(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A “Gentleman’s C” for the New Manufacturing Jobs Numbers

Tags

aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft parts, automotive, Boeing, CCP Virus, electronics, Employment, fabricated metals products, facemasks, food products, furniture, housing, Jobs, Labor Department, manufacturing, masks, metals, pharmaceuticals, ports, PPE, printing, productivity, protective gear, recession, recovery, reopening, semiconductor shortage, tariffs, vaccines, {What's Left of) Our Economy

June’s gains weren’t nearly enough to overcome the latest trend in U.S. manufacturing employment: From a job growth leader earlier during the CCP Virus pandemic, domestic industry has turned into a laggard. It’s not lagging by a big margin, but given significant net headwinds it should still be enjoying, recent results are clearly disappointing.

This morning, the Labor Department reported that U.S.-based manufacturers created 15,000 net new jobs in June – a modest number given the 662,000 increase in total private sector employment on month. At least revisions were positive. May’s initially reported 23,000 monthly improvement is now judged to be 39,000, but April’s already downwardly revised 32,000 sequential job loss is now pegged at 35,000.

In many of the nation’s supposedly prestige colleges, the grade earned by this kind of result would be called a “Gentleman’s C.”

As a result, domestic manufacturing has now regained 904,000 (66.32 percent) of the 1.363 million jobs lost during the pandemic. The numbers for the private sector overall are 72.98 percent of the 21.353 million lost jobs that have been recovered, and for the total non-farm economy (the definition of the American employment universe used by the U.S. government, which includes government jobs) 69.75 percent of the 22.362 million jobs lost.

A manufacturing optimist (and I’ve been one of them) can note that industry took less of an employment hit during the pandemic-loss months of March and April, 2020. Manufacturing employment sank by 10.65 percent, versus 16.46 percent for the private sector and 14.66 percent for the whole non-farm economy.

But nowadays, domestic manufacturers are still benefiting from major tariffs plus massive government stimulus on both the fiscal and monetary fronts, and from the huge ramp up in vaccine production. Reopening-related bottlenecks clearly are causing problems, but according to the major national surveys that measure how manufacturers themselves believe they’re faring, production and new orders for their products keep growing strongly. (For the newest ones, see here and here.) Even given equally widespread reports that new workers are hard to find, I expected hiring to remain much more robust than it has.

One explanation may be higher productivity, which enables businesses to turn out more goods with fewer workers. But given the longstanding difficulties of gauging this measure of efficiency, and undoubted pandemic-era distortions, I’m reluctant to put too much stock in this argument.

The shortages issues have been once again illustrated by the dominance of the automotive sector in the June manufacturing jobs picture. Payrolls of vehicles and parts companies fell by 12,300 – the biggest individual sector decreases by far – and surely stem from the continuing global shortage of the computer chips that have become ever more important parts of cars and trucks of all kinds.

One small bright spot in the June figures – the 300 jobs increase in the machinery sector. It’s an important indicator of the overall state of industrial hiring, since its products are used throughout industry (as well as in non-manufacturing sectors like agriculture and construction). At the same time, these new positions represented machinery’s weakest sequential performance since January’s 3,200 employment decrease.

Other big June manufacturing net hiring winners were furniture and related products (up 8,500, no doubt reflecting still strong home sales and remodeling activity), fabricated metals products (up 5,700, which is noteworthy given still widespread whining about the ongoing U.S. tariffs on metals), and miscellaneous durable goods manufacturing (up 3,300 – encouraging since this category includes many pandemic-related medical supplies).

The biggest losers other than automotive were food products (down 4,100 and continuing an employment slump that began in January), electronic instruments (down 2,100 and possibly related to the semiconductor shortage), and printing and related activities (down 1,400).

