Following Up: More on Those Great New U.S. Manufacturing Jobs Figures

Tags

Following Up, inflation-adjusted wages, Jobs, Labor Department, manufacturing, real wages, Trump, wages

Friday’s post focused on what the new U.S. jobs report that morning (containing December data) revealed about the Trump tariffs’ impact so far on domestic American manufacturing. (Overwhelmingly, they’ve done no harm.) But it’s also worth noting other industry-related highlights of this Labor Department release – and highlights they were.

First, the headline figure (32,000 net new manufacturing jobs created on-month in December) was the best such performance since last December’s 39,000. And the total revisions for October and November together added 3,000 jobs to the results for those two months. (The November and December figures are still preliminary. Further, starting next month, the Labor Department will start publishing revisions of the key data back to January 2014 – which will further change yesterday’s findings.)

Partly as a result of the last few months’ numbers, 2018 stands preliminarily as the best year for U.S. manufacturing job creation (284,000) since 1997 (304,000). The previous December-to-December manufacturing employment gain was 209,000.

Also, manufacturing jobs as a share of total non-farm jobs (the Labor Department’s definition of the total U.S. employment universe) rose to just under 8.55 percent – their highest level since July, 2016 (8.56 percent). At the start of the Trump administration (February, 2017 was its first full month in office), this figure stood at 8.49 percent. In other words, manufacturing payroll growth has been faster than overall payroll growth under President Trump.

Even so, manufacturing’s prior relative employment creation has been so weak that the sector still remains a laggard on this front for the recovery era as a whole.

Since bottoming out in February and March of 2010, manufacturing has regained 1.389 million (60.58 percent) of the 2.293 million jobs it had lost during the Great Recession and its aftermath. Overall private sector employment sank by 8.785 million during the downturn, but since then has regained 20.608 million jobs.

Manufacturing keeps trailing the overall private sector on the pay front, too. In December, pre-inflation manufacturing wages rose by 0.26 percent – considerably slower than the overall private sector’s 0.40 percent.

Year-on-year, current-dollar manufacturing wages are up by 1.98 percent – their best such performance since September, 2017 (2.18 percent). Between the previous Decembers, manufacturing hourly pay before inflation has advanced by 1.75 percent. But overall current-dollar private sector wages improved by 3.15 percent year-on-year in December.

In fact, since the current recovery began, in mid-2009, pre-inflation manufacturing wages have improved by only 18.60 percent. Overall private sector wages are 24.12 percent higher.

Moreover, the gap has been widening. The above figures show that, as of the latest data, private sector wages had grown 29.68 percent faster than manufacturing wages. As of the previous December, the difference was 24.80 percent.

Manufacturing’s pay performance looks even worse after adjusting for inflation. The latest data are from November – when manufacturing’s sequential increase (0.37 percent) actually topped that of the private sector (0.19 percent). (December’s won’t be published until the middle of this month.) But the November figures also show that, whereas private sector wages inched up year-on-year by 0.84 percent, manufacturing paychecks actually dipped by 0.27 percent.

Indeed, real manufacturing wages are cumulatively down by that amount since February, 2016 – meaning that, technically, they remain mired in a long recession (two or more date quarters of net deterioration).

Moreover, during the current economic recovery, inflation-adjusted manufacturing wages have risen less than a tenth as fast (0.47 percent) as private sector wages (4.95 percent). And the gap has widened significantly over the past year, when it stood at a 0.75 percent real wage increase for manufacturing versus a 4.07 percent rise for the private sector overall.

Advertisements

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New U.S. Jobs Report Delivers (Another) Face Slap to Trump’s Trade Critics

Tags

China, durable goods, global supply chains, Jobs, manufacturing, metals, metals tariffs, metals-using industries, tariffs, trade war, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

My deepest sympathies to the nation’s tariff fear-mongers, who keep insisting that President Trump’s levies on imports have been decimating America’s domestic manufacturing sector. This morning’s Labor Department report on the U.S. employment situation in December reveals that they’re still as pathetically wrong as ever.

