a serious real wage problem – especially in the manufacturing sector, and especially compared with his predecessor, Barack Obama, whose supposed economic failures Mr. Trump has made a major campaign issue.

To be sure, the newest (and unrevised) January statistics weren’t great news for Trump-World, either. Total private sector pay in real terms inched up only 0.09 percent month-to-month, and the annual increase was a mere 0.64 percent. Between the previous Januarys, constant dollar private sector wages improved by a much faster 1.77 percent. (The Labor Department doesn’t track public sector wages, because their levels and growth are determined overwhelmingly by government decisions, and therefore supposedly say little about the state of the labor market or of the entire economy.)

The story for blue-collar workers (called “production and nonsupervisory workers” by the Labor Department and abbreviated here “N/S”) was only a little better. Their real wages flat-lined on month in January, but year-on-year they were up 0.75 percent – more strongly than overall private sector wages, and thereby in synch with numerous observations that pay at the lower end of the scale is rising faster than it is at the upper end.

In manufacturing, however, that picture is more mixed. Overall after-inflation manufacturing wages dipped by -0.09 percent sequentially in January, though they advanced by 0.74 percent year-on-year. That rise was better not only than that of total private sector workers, but than of its own performance the previous year – which saw zero increase in these wages.

Price-adjusted wages for manufacturing’s blue collar workforce, however, fared only negligibly better than for all manufacturing employees – flat-lining versus a small decline. And year-on-year they increased by less than a third the rate of pay for all manufacturing workers (0.23 percent) and much more slowly than the year before (1.37 percent).

The good news for Mr. Trump – the revisions put more of a shine on his job creation record over the last two years, as shown in the tables below. (Keep in mind that they only take the story through December, 2019 – because today’s January figures haven’t been revised yet.)

                                                                     Unrevised

                                     Total private     N/S private     Total mfg      N/S mfg

Year-on-year, 2019:         +0.64%           +0.75%          +0.74%        +0.45%

Year-on-year, 2018:         +0.56%          +1.63%                0%          +1.14%

                                                                      Revised

                                    Total private      N/S private     Total mfg      N/S mfg

Year-on-year, 2019:        +0.73%           +0.85%           +0.74%        +0.45%

Year-on-year, 2018:        +1.40%          +1.74%                 0%          +1.03%

Interestingly, though, the biggest changes came for all private sector workers. And the updates make the picture for blue-collar manufacturing workers slightly gloomier.

But the revisions still left the Obama years’ real wages performance looking better than those of the Trump years – a comparison that might be raised frequently during this election year. The 34-month periods have been chosen because that’s the amount of time Mr. Trump has been in office since his first full month in the White House (February, 2017. Further, the two time periods are right next to each other in the current business cycle.

The bottom line? The gap between the two administrations closed for all private sector workers and blue collar private sector workers. But it widened in the manufacturing sector.

                                                                Unrevised

                                  Total private      N/S private      Total mfg    N/S mfg

1^st 34 Trump months:    +2.53%           +2.72%          +0.65%       +2.77%

last 34 Obama months: +3.50%           +3.97%          +3.05%       +2.97%

                                                                  Revised

                                  Total private      N/S private      Total mfg    N/S mfg

1^st 34 Trump months:    +2.71%            +3.05%          +0.65%      +2.65%

last 34 Obama months: +3.49%            +3.97%          +3.44%      +3.34%

And finally, the impact of the revisions on real wages trends during the current economic recovery, and on the previous two expansions:

                                                                                 Unrevised

                                                             Private    N/S private    Mfg      N/S mfg

1990s expansion (2Q 91-1Q 01):           n/a          +6.37%        n/a       +2.18%

bubble expansion (4Q 01-4Q 07)         : n/a          +0.35%        n/a       -2.77%

current expansion (2Q 09 – present): +6.30%      +6.79%    +1.59%   +3.01%

                                                                                 Revised                      

                                                              Private   N/S private    Mfg      N/S mfg

1990s expansion (2Q 91-1Q 01):            n/a          +6.51%       n/a        +1.81%

bubble expansion (4Q 01-4Q 07):           n/a         +0.35%        n/a        -2.77%

current expansion (2Q 09 – present):  +6.70%     +7.01% +   1.59%    +2.77%

The big takeaways, as I see them: The real wage performance of the current recovery looks somewhat better than previous thought – except for blue-collar manufacturing paychecks. And the widely admired 1990s expansion looks better for blue-collar private sector workers in toto but worse for their manufacturing counterparts.

Several recent polls show Americans to be unusually happy about the state of the economy and their own personal situations. (For the latest, see here.) These real wage figures indicate that it’s not yet entirely clear why.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Manufacturing Jobs Revisions Burnish Trump’s Employment and Trade War Record

Tags

Barack Obama, Bureau of Labor Statistics, China tariffs, election 2020, Jobs, manufacturing, manufacturing recession, metals tariffs, tariffs, trade war, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

However much of a pain it is for us data geeks to slog through monthly U.S. jobs reports incorporating multi-year revisions, President Trump, his supporters, and everyone rooting for the domestic manufacturing sector (which should be everyone) should be grateful for the latest such exercise.

For the results show that the economy’s manufacturing job creation record under his administration has been better on the whole even than previously believed. Moreover, that conclusion also is justified for manufacturing employment since the President’s tariff-heavy trade policies began in earnest (in April, 2018, the first full month when the global duties on imports of steel and aluminum were in effect).

Not that this morning’s release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics came up all roses for Trump-World and U.S.-based industry. Manufacturing lost 12,000 net jobs sequentially in January – the worst such total since October’s 41,000 (when payrolls were dragged down by the strike at General Motors). Ignoring that anomalous figure, the January manufacturing jobs shrinkage was the worst monthly decline since August, 2016’s 21,000 nosedive.

Moreover, the year-on-year gain of 26,000 was the weakest since the 17,000 annual improvement in February, 2017 (the President’s first full month in office).

But check out the revisions, and the record during the Trump years improves in some key respects – especially compared with that compiled under his predecessor, Barack Obama. The table below shows how the revisions change the picture between the two administrations – an issue bound to matter greatly during the current presidential campaign. They begin with 2015 (the first year for which the totals were updated) and proceed through last month. The figures for the post-Trump tariffs period and the Trump administration’s tenure stop in January (because that’s when the effects of the benchmark revisions stop. The left-hand column shows the pre-revision results and the right-hand column the new. All figures are seasonally adjusted (the statistics most closely followed by economists):

                                            Old manufacturing job change      New change

2015:                                                  +30K                                  +70K

2016:                                                   -45K                                    -6K

2017:                                                +196K                               +185K

2018:                                                +284K                               +264K

2019:                                                  +46K                                 +58K

final 34 Obama months:                  +270K                               +259K

first 34 Trump months*:                 +478K                               +479K

since tariffs*                                   +197K                               +231K

(April, 2018):

21 months before:                          +320K                               +253K

*thru December, 2019

To me, the most important comparisons involve those between the two administrations, and those between the pre- and post-tariff periods of Mr. Trump’s presidency.

The Obama and Trump figures show how manufacturing employment changed during their periods in office closest together in the current (expansionary business) cycle – the comparison that yields the best apples-to-apples results. The Obama period ends with January, 2017 (the former President’s last – near-full month in office and the Trump period begins with February, 2017 (his first full month in office).

And as made clear above, the growth in manufacturing payrolls was a bit weaker during the Obama period than previously reported, and the growth during the Trump period ever-so-slightly stronger.

As for the impact of Mr. Trump’s tariffs, although these numbers don’t isolate the industry sectors likely to be most seriously affected (especially the metals-using industries – which I’ll examine shortly), the results are instructive in particular for the China duties’ effects, since they’re so widely, if unevenly, spread throughout domestic manufacturing.