Pandemic-related industries turned in a mixed hiring performance, according to the latest jobs report. Job creation accelerated significantly in the surgical appliances and supply sector, which contains protective gear like face masks, gloves and surgical goans. Its payrolls grew by 1,700 on month in May (its data are one month behind, as is the case with the other sectors examined below), up from April’s 1,200 and its best monthly total since last July’s 3,000. This surgical category’s workforce is now 11.50 percent bigger than in February, 2020 – the last pre-pandemic month.

But the May figures revealed a job creation setback in the overall pharmaceuticals and medicines industry. April’s hiring was revised down slightly, from 2,700 to 2,500, but the number was still solid. In May, however, its payrolls shrank by 400, its worst such performance since pandemicky April, 2020. And its workforce is only 3.82 percent greater than in February, 2020.

Better news came out of the pharmaceuticals subsector containing vaccines, but not that much better. This industry added one thousand workers on net in May, but April’s initially reported 1,300 jobs increase was revised down to 1,100. Still, this vaccines-heavy sector now employs 9.20 percent more workers than just before the pandemic.

And in aircraft, Boeing’s continuing manufacturing and safety issues surely helped produce this industry’s worst jobs month – consisting of a 5,500 payroll decrease – since June, 2020’s 5,800. This sector has now lost 9.39 percent of its jobs since the final pre-pandemic month.

Interestingly, the aircraft engines and parts, and non-engine parts categories weren’t nearly as hard-hit job-wise in May. (The former even maintained employment levels.) But payrolls in each are down since February, 2020, by roughly twice as much proportionately as in aircraft.

Major uncertainties still hang over the domestic manufacturing jobs scene, and in one important respect – big new backups in Chinese ports – they’ve become murkier. Nor do Boeing’s problems seem ready to end any time soon. I’m still bullish on U.S.-based manufacturing’s employment outlook, at least in the short and medium terms mainly because American policy remains so overwhelmingly stimulative and its effects are still coursing through the economy. But I’m getting a little impatient for the numbers to start backing me up once again.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing’s Biggest 2020 Winners & Losers

Tags

aerospace, automotive, Boeing, CCP Virus, computer and electronics products, consumer goods, coronavirus, COVID 19, energy, Federal Reserve, food products, fossil fuels, furniture, housing, industrial production, inflation-adjusted output, lockdowns, machinery, manufacturing, on-line shopping, stay-at-home, travel, wood products, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Thanks to last Friday’s release of the Federal Reserve’s report on December U.S. manufacturing production, it’s possible to identify the sector’s biggest winners and losers for inflation-adjusted growth. And their ranks include some notable surprises. (As with all U.S. government economic data, though, there’ll be plenty of revisions over the next few years.)

First, let’s keep in mind that the following categories are pretty broad, including a wide range of products whose performances have varied just as widely. For example, as noted previously (e.g., here), “machinery” contains everything from machine tools to heating and cooling equipment to semiconductor production gear to turbines to construction equipment to farm machinery.

Still, these groupings are specific enough to show how much care is needed when generalizing about the performance of a piece of the economy as big as manufacturing. Moreover, they’re the categories that come early on in the incredibly detailed presentation each month of manufacturing output results deep in the weeds of the Fed’s own website.

With these observations in mind, the five strongest growers (or most modest shrinkers) in manufacturing during 2020 were automotive (vehicles and parts combined) at plus-3.64 percent; food, beverage, and tobacco products (up 0.40 percent), wood products (0.38 percent), computer and electronics products (up 0.14 percent), and non-metallic mineral products (down just 0.52 percent).

The biggest losers? Petroleum and coal products (down 13.34 percent); printing and related activities (off by 10.41 percent); furniture and related products (down 9.86 percent); non-durable miscellaneous manufactures (down 8.57 percent); and aerospace and other non-automotive transportation equipment (an 8.27 percent contraction).

Some of these results were entirely predictable. For example, petroleum and coal products essentially entails the fossil fuels industries, which have been decimated by the overall U.S. and global economic slumps triggered by the CCP Virus, and by the particular hit taken by business and leisure travel. And don’t forget the lingering effects of Boeing’s safety troubles. Moreover, of course those Boeing woes in turn have taken their toll on the aerospace sector.