Let’s start, as usual, with the impact of the President’s tariffs on steel and aluminum, which started to be imposed in April, and which allegedly have been hammering metals-using industries. This Trump decision is supposed to epitomize the folly of such protectionist policies in general, and metals tariffs in particular, since metals-using industries generate much more output than metals-producing indusries, and employ many more workers.

Yet has been the case since the onset of these levies, the data makes abundantly clear that the metals-using sectors generally have been outperforming not only the rest of manufacturing jobs-wise, but the private sector economy as a whole. Here are the numbers for April through the last three data months (keeping in mind that the November and December figures are both still preliminary):

                                                   thru October     thru November     thru December

entire private sector:                +0.99 percent      +1.13 percent      +1.37 percent

overall manufacturing:           + 0.99 percent      +1.20 percent      +1.45 percent

durable goods:                         +1.25 percent      +1.43 percent      +1.67 percent

fabricated metals products:     +1.33 percent      +1.30 percent      +1.75 percent

non-electrical machinery:       +1.66 percent      +1.90 percent       +2.20 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:  +0.73 percent      +0.58 percent      +0.77 percent

household appliances:             -1.25 percent       -1.41 percent        not available

aerospace products & parts:   +4.45 percent      +5.47 percent        not available

Notably, even in one major sector that’s been lagging – automotive – the pace of net new job creation has quickened a bit lately. And the industry that’s genuinely taken it on the employment chin – appliances – has been dealing both with a separate set of tariffs on large household laundry machines along with a major slump in the American housing sector.

The impact of the Trump administration’s wide-ranging China tariffs is tougher to identify, partly because they only began in July, and partly because Chinese inputs are found in so many manufacturing industries. But here are the data for sectors with extensive global supply chains that often pass through China:

                                                           July thru November     July thru December

entire private sector:                             +0.66 percent              +0.90 percent

overall manufacturing:                         +0.66 percent              +0.93 percent

chemicals:                                            +1.54 percent              +1.40 percent

non-electrical machinery:                    +0.66 percent              +0.96 percent

computer & electronics products:        +0.50 percent              +0.83 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:               +0.90 percent              +1.08 percent

With one exception – computer and electronics products – these globalized industries have outperformed, too. And even in that lagging sector, employment has been growing faster lately.

These results still don’t prove that President Trump was right in claiming that trade wars are “easy to win.” But they sure add to the evidence that, for the United States, they’re eminently winnable. And that the President’s critics are losing. 

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: The U.S. Public Opinion Gap isn’t Only Partisan

Tags

alliances, America First, climate change, Democrats, globalism, Immigration, Jobs, national security, nuclear deterrence, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Pew Research Center, Republicans, terrorism, Trump, weapons of mass destruction

A recent (November 29) Pew Research Center poll on public attitudes toward foreign policy issues was a classic good news/bad news story – at least if you believe that the top priority of American foreign policy should be to promote the security and well-being of the American people.

On the one hand, that’s pretty much what the results show – that’s the good news. On the other hand, these commonsense positions prevail overwhelmingly because adults viewing themselves as either Republicans or Republican leaners hold them. That’s the bad news.  In other words, the views of Democrats and those leaning Democratic reveal a marked disregard for their nation’s self-preservation and prosperity.

According to Pew, 72 percent of all Americans say that “taking measures to protect the U.S. from terrorism” should “be a top foreign policy priority,” 71 percent would assign the same priority to “protecting jobs of American workers,” and 66 percent regard “preventing the spread” of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) with similar urgency.

But now check out the partisan splits: On the terrorism issue, fully 84 percent of Republicans and their leaners regard it as a top foreign policy priority. Only 61 percent of Democrats and their leaners agree. So much, i.e., for the idea that Americans will never forget September 11. And remember – the question only described protection from terrorism as a top priority, not the top foreign policy priority.

On protecting American workers’ jobs, 81 percent of Republicans and their leaners would treat it as a priority, versus only 65 percent of Democrats and their leaners. I’m old enough to remember when the Democrat called themselves the party of working Americans.

The exception here is preventing the spread of WMD: Fewer (64 percent of Republicans and their leaners see it as a major priority than do Democrats and their leaners (68 percent), but these results are very close.