Since the Trump tariffs’ advent, 21 revised data months passed through December, 2019, so the best comparison is that with the 21 months preceding them. And interestingly, the revisions show that although manufacturing’s hiring pace indeed has slowed since the first full tariff month, they’ve slowed much less markedly (by 8.70 percent rather than 38.44 percent).  And that means that manufacturing employment has improved more since the tariff era began than previously thought (by 231,000 instead of 197,000).  

Manufacturing trends won’t be working in Mr. Trump’s favor politically this year unless its recent weakness (which may not technically have been a recession) ends – especially on the hiring front. Sure , he could in theory blame the troubles of Boeing and its safety-related woes, which could last many months more. But voters are unlikely to be interested.

Economically speaking, however, the President can legitimately contend that, contrary to endless predictions, American industry and indeed the entire nation are weathering the trade conflict with China in particular just fine – and claim that the modest costs have been well worth the strategic goal of checking the economic and technological progress of this dangerous dictatorship.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why 2019 Was a Winner for Trump Trade Policies & America

Tags

Barack Obama, Boeing, China, GDP, Made in Washington trade deficit, manufacturing, non-oil goods trade deficit, tariffs, Trade, Trade Deficits, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

OK, let’s cut to the chase regarding the new U.S. trade deficit data. (We’ll analyze today’s report from the Census Bureau more comprehensively tomorrow.)

The most important result revealed by the figures – which bring the story up to December and therefore give us our first look at full-year 2019 development – isn’t that the overall U.S. trade deficit fell year-on-year last year (which alone indicates that President Trump is starting to keep one of his signature campaign promises). It isn’t that the huge annual China goods deficit cratered (by 17.62 percent, the biggest such drop on record – including Great Recession year 2009 – and indicating another promise being kept). It isn’t that the still-huge manufacturing deficit has virtually stabilized despite the safety woes of Boeing, long the generator of major trade surpluses. And it isn’t even that these trade gaps have narrowed even as the economy has continued growing acceptably (which most economists insist is practically impossible, especially for a consumer-heavy country like the United States).

Instead, the most important result is that this economic growth continued in 2019 even as that portion of the trade deficit most influenced by trade policy increased at a particularly slow rate. The obvious conclusions? Trade policy can influence the size and rate of change in the trade deficit, and that the Trump trade policies are working.

To remind, this portion of the trade deficit (which I call the Made in Washington trade deficit) sheds light on the above points because it’s the non-oil goods deficit. It’s highly trade policy sensitive because it strips out of the total trade balance numbers the services balance (because so little progress has been made in worldwide services trade liberalization) as well as the oil balance (because oil is rarely the subject of trade deals or other trade policy decisions).

The table below presents the numbers for the last three years of the Obama administration and the first three of the Trump administration – a comparison that’s apt because these time periods are right next to each other in the current (expansionary) business cycle.

Made in Washington trade deficit % change     GDP % change          ratio

2013-14:        +19.35                                                 +4.42                4.38:1

2014-15:        +21.23                                                 +3.98                5.33:1

2015-16:          +2.41                                                 +2.69                0.97:1

2016-17:          +8.05                                                 +4.30                1.87:1

2017-18:        +12.66                                                 +5.43                2.33:1

2018-19:          +1.75                                                +4.12                 0.42:1

As is obvious from the above, the Made in Washington deficit’s growth rates during the Obama years (measured in pre-inflation terms) have been considerably slower than those of the Trump years. And yet the GDP (gross domestic product) growth rates of the first three Trump years have been notably faster than those of the last three Obama years.

In other words, as made clearest by the right-hand column, which shows the ratio between the two, the link between economic growth and trade deficit growth has been weakening significantly during the Trump years. And the President’s tariff-heavy trade policies have plainly played a major role. All else equal, moreover, that means growth that’s more nationally self-sufficient (no small achievement in a still dangerous world), healthier, and therefore more sustainable.