On the flip side, despite major concern about the strength of America’s food supply chain, it proved impressively resilient. And since Americans didn’t stop eating, real food production expanded – although as the table below shows, its this expansion was much slower than in 2019.

I’m not sure what’s been up with furniture, though, especially considering that the good performance of wood products surely reflects the strength of a domestic housing industry that should have spurred production of furniture. Moreover, so far, the 2020 trade statistics reveal no significant increase in imports.

Non-durable miscellaneous manufactures are something of a puzzle, too. This category includes items like jewelry, silverware, sporting goods, toys, and musical instruments. Since on-line shopping has propped up consumption during the pandemic period, purchases and domestic production of these goods should have remained strong, too – even though many of these sub-sectors have long dominated by imports.

And speaking of imports, a clear sign of their importance is the negligible growth of the domestic computer and electronics industries. It’s clear that the virus and related lockdowns and stay-at-home orders has greatly increased demand for information technology products. But it’s evident that the biggest winners weren’t U.S.-based suppliers. In fact, 2020 growth was way below 2019’s, as the table below shows.

Meanwhile, the solid growth of the automotive sector is pretty remarkable, since the sector literally shut down almost completely in March and April. That looks like awfully strong evidence that much of the economic damage of the pandemic period has stemmed from government restrictions, and not from any inherent weakness in the economy.

In any event, below are the results for all of manufacturing’s main big industry groups, along with the data for the durable goods and non-durable goods super-sectors, and industry overall. For comparison’s sake with the pre-CCP Virus period, I’ve also presented their after-inflation growth for 2019. And a year from now, the final Fed 2021 statistics will permit judging just how complete a retun to normalcy has been achieved.

                                                                              2018-19              2019-20

manufacturing                                                        -1.06                   -2.63

durable goods                                                         -1.70                   -2.97

wood products                                                       +3.58                  +0.38

non-metallic mineral products                               -1.17                   -0.52

primary metals                                                       -2.69                   -7.66

fabricated metals products                                     -1.72                   -5.38

machinery                                                              -2.39                   -3.80

computer & electronics products                          +6.19                  +0.14

electrical equipmt, appliances & components       -1.71                   -1.68

motor vehicles and parts                                        -9.05                  +3.64

aerospace and misc transporation equipment       +0.29                   -8.27

furniture and related product                                +0.34                   -9.86

miscellaneous manufactures                                +0.30                    -3.67

non-durable goods                                                -0.72                    -2.24

food, beverage and tobacco products                  +2.67                   +0.40

textiles and products                                            -2.24                    -5.04

apparel and leather goods                                    -7.50                    -3.64

paper                                                                    -2.37                    -1.91

printing and related activities                              -3.20                  -10.41

petroleum and coal products                               -1.32                  -13.34

chemicals                                                            -2.07                     -1.31

plastics and rubber products                               -3.24                     -0.78

other manufacturing                                           -8.59                      -8.51

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Has the U.S. Seen Peak Manufacturing Output for the Virus Era?

Tags

(What's Left of) Our Economy, appliances, automotive, capex, capital spending, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Federal Reserve, furniture, household appliances, housing, inflation-adjusted growth, Institute for Supply Management, machinery, manufacturing, real growth, recession, recovery, Wuhan virus

Today’s monthly Federal Reserve report on U.S. manufacturing production was full of surprises, but not enough were of the good kind. And with signs of economic slowing on the rise, the new figures – for September – could mean that, for the time being, industry’s relative out-performance during the pandemic era will begin weakening markedly as well.

The surprises start with the overall figure for the September monthly change in inflation-adjusted output for American factories. Despite an abundance of encouraging data from so-called soft surveys like those issued by the private Institute for Supply Management and the Fed system’s regional banks (see, e.g., here) real manufacturing production dropped by 0.29 percent sequentially. The decrease was the first since April, when national economic activity as a whole bottomed due to the spread of the CCP Virus and resulting shutdowns and stay-at-home orders.