Many of the other Pew poll findings are not the slightest bit surprising. Principally, the biggest partisan divides on foreign policy issues come on “dealing with global climate change,” “reducing illegal immigration into the U.S.,” and “maintaining U.S. military advantage over all other countries.”

But here’s what’s more surprising. The Democrats, and especially their leaders, have enthusiastically assumed the mantle of globalism champions versus President Trump’s proclaimed America First approach. And a hallmark of globalism, whether on the right or the left ends of the national political spectrum, has been international activism. Liberals and conservatives generally disagree on where to place the emphasis (e.g., emerging transnational issues like climate change and migration versus more traditional security-oriented issues), but energetic engagement is favored by all.

Nonetheless, if you look carefully at the Pew results, Democrats and their leaners would place the “top priority” label on relatively few foreign policy issues. Indeed, only one such candidate for this status reaches the 70 percent mark with these groups – “improving relationships with allies.” And only four issues are seen as top priorities by 60 or more percent of Democrats and their leaners – as stated above, WMD (68 percent), protecting American jobs (65 percent), climate change (64 percent) and terrorism (61 percent). 

Overall, then, it’s easy to conclude from these and other findings in the Pew poll that Democrats and their leaners may be globalists, but they’re globalists who don’t seem to regard overseas-related challenges with overwhelming concern. Alternatively, they’re reluctant to support zeroing in on a limited (and arguably more manageable) set of goals. P.S., the relatively low score for climate change seems especially noteworthy given the importance progressive Democrats and others relatively far to the Left have attached to the idea of a “Green New Deal.”

It’s even easier to conclude that Republicans and their leaners are more committed to an America First-type approach. And it looks like this commitment is somewhat stronger. Their highest priority foreign policy issues are the aforementioned terrorism and job protection – where their priority scores are in the 80s percent. And their next three priorities are maintaining a national military edge (70 percent), reducing illegal immigration (68 percent), and preventing WMD spread (64 percent). For good measure, “getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order” comes in at 56 percent.

However revealing these Pew results, they still left out two of the biggest questions for politicians and others trying to surmise which approaches to U.S. foreign policy, and what specific initiatives, would garner the most and least public support. The first is how genuine political independents view these issues. The second is how high a priority is assigned to preventing a nuclear attack on the U.S. homeland.

The importance attached to halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction points to great concern about this challenge. But the strong support expressed by Democrats and their leaners for shoring up America’s alliance relations indicates an especially serious lack of awareness on their part that indiscriminately extending nuclear umbrellas over U.S. allies has greatly increased the odds of such attack (principally from the newish NATO commitments to the highly vulnerable Baltic states, and the longstanding commitment to protect South Korea from North Korea and its new nuclear capabilities).

Of course, these Americans can’t entirely be blamed for this knowledge gap, as both U.S. leaders and the mainstream media continue to work overtime to mask the – growing – nuclear war risks inherent in the nation’s alliance system. (President Trump has been only a partial exception.) Hopefully 2019 will see some explicit, intellectually honest discussion of these dangers – and well before they reach critical mass.

Im-Politic: Immigration Realists Should Love this Corporate Cheap Labor Lobby Immigration Study

Tags

Business Roundtable, Cheap Labor Lobby, China, Im-Politic, Immigration, Jobs, national security, Open Borders, OPT, Optical Practical Training program, student visa, tech jobs

You have to hand it to the Business Roundtable (BRT) – an organization comprised of the CEOs of America’s largest companies. It’s not often that a lobby group puts out a study that undercuts its own message in no less than three ways. But that’s exactly what the Roundtable has accomplished with its new report warning about the consequences of Trump administration actions deemed likely to reduce the numbers of foreign students that come to study in the United States.

The focus of the BRT’s concern is the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, which allows foreign students to work temporarily for employers for years after their graduation. The Roundtable and other supporters of issuing lots of these visas portray them as a valuable way for domestic U.S. businesses to improve their (and the nation’s) competitiveness by increasing their access to the best talent on the planet. As a result, they argue, programs like OPT boost these students’ incentives to study in the United States and thereby become eligible to enhance its well-being to begin with.