President Trump makes way too many false or exaggerated boasts about the economy (among other subjects). But the 2019 trade data show that when it comes to trade policy, he’s entitled to considerable bragging rights.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The U.S. is Racing to the Bottom in Growth Quality Again

Tags

Barack Obama, bubbles, Financial Crisis, GDP, Great Recession, gross domestic product, housing, personal consumption, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although Thursday’s latest official report on U.S. economic growth was encouraging from a trade policy and national self-sufficiency perspective, as I contended, it was much less heartening from a quality of growth perspective. That, as known by RealityChek regulars, is the crucial issue of whether America’s output is being powered by the kind of engines that can last, or by the kinds (specifically housing spending and personal consumption) that tend to inflate bubbles and produce calamitous burstings.

Specifically, Thursday’s figures pegging a pretty solid rate of economic growth  both for the fourth quarter of 2019 (2.06 percent at an annual rate), and for the entirety of last year (2.33 percent least preliminarily), also made clear that way too much of this growth stemmed from housing and personal consumption – which I call the toxic combination because their combined and indeed intertwined bloat produced the last (terrifying) financial crisis and ensuing (punishing) Great Recession.

The highlights (lowlights?): On a quarterly basis, the toxic combination’s share of the total U.S. economy (technically, the gross domestic product, or GDP) in real terms (how all the following dollar figures will be presented) during the last three months of last year came to 72.91 percent. That’s nothing less than the highest such figure during the current economic recovery.

The personal consumption share alone totaled 69.78 percent of inflation-adjusted GDP and actually fell slightly from the third quarter’s 69.79 percent. Even so, that figure was the recovery’s second highest. The housing share of the after-inflation economy hit 3.13 percent – up from the third quarter’s 3.10 percent, but the highest total only since the fourth quarter of 2018 (3.16 percent). That’s an indication that housing spending has been notably subdued for about the last three years – and in fact that only personal consumption levels still deserve that “toxic” label.

On a yearly basis, the combined personal consumption and housing share of price-adjusted GDP climbed from 72.68 percent in 2018 to 72.90 percent in 2019 – the highest such level since the 73.04 percent of 2006, when the bubbles were about to burst. Personal consumption climbed from 69.45 percent in 2018 to 69.79 percent – its highest since 2004, when the previous decade’s bubbles were inflating strongly. De-toxified housing’s real GDP share fell from 3.23 percent in 2018 to 3.11 percent in 2019 – its lowest level since 2014’s 2.98 percent.

Another sign of some recent decline in the quality of U.S. growth: the combined personal consumption and housing share not of constant dollar GDP on a standstill basis, but on the economy’s annual real growth. In 2019, they powered 74.25 percent of a 2.33 percent expansion in after-inflation output. The previous year’s share was just 68.62 percent.

This performance still leaves Trump era price-adjusted growth less bubblier and higher quality by this measure than growth during Barack Obama’s presidency (as shown by the table below). But it’s a regression all the same – as growth itself slowed:

                                  Toxic combination share of total growth      Total growth

09-10:                                               46.92%                                       2.56%

10-11:                                               80.63%                                       1.55%

11-12:                                               60.91%                                       2.25%

12-13:                                               73.89%                                       1.84%

13-14:                                             117.22%                                       2.53%

14-15:                                              96.90%                                        2.91%

15-16:                                            130.00%                                         1.64%

16-17:                                               86.82%                                        2.37%

17-18:                                               68.62%                                        2.93%

18-19″                                              74.25%                                        2.33%

In fact, overall, 80.74 percent of U.S. inflation-adjusted growth during the 32 full quarters of the Obama presidency’s stewardship of the economy stemmed from the growth of personal consumption and housing. The figure for the eleven quarters of the Trump economy has totaled 74.12 percent. But that Trump percentage is gaining on the Obama figure, and this kind of race to the bottom in growth quality isn’t one the President and his supporters should want to win.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New GDP Data Show a Trade Deficit Being Brought to Heel Under Trump

Tags

Barack Obama, GDP, gross domestic product, Made in Washington trade deficit, real GDP, real trade deficit, trade deficit, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The fourth quarter (and therefore full-year) 2019 U.S. economic growth statistics are now in, and they’re chock full of results showing that President Trump’s promise to strengthen the American economy in part by reducing the trade deficit is being fulfilled.