The biggest bright spot in the report came from the upward nature of most revisions. August’s initially reported 0.96 percent monthly gain is now judged to have been 1.13 percent. The July result was upgraded from 3.97 percent to 4.30 percent. And June’s previous 7.64 percent improve was reduced to 3.61 percent. Further, these advances built on similar upward revisions that accompanied last month’s Fed report for August.

In fact, the revisions effect was strong enough to leave domestic industry’s cumulative after-inflation production performance during the virus-induced downturn better than the Fed’s estimate from last month. As of that industrial production report (for August), manufacturing constant dollar production had fallen 6.39 percent from its levels in February – the final month before the pandemic began impacting the economy. Today’s new September release now pegs that decline at only 5.81 percent, and even the monthly September decrease left it at 6.08 percent.

Nevertheless, the breadth of the September monthly decrease in overall price-adjusted manufacturing output unmistakably disappointed. Yes, the automotive sector (vehicles and parts combined) saw its on-month production tumble by 4.01 percent. But in contrast to most of the manufacturing data during the CCP Virus period, automotive didn’t move the overall manufacturing needle much, as real output ex-auto rose only fractionally in September.

Also discouraging –and unexpected, considering the good recent capital spending data reported by the Census Bureau (see, e.g., the “nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft” numbers for new orders in Table 5 in this latest release) – was the 0.41 inflation-adjusted production decline in the big machinery sector following five months of growth.

And even though the U.S. housing sector has been booming during the recession, real output of furniture also slumped for the first time in six months (by 0.96 percent), while price-adjusted household appliances production was down 4.99 percent after its own good five-month run.

As indicated by today’s revisions, these glum September manufacturing output figures could be upgraded in the coming months. Yet given the CCP Virus’ return – which will at best greatly complicate the challenge of maintaining recovery momentum for industry and the entire national economy – no one can reasonably rule out the possibility that, for now, Americans have seen peak post-virus manufacturing production.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Economic Data Journalism That’s Missing Key Data

Tags

border security, Central America, child migrants, China, furniture, Hickory North Carolina, Honduras, illegal immigrants, Immigration, manufacturing, migrants, Obama, Reuters, Sonia Nazario, statistics, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, {What's Left of) Our Economy

“Data journalism” is supposed to have been all the rage in the press recently. Why, then, do so many reporters keep ignoring crucial statistics when covering economic and other trends? Several major news organizations have combined to provide two examples of how much needless confusion these oversights can create.

The first instance concerns illegal immigration, and specifically the ongoing heart-breaking story of children fleeing rampant gang-related violence in Central America. Last week, The New York Times carried an article by a Pulitzer Prize-winning author that described a promising ray of light in this grim picture. According to author Sonia Nazario, new U.S. government programs have been largely responsible for “a remarkable reduction in violence” in the neighborhoods in Honduras in which they’ve been introduced. And as a result, even though the situation in the rest of the country remains dire, “fewer children are coming to the United States from Honduras.”

Further, Nazario writes, this success “offers a striking rebuke to the rising isolationists in American politics. A Pew Research Center poll in April found that most Americans think the United States should ‘deal with its own problems’ while others deal with theirs “as best they can,” a sentiment that’s at the core of Donald J. Trump’s ‘America First’ slogan and ‘build a wall’ campaign. Many seem to have lost their faith in American power.”

To her credit, Nazario has done extensive local reporting on the issue, and the encouraging developments she has apparently found on the ground deserve to be taken seriously. At the same time, the sources she cites for the numbers she presents all have a strong stake in portraying the aid programs as a success – specifically, America’s ambassador to this forlorn country, U.S. aid and narcotics control officials along with contractors administering these programs, and local Honduran recipients of the funds and other resources.