Opponents charge that OPT hands employers yet another means of hiring less expensive foreigners over equally capable but more expensive native-born workers, and thus suppressing wages for all workers in the technology-heavy industries in which these visa holders are highly concentrated. OPT and programs like it have also been criticized (including by the Trump administration) for enabling large numbers of students from China gain cutting-edge tech skills that Beijing can ultimately used to undermine American economic and national security interests, and for providing these students and the Chinese government with golden opportunities to spy on American industry.  

The BRT’s case for the biggest possible OPT program rests entirely on its supposed economic benefits. But these exclusively economic arguments are their own Achilles Heel.

First, the damage the BRT claims the U.S. economy will suffer from a hypothetical (but in my view, reasonably assumed) 35 percent reduction in OPT visas by 2020 and a consequent 60 percent decline in participation in OPT by 2020 is laughably small. Chiefly, by 2028, according to the BRT, the economy will be a cumulative $52 billion smaller in inflation-adjusted terms than otherwise, and the cumulative number of jobs lost by native-born Americans will hit 255,000.

These numbers may sound big, but keep in mind: They represent not annual losses but the estimated total damage over ten years from OPT cutbacks. And they’re laughably miniscule given that the United States currently produces goods and services (the activity that generates the “size of the economy,” or gross domestic product, figure) at an annual, rate of nearly $18.7 trillion in real terms, and that this economy is currently supporting nearly 150 million jobs.

Second, logically speaking, the reverse proposition is also true: If the economic losses resulting from cutting back on the OPT program are so infinitesimal, then so is the economic contribution made by the program at its current size. In fact, it’s reasonable to conclude from the BRT report that if OPT was eliminated completely, the U.S. economy (rightly) wouldn’t even notice.

Third, the BRT’s complete neglect of the national security dangers posed by the OPT program looks like an implicit confession that they’re considerable. Are the BRT’s CEOs telling us that they shouldn’t be considered at all? That reducing them is worth no cost at all? That enhancing national security isn’t even worth the itsy-bitsy price that the BRT itself reveals OPT curbs would entail? 

Of course, none of these conclusions reflects well on the Roundtable, or on the corporate Cheap Labor Lobby of which it’s a card-carrying member. That’s why I’m hoping that immigration and national security realists share it with as many recipients – including government decision-makers – as possible. If this is the best that the Open Borders movement’s Big Business branch can do to tout the OPT program, it’s fate will quickly be sealed.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Today’s Jobs Data Once More Refutes Tariff Alarmism

Tags

aluminum, China, Jobs, manufacturing, metals tariffs, metals-using industries, private sector, steel, tariffs, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As usual with these releases lately, the newest U.S. monthly jobs report (for November) contains lots of valuable information about the impact of President Trump’s tariff-centric policy on the domestic economy. And as usual, this morning’s findings provide ample evidence that manufacturing sectors widely reported to be either currently hurting or likely to be damaged by levies either on imports of steel and aluminum, or products from China, are actually outperforming the rest of industry and even the rest of the entire economy.

Let’s begin with manufacturing industries that make heavy use of metals as inputs, and that have often been portrayed as major victims of the Trump metals tariffs. Here are the changes in their payrolls since April – i.e., the months since those tariffs began to be imposed in late March. For comparison’s sake, the table also includes the employment results for the entire private sector, and for manufacturing as a whole.

                                              thru September     thru October       thru November

entire private sector:             +0.77 percent      +1.11 percent       +1.10 percent

overall manufacturing:        + 0.76 percent      +0.96 percent       +1.18 percent

durable goods:                      +1.01 percent      +1.21 percent       +1.40 percent

fabricated metals products:  +1.16 percent      +1.12 percent       +1.01 percent

non-electrical machinery:    +1.39 percent      +1.68 percent       +1.85 percent

automotive vehicles & parts: +0.08 percent    +0.73 percent       +0.64 percent

household appliances:            -0.31 percent     -1.10 percent         not available

aerospace products & parts: +3.75 percent      +4.43 percent        not available

Once again, the heavy metals-users generally have been performing well. Household appliances and the automotive sector seem to be the noteworthy laggards. But the former have also been hit by a separate set of tariffs on large household laundry machines as well as a slump in the nation’s housing sector. And most analysts believe that U.S. auto sales have recently peaked because of that market’s individual dynamics and cycles.