To be sure, this conclusion needs several important qualifications. Notably, today’s report on the gross domestic product (GDP) from the Commerce Department is preliminary. It’ll be revised twice in the next two months alone. Further, the trade data the report contains aren’t all shaped by government trade policy decisions alone. For the numbers include the flows of services and oil trade, which are rarely dealt with in trade agreements or similar trade-related measures.

Even so, the new figures entitle the President and his supporters to take at least a slow, or partial, victory lap.

In the first place, the pre-inflation GDP data show that the overall U.S. trade deficit did indeed fall in 2019. The annual decline wasn’t much – 0.97 percent. But it marked the first yearly decrease in this number since 2016’s 0.19 percent. And it looks even better in the proper context – i.e., seen against the backdrop of changes in the GDP themselves.

After all, trade deficits often (but not always) fall for bad reasons – specifically, a shrinkage in America’s output that slashes the economy’s demand for foreign goods and services. That, however, wasn’t the story in 2019. Although the trade gap narrowed slightly, the overall economy expanded by 4.12 percent. That’s considerably faster than in 2016, when growth was only 2.69 percent. And remember – the trade deficit decrease was faster.

When examined after factoring in inflation (the GDP numbers most closely followed by students of the economy), the results don’t endorse the Trump trade approach quite so strongly. But they’re unmistakably encouraging.

In these real terms, the trade deficit rose by 3.72 percent last year (from $920 billion to $954.2 billion). This increase, however, was the slowest annual increase since 2013 (when the gap actually shrank by 6.30 percent). Even better, real economic growth in 2019 still totaled 2.33 percent. In 2013, it was only 1.84 percent.

Those results still don’t look like great news for backers of the President’s trade policy, for they indicate that making significant progress in lowering the trade deficit was at least associated with a very sluggish economy.

Yet if you take a longer view, and recognize that longstanding trends in an economy as gigantic as America’s don’t turn around overnight, the picture looks more encouraging.

The table below shows the relationship in recent years between the annual change in after-inflation (“real”) GDP and the annual change in the real trade deficit. The year 2011 is the chosen baseline because that’s when the current economic recovery settled into a reasonably normal state following the unusually deep dive it took during the Great Recession and the not surprisingly strong rebound it enjoyed during the subsequent expansion’s early stages. Low deficit-growth-to-economic growth ratios identify years during which the constant dollar GDP was able to expand without a major widening of the trade gap, and high ratios reveal the opposite situation. (Negative ratios demonstrate an economy that grew while the trade shortfall actually shrank.)

Another way to think of the matter: When the economy grows faster than or just about as fast as the trade deficit, it’s making progress toward self-sufficiency – a goal that most economists disdain (at best), which that arguably is better for the nation than growth strongly dependent on a still-dangerous and/or slow-growing world. And when the growth of the trade deficit is compared with economic growth, it’s clear that the Trump administration has made major headway on this score.

ama years                      real GDP growth   real trade deficit growth       ratio 

10-11:                              1.55 percent               0.83 percent                 0.54:1

11-12:                              2.25 percent               0.01 percent                 0.04:1

12-13:                              1.84 percent             -6.30 percent                -3.42:1

13-14:                              2.53 percent              8.33 percent                 3.29:1

14-15:                              2.91 percent            25.01 percent                 8.59:1

15-16:                              1.64 percent              8.61 percent                5:25:1

Trump years

16-17:                             2.37 percent              8.43 percent                3.57:1

17-18:                             2.93 percent              8.26 percent               2.82:1

18-19:                             2.33 percent              3.72 percent               1.60:1

Under the Obama administration, for three years, the economy managed to grow in after-inflation terms while the after-inflation trade deficit fell overall. Unfortunately, the growth itself was unimpressive. During its last three years, GDP expanded faster (especially in 2014 and 2015). But the trade deficit rose considerably faster still. So the U.S. economy became more dependent on that dicey world.