This possibility alone should have tipped her or her editors off to that some independent verification was needed. And it was all the more essential because the U.S. government data has just reported that, over the past fiscal year, the number of child migrants and entire families from Honduras caught trying to enter the United States illegally is up, not down. (Hat tip to The Washington Times for breaking this story.)

The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, has stated that for the entirety of fiscal 2015, a total of 16,080 Honduran illegal border crossers were apprehended – 10,671 “family units” and 5,409 unaccompanied children. Through this July – two months before the end of the current fiscal year – the total jumped to 23,270, or by a total of 44.71 percent. The number of family units hit 15,142 (41.90 percent higher) and the number of unaccompanied children reached 8,128 (50.27 percent higher).

It’s possible that the total number of Honduran leavers is down, and that most aren’t caught. But the burden of proof is on Nazario and The Times to make this case.

Another recent development undercutting Nazario’s thesis: Late last month, the Obama administration announced (as reported in The New York Times) “a substantial expansion of a program to admit Central American refugees to the United States, conceding that its efforts to protect migrants fleeing dangerous conditions had left too many people with no recourse.”

Nazario could claim both that the administration is simply bowing to the continuing humanitarian tragedies in El Salvador and Guatemala, where the programs she touts haven’t been introduced. But the president’s decision certainly doesn’t seem to reflect much optimism concerning their potential. She could also point to her observation that the Honduran programs have run into opposition in Congress, and contend that the president decided to take the path of least resistance. Yet lawmakers are even less likely to support more admissions.

What is clear is that she either chose not to seek out statistics that undercut her hopeful narrative, or that she didn’t know they exist. Neither possibility should inspire confidence in her credibility.

The second example of failing to consult the data was provided by The Wall Street Journal and Reuters, which recently published dueling articles on the state of American manufacturing and its recent record of coping with Chinese competition. Their special focus was the same, too – Hickory, North Carolina, a supposedly typical long-time American manufacturing center.

The Journal piece seemed to focus more on Hickory’s continuing challenges; the Reuters article “accentuated the positive.” Both articles provided plenty of numbers about manufacturing job loss and recent recovery, too. But neither publication told readers anything about the most important Hickory- and manufacturing-related figures of all – those on production. For without healthy levels of production, healthy levels of employment (however you define that term) are impossible to sustain over any length of time. And the figures show that, in Hickory, both in manufacturing overall and in furniture production (the area’s signature sector), activity remains severely depressed.

A good baseline year is 2002. That was the first full year of Chinese membership in the World Trade Organization, and therefore the first full year in which it enjoyed substantial immunity from U.S. laws and other policies aimed at combating its still widespread predatory trade practices.

In 2002, furniture and related industries comprised fully 30 percent of the Hickory metropolitan area’s total manufacturing output (after adjusting for inflation), with a total output of $1.339 billion. The latest furniture-specific figures available for Hickory only go up to 2013, but they show a sharp inflation-adjusted production decline – to just $816 million. In fact, the hit to Hickory’s real furniture output (39.10 percent) was greater than for total furniture production in American metropolitan areas (31.03 percent).

Hickory’s furniture performance looks better since 2009. From that recession year through 2013, the sector’s real production rose by 26.71 percent. That’s more than three times faster than the rate for all of America’s metro areas (7.73 percent).

But contrary to the Reuters piece, this achievement hasn’t translated into a notable broader manufacturing upswing in the region. From 2009 to 2014, overall U.S. Metro area manufacturing output advanced by 10.69 percent in real terms. For Hickory and environs, the real growth was only 9.45 percent.

Like Nazario in Honduras, the reporters who worked on these Hickory manufacturing stories clearly spent considerable time in the area surveying the manufacturing scene. And since the data is a little dated, no one should rule out the chance that Hickory’s manufacturing output has experienced a true surge since then. But that would mean that industry in Hickory has escaped the fate of industry nation-wide. Because around that time, after-inflation production growth in America began slowing dramatically. Indeed, for most of this period, it’s been in recession.