Supporting this analysis: The strong performance of other big metals-using industries, like aerospace and non-electrical machinery – which underscores what should be the obvious reality that numerous developments and forces influence employment trends in any given part of the economy.

The only possible area of concern is fabricated metals products, where jobs are still increasing, but where the pace of employment creation has slowed to some degree.

It’s tougher to judge definitively the impact of President Trump’s tariffs on imports from China both because they haven’t been in place for as long as the metals duties, and because they entail such a large number of goods. But given those caveats, it’s still tough to see anywhere in the jobs data support for the conviction that these tariffs either are backfiring badly on American industry or will do so because U.S. domestic manufacturers rely so extensively on so many Chinese-made parts, components, and materials.

If you’re skeptical, take a look at the job-creation records of key American industries with extensive global supply chains – including many Chinese links. This table starts in July, because the initial tranche of China tariffs was imposed during the first week of that month. And again, for comparison’s sake, it includes the economy’s entire private sector:

July through November

entire private sector:                        +0.63 percent

overall manufacturing                     +0.65 percent

chemicals:                                       +1.62 percent

non-electrical machinery:               +0.61 percent

computer & electronics products:   +0.47 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:          +0.96 percent

non-electrical machinery:               +0.61 percent

Judging the China’s tariffs’ real impact will of course become even tougher for the time being, given the 90-day trade truce just agreed to by Washington and Beijing, which may reduce domestic companies’ uncertainty as to the wisdom of continuing business-as-usual with China – or may not. So far, however, claims of widespread or even likely economic harm stemming from this bilateral trade war look as deserving of urban legend status as this year’s metals tariffs alarmism.

Making News: Podcast Now On-Line of National Radio Appearance on GM Layoffs

Tags

automotive, Breitbart News Tonight, General Motors, GM, Jobs, Joel B. Pollak, layoffs, Making News, manufacturing, Rebecca Mansour

I’m pleased to report that I was back on national radio last night, with an appearance on Breitbart News Tonight to talk about the big General Motors layoffs announced yesterday.  Click on this link, and scroll down till you see the segment with my name on it.  You’ll be rewarded with an unusually wide-ranging discussion with co-hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel B. Pollak on the future of one of America’s major manufacturing industries and the numerous economic and technological challenges it faces.

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

Following Up: Lousy U.S. Auto-Making Productivity and Those GM Layoffs

Tags

automotive, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Detroit automakers, General Motors, GM, Jobs, layoffs, motor vehicles, NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, offshoring, productivity, total factor productivity, Trade, Trump, yoFollowing Up

Yesterday, I posted some data – with a special focus on major victim state Ohio and major victim region Youngstown – providing some badly needed perspective on General Motors newly announced manufacturing jobs layoffs in the United States (along with Canada and other unspecified locations). Today I’d like to follow up with some statistics that shed more light on GM’s decision – and the strengths and weaknesses of the American domestic automobile industry.

There’s no doubt that, as widely noted, many trends and developments are responsible for the new job cuts – which are highly unlikely to be restricted to GM alone. Some of the biggest include changing product mixes (away from smaller vehicles and toward larger vehicles), new technologies (for electric vehicles and self-driving vehicles), and the inevitable waning of the latest “automotive cycle” – that is, a slowdown in auto sales that has been entirely predictable following the sector’s strong recovery from a terrifying downturn during the last recession.

But one industry trend that’s been sorely neglected – and that surely bears heavily on the “Detroit 3” auto companies’ failure to continue producing smaller vehicles profitably at their domestic factories (the plants targeted for closure) – concerns its productivity performance. In a word, it’s been lousy – which supports last week’s post presenting evidence that U.S. metals-using industries like automotive have been using crutches like (foreign government-subsidized and therefore artificially) cheap raw materials, along with massive job and production offshoring, to juice their profits rather than efficiency-enhancing improvements resulting from creating new technologies, investing in new machinery, devising better management techniques, or some combination of these measures.