During the three full Trump years, the economy’s growth rate has been a bit stronger than under the last three Obama years. But the growth rate of the trade deficit has been a good deal slower. And although the overall economic growth rate has slowed slightly overall between 2017 and 2019, the growth rate of the trade deficit has been more than halved.

Similar trends are apparent from examining a different measure – the real trade deficit as a share of the gross domestic product. As shown by the table below, notable progress was made during the first three Obama years below in reducing both that actual percentage, its growth rate, and the ratio between the economy’s inflation-adjusted growth and the growth of its inflation-adjusted trade shortfall as a share of GDP.

During the next three Obama years, these trends generally shifted into reverse. But although the inflation-adjusted trade deficit as a share of real GDP has continually risen during the first Trump years, its own growth rate has weakened significantly even as growth itself has remained solid and impressive compared with the growth rates of those three final Obama years.

                       real trade deficit/GDP   real GDP   real trade deficit      ratio   

Obama years

2011:                   3.59 percent          1.55 percent     -1.10 percent     -0.71:1

2012:                   3.51 percent          2.25 percent     -2.23 percent     -0.99:1

2013:                   3.23 percent          1.84 percent     -7.98 percent     -4.34:1

2014:                   3.41 percent          2.53 percent      5.57 percent      2.20:1

2015:                   4.15 percent          2.91 percent    21.70 percent      7.46:1

2016:                   4.43 percent          1.64 percent      6.75 percent      4.12:1

Trump years

2017:                  4.69 percent          2.37 percent      5.87 percent      2.48:1

2018:                  4.94 percent          2.93 percent      5.33 percent      1.82:1

2019:                  5.00 percent          2.33 percent      1.21 percent      0.52:1

Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait a few days to judge how the Trump administration has performed in terms of loosening the link between economic growth and that portion of the trade deficit most directly affected by trade policy. I call it the Made in Washington trade deficit, and as stated above, it consists of the total deficit minus trade in services and oil. Here’s how those figures luck (including the inflation-adjusted Made in Washington deficit).

Obama years        real GDP       real Made in Washington deficit      ratio 

10-11:                1.55 percent                 11.92 percent                      7.69:1

11-12:                2.25 percent                 10.23 percent                      4.55:1

12-13:                1.84 percent                   6.15 percent                      3.34:1

13-14:                2.53 percent                 15.85 percent                      6.26:1

14-15:               2.91 percent                  22.70 percent                     7.80:1

15-16:               1.64 percent                    2.54 percent                     1.55:1

Trump years

16-17:              2.37 percent                    6.64 percent                     2.80:1

17-18:              2.93 percent                  13.15 percent                     4.49:1

18-19:              2.33 percent                    4.54 percent*                   1.95:1

*November-to-November

It’s evident from here that the portion of the trade deficit most directly affected by trade policy has grown much slower during the Trump years than during the Obama years, even though Trump growth on average has been somewhat stronger. In fact, during the only two Obama years in which that Made in Washington trade deficit increased nearly as slowly as during any of the Trump years (2013 and 2016) were years in which that growth was weak (less than two percent). Annual economic growth during the Trump years has never sunk to that level, or even close.

So no one should imagine that, even by its own standards, the Trump administration has made nearly enough progress in either reducing the trade deficit, or increasing the economy’s self-sufficiency. But although the numbers themselves say nothing about the value or dangers of greater self-reliance, they make clear that it’s happening, and that much of the progress has taken place where trade policy matters most.