Reality certainly is too complicated to be reduced to numbers alone, and data itself can be methodologically flawed, incomplete, out of date – and intentionally distorted. But used properly and with integrity, data can be a useful check that can prevent simple anecdotes from being confused with genuine trends. So although journalists shouldn’t be slaves even to the very best numbers available, there’s no reason or excuse to ignore them.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: How Tom Hanks Can Become a Real Factory Man

Tags

Factory Man, furniture, Jobs, John Bassett III, manufacturing, offshoring, Tom Hanks, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

It seems insane to be giving advice to Tom Hanks on how to make a TV series – something like telling Warren Buffett how to invest. But here goes: It’s vital that he add a coda to the HBO mini-series he plans to produce based on the widely praised book on job offshoring, Factory Man.

The message of the coda: The economic disaster produced by U.S. policies that have sent manufacturing production and employment overseas for so many years far transcends the furniture industry on which Beth Macy’s work focuses. In fact, the demise of that relatively labor-intensive sector and its employees, however tragic for the workers involved, is both yesterday’s news and among the least of the nation’s trade and manufacturing worries. What Americans really need to worry about is the mass offshoring of much higher value production and jobs.

Although I haven’t read Factory Man, I have met its central figure, John Bassett III, and greatly admire his efforts to fight off Chinese dumping and save his family’s furniture business, Vaughan Bassett. But whatever Bassett’s success – and the company’s 700 workers reportedly now generate annual sales of $80 million – the sector still faces a formidable road back to vibrancy.

For example, over the last ten years, its inflation-adjusted output has dropped by more than 25 percent (versus 12+ percent growth for manufacturing as a whole). And measured by a slightly different set of government data, its share of real manufacturing output fell from 2.29 percent to 1.29 percent between 2002 and 2012. It’s true that furniture’s fortunes have taken an outsized hit from the bursting of the housing bubble. But it’s also true that in the early part of the last decade, the bubble’s inflation gave it an outsized boost.

The furniture industry keeps bleeding jobs as well – more than 39 percent of them between July, 2004 and July, 2014. As a result, furniture workers now comprise only 1.94 percent of all manufacturing workers – down from 2.71 percent ten years ago. Real wages for non-supervisory (blue-collar) employees are down 5.35 percent during this period – versus 3.69 percent for all such manufacturing workers. They’re also 20 percent lower. And although the furniture industry’s trade deficit has been worsening faster than manufacturing’s overall, it was still only 3.52 percent of American industry’s total.

Just as important, because furniture is a relatively labor-intensive industry as well as a relatively small one, its travails don’t overly trouble even many commentators who (at least say that they) sympathize with the victims of offshoring. As pointed out in a recent post, New York Times columnist Joe Nocera recently bemoaned the “suffering on millions of people” inflicted by globalization, but approvingly quoted an academic economist who declared, “In reality, we shouldn’t be making bedroom furniture anymore in the United States. Shouldn’t we instead be trying to educate these workers’ kids to get them into high-skilled jobs and away from what’s basically an archaic industry?” And if this is how sympathizers have reacted to Macy’s book, imagine how the offshoring lobby and its government flunkies will tear into Hanks’ movie.

So although Hanks’ interest in offshoring deserves enthusiastic applause, if he really wants to perform a public service and not just jerk tears, he’ll point out that the United States runs sizable trade deficits in pharmaceuticals; semiconductors; telecommunications equipment; the most advanced auto parts; industrial controls; guidance systems; machine tools and machine tool parts; electro-medical devices; ball bearings; construction equipment; autos; steel; and numerous other high value products vital to America’s future as a first world country with first world living standards. These and dozens more sectors are steadily losing share of their home U.S. market to import competition – much of its coming from offshored U.S.-owned or affiliated factories.

Hanks’ decision to bring Factory Man to the small screen is a tremendous and rare opportunity for the nation. But unless he makes clear the full dimensions of job (and production) offshoring, his good intentions could easily result in a tremendous and rare opportunity lost.