That post last week featured data showing that the American transportation equipment sector (which of course includes auto manufacturing) has performed relatively well during the current U.S. economic recovery and the previous expansion – though the rate of growth decelerated over that time span. These periods were examined because they were marked by a tremendous increase in American imports of steel over-produced and dumped into the United States by foreign producers, which pushed steel prices way down for reasons having nothing to do with free trade or free markets.

But more detailed statistics make clear that the automotive sector per se lately has fared worse when it comes to total factor productivity – the broadest of two measures of productivity tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the productivity measure I examined last week.

During the 2001-2007 American expansion, total factor productivity in the motor vehicles sector actually grew faster than that for transportation equipment overall – 22.70 percent versus 13.38 percent. But from the 2009 start of the current recovery through 2016 (the latest available data), vehicle makers’ total factor productivity advanced by only 2.53 percent – that is, much more slowly than the 9.67 percent improvement registered by transportation equipment overall.

In fact, since achieving a huge (15 percent) snapback in total factor productivity during the recovery’s first year following a deep (12.29 percent) nosedive during the recession, vehicle-makers’ total factor productivity fell by 10.94 percent through 2016. As a result, its total factor productivity hasn’t improved on net since 1989.

Also interesting: Since the U.S. ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993 created a bright green light for automotive production and job offshoring, total factor productivity in American motor vehicle-making is up by only 9.20 percent. That’s a considerably slower rate of progress than for manufacturing overall (20.13 percent), even though automotive trade has figured so heavily in U.S. trade flows with fellow NAFTA signatories Mexico and Canada so far.

I don’t mean to minimize the challenges all automotive manufacturers face given the multi-dimensional crossroads that seems to be arriving rapidly for the sector. What should be glaringly obvious, though, is that they’re unlikely to be met adequately – including producing smaller vehicles profitably, especially if and when oil prices start rising again – with a productivity performance that barely qualifies as second-rate.    

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Just the Facts on Trump, GM, and Ohio Automotive Jobs

Tags

automotive, General Motors, GM, Jobs, manufacturing, Ohio, Trump, Youngstown, {What's Left of) Our Economy

No one should beat around the bush: General Motors’ announcement today of big job cuts in its U.S. and other worldwide automotive manufacturing operations was bad news for the U.S. economy and for American industry generally. And even if this “right-sizing” ultimately winds up positive for the nation as well as the company, there’s also no denying that it’s bad news for President Trump and his status as a champion of domestic manufacturing and its workers. He himself made that clear when he told reporters, “I’m not happy about it.”

But what about politicians like Rep. Tim Ryan, the Democrat who represents the northeast Ohio Congressional district where GM’s cuts will fall heavily in Youngstown – and who has been an advocate of Trump-like trade policies his entire career in Congress? (Full disclosure:  I’m a fan and worked with him closely on these issues in the mid-2000s.) On the one hand, in the wake of the news, it’s easy to understand why he called the President “asleep at the switch.” It’s even easier to understand the pot shot he took at Mr. Trump’s performance at a July, 2017 rally in Youngstown, where he told his audience that its long lost jobs are “all coming back. Don’t move. Don’t sell your house.”

Nonetheless, when it comes to the Youngstown area, and the rest of Ohio, the data (aka, the facts) say “Not so fast.”

The U.S. government doesn’t track the changes in automotive employment experienced by the Youngstown area specifically. But it does monitor the region’s overall manufacturing employment trends, as well as factory and automotive employment throughout Ohio. The most relevant developments lately?

First, during the twenty months of the Trump presidency (starting in February, 2017 – Mr. Trump’s first month in the Oval Office – and ending with the latest available numbers, from this October), manufacturing employment in Youngstown fell by 200 – from 26,900 to 26,700. That’s a decrease of 0.74 percent – and of course, thanks to GM, those numbers will be rising.

But during the twenty previous months, Youngstown area manufacturing employment sank by 13.78 percent – or 4,300 jobs (from 31,200 to 26,900). So if politicians deserve much of the blame for these results, then those preceding Mr. Trump’s tenure seem to have been comatose.

The Trump record looks worse when it comes to overall automotive employment in Ohio. Since his first month in office, payrolls in vehicles and parts combined are off 2.20 percent, falling from 95,200 to 93,100. During the twenty previous months, they dipped only by 0.73 percent – from 95,900 to 95,200.

Even so, there are big differences between vehicles and parts. For the former – which will take an especially big hit in Ohio from GM going forward – jobs have dropped by 7.61 percent, from 19,700 to 18,200 on Mr. Trump’s watch. But during the previous twenty months, they tumbled by 12.83 percent (from 22,600 to 19,700).

In Ohio auto parts manufacturing, employment under President Trump has decreased by 6,000, or 0.79 percent. But over the twenty month stretch before he entered office, they actually rose by 2,200, or three percent (from 73,300 to 75,500).

The Trump reputation as manufacturing champion seems better when Ohio’s overall manufacturing jobs trends are examined. During his administration, factory employment has risen by 2.68 percent (from 683,900 to 702,200). But during the twenty months before his current job began, it declined by 0.48 percent – from 687,200 to 683,900.

No should believe that these figures tell the whole story, or even most of it. In particular, they leave out the ups and downs of the overall national economic cycle, and of the automotive cycle – not to mention the technological and structural changes sweeping over the automotive industry. But for those who insist on viewing these matters in partisan political terms, and/or as solely or mainly the result of presidential performance, the data here make this much clear:  If President Trump has yet to meet his own standard as author of a major American manufacturing employment revival, and to keep his promises to Youngstown  voters in particular, he won’t be hard pressed to top his predecessor on this score.

Im-Politic: Elites’ Learning Curve on Populism is Still Largely MIA

Tags

American Enterprise Institute, asylum seekers, Brookings Institution, chattering classes, David Brooks, establishment, Europe, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, Immigration, Jobs, migrants, migration, Open Borders, Populism, refugees, The Guardian, The New York Times, Trade, Trump, working class

While we’re still (I hope!) in a Thanksgiving frame of mind, let’s not forget to give thanks to America’s ever clueless bipartisan political establishment and chattering classes. As just made glaringly obvious by a Hillary Clinton interview and a New York Times pundit, these utterly intertwined – and indeed incestuous – elites not only mostly remain just as dumbfounded about the developments that have triggered the rise of populism in the Western world as they were the day after Donald Trump became president. They helpfully keep reminding us of how little they’ve learned – and therefore how completely undeserving they are of returning to power.

Clinton’s obliviousness (again) came through loud and clear in a lengthy sit-down earlier this week with the United Kingdom’s Guardian newspaper. According to the Democratic presidential nominee, whose inept campaign strategy and transparently canned messaging helped key Mr. Trump’s victory, Europe “needs to get a handle on migration.”

That contention’s hard to argue with. But Clinton’s main reason was anything but. According to the former Secretary of State, European leaders’ overly “generous and compassionate approaches” to migration “lit the flame” that have “roiled the body politic” and strengthened the positions of Trump-like populists who have used “immigrants as a political device and as a symbol of government gone wrong, of attacks on one’s heritage, one’s identity, one’s national unity….”

In other words, Clinton apparently has no concerns that a massive influx of migrants – or refugees, or so-called asylum-seekers, or even economically motivated immigrants – could drive down wages for the working class or lower income cohorts of a country’s native-born population, or wind up admitting criminals and terrorists from violence-ridden regions, or swamp a country with newcomers either ignorant or actively contemptuous of its cultural values (e.g., its treatment of women).

She’s simply advocating that establishment politicians do the proverbial – but never well defined “something” – to keep on the fringes counterparts who are mindful of the above, and completely legitimate, concerns. In fact, Clinton’s continuing contempt for such leaders, and their followings, is made clear by her contention that populist voters are defined by

“a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.

“The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don’t want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told what to do and where to go and how to live … and only given one version of reality.”

In other words, “deplorables,” anyone?

If anything, New York Times columnist David Brooks is even brain dead-er on the lessons of 2016. On Thanksgiving day, the paper posted a column of his contending that at least some of America’s establishment has been “chastened” by populism’s successes, and recently has been “working together across ideological lines” to “build the bipartisan governing coalitions” that “pay attention to actual Americans and actual solutions” to the problems that have so divided the nation.

One of his prime examples? A joint effort by the establishment liberal Brookings Institution and the establishment conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) to develop policies aimed at “Restoring Opportunity for the Working Class.”

On the one hand, it’s good to see that Brookings and AEI aren’t simply dismissing American populism’s main political base as racists and xenophobes. Even better: The report they’ve just issued recognizes job and income loss resulting from offshoring-friendly trade deals and other wrongheaded globalization-related policies as major sources of working Americans’ economic decline and political anger. And the recommendations for trade policy fixes are pretty good – even including an endorsement of unilateral U.S. tariffs in certain situations. In fact, combining these ideas with many of the more purely domestic policy proposals in the study could make a real difference.

On the other hand, the study’s authors decided to ignore the impacts of Open Borders-friendly immigration policies, because they regard “the perception that immigration is responsible for what ails the working class” as “mistaken.”

And some skepticism is warranted on the trade front as well. After all, experts from both think tanks have been among the strongest critics of Trump administration trade policies – no doubt because so many of their donors are businesses that profit from the trade status status quo, and (in Brookings’ case), many of the very foreign governments in the same category.

But what I found especially revealing was Brooks’ description of the report. It ignored the trade recommendations completely and zeroed in on the measures that, unless accompanied by trade and/or immigration policy overhauls (at least), would wind up as an approach that essentially substitutes various forms of welfare for work: “wage subsidies, improved parental leave, work requirements for some federal benefits, child care tax credits.”

And by the way, of course Brooks endorses the study’s calls for more government aid for education that reduces the current emphasis on sending all young Americans to four-year colleges and increases the emphasis on “career education and training.” That’s fine except that there’s little point to vocational type training if family wage jobs keep fleeing overseas or becoming ever lower-wage jobs because immigrants keep supercharging the labor supply.

Nor have any of the education boosters ever responded to two related points I made in my globalization book, The Race to the Bottom: First, people all over the world as just as capable of being retrained and reeducated as Americans; and second, governments all around the world know this, especially in countries with such immense labor surpluses that they’ll long be able to under-sell American workers.

Brooks closes his article by wondering whether the United States contains “enough chastened members of establishments, who have governing experience, who acknowledge past mistakes, who take the time to reconnect with the country and apply their expertise in new ways” to lead the nation successfully. The Brookings-AEI report provides some grounds for optimism. Unlike Hillary Clinton and Brooks himself.

Making News: New National Radio Podcast on Tariffs and China Trade Now On-Line…& More!

Tags

Breitbart News Tonight, Breitbart.com, China, Federal Reserve, industrial production, IndustryToday.com, Jobs, John Carney, Making News, manufacturing, tariffs, Trade, tradewars, Trump, wages

Once again I got a sort-of-last-minute request last night from Breitbart News Tonight to appear on that radio show.  But thanks to the invention of the podcast, you can listen to the interview on-line.  So click here (the segment with my name on it is right near the top), for a great discussion about how President Trump’s tariffs are (and aren’t) impacting the American economy and its manufacturing sector, and about whether a truce in the U.S.-China trade war is in the offing.

In addition, it was great to be quoted yesterday on the trade implications of the latest Federal Reserve industrial production data by Breitbart‘s John Carney – the only other analyst I’ve seen who has consistently been reporting on the message being sent by official U.S economic data on the tariffs’ actual impact on the U.S. economy.

Finally, IndustryToday.com this last week re-published two recent RealityChek posts – on how supposedly tariff-vulnerable metals-using industries generally have been claiming even more job openings than the rest of the manufacturing sector; and on a possible big new reason why manufacturing wages have lagged so far beyond job creation.

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