(What’s Left of) Our Economy: America’s Long-Time Productivity Slump Looks Like it’s Deepening

Tags

CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, inflation, Labor Department, labor productivity, productivity, total factor productivity, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Since strong productivity increases are America’s best hope for improving living standards, sustainable prosperity and robust non-inflationary economic growth, it’s clearly bad news that the nation may be on the edge of a productivity growth cliff – and staring into a canyon. That’s the clear message being sent by the new official U.S. preliminary data on labor productivity for the second quarter of this year released by the Labor Department this morning.

At least as bad: The lousy labor productivity figures strengthen the case that even though U.S. wages aren’t rising nearly as fast as living cost, they still could be fueling some of the torrid inflation of the last year and a half or so.

There’s a possibility that this dreadful performance is just another hangover from the CCP Virus pandemic and related lockdowns and curbs on individuals’ voluntary activity (along with the massive covid relief measures provided by Washington), which has played havoc with the entire economy and the data used to monitor its health. But it’s crucial to remember that the nation is also suffering a long-term productivity growth slump, so any virus distortions aren’t reflected in the numbers may not be game-changing.

As known by RealityChek regulars, labor productivity is the narrower of the two measures of efficiency tracked by Labor, and measures the output of each worker per each hour on the job. The Department itself made clear how awful the second quarter results were for the non-farm business sector – the numbers that are followed most closely:

“The 2.5-percent decline in labor productivity from the same quarter a year ago [actually, it was 2.55 percent] is the largest decline in this series, which begins in the first quarter of 1948.” (Actually, the Department’s own raw data tables go back to the first quarter of 1947.) Let’s all agree that a 75-year all-time worst is really alarming.

The quarterly figures were stomach-turning, too. Labor productivity sank at an annual rate of 4.71 percent sequentially – the fifth biggest such drop ever. Further, this followed on the heels of the first quarter’s sequential 7.64 percent nosedive – the second worst since the 12.26 percent crash of the third quarter of 1947.

And here’s some thoroughly depressing context: Such back-to-back quarterly declines are rare. Before that latest stretch, they – or longer labor productivity losing streaks – had only happened eleven times over the last three quarters of a century.

Two consecutive declines in labor productivity aren’t the longest such stretch on record. That dubious honor belongs to the five-quarter period between the second quarter of 1973 and the third quarter of 1974. But the latest cumulative quarterly deterioration of 12.26 percent at annual rates is the worst of all time. True, it’s just slightly greater than the 12.24 percent cumulative drop suffered during that 1973-74 productivity depression. But don’t forget – the current streak may not be over yet!

As for that 2.51 percent annual decline in labor productivity, the context here is completely gloomy, too. As with the sequential results, it represented the second straight worsening – following the 0.58 percent drop in the first quarter. And two or more straight annual labor productivity decreases have only happened six times before this morning’s release.

Also as with the quarter-to-quarter figures, a stretch of two straight decreases isn’t the longest ever. Between 1973 and 1974, annual productivity fell four consecutive times. But the current annual slump is the deepest since that which lasted between the first and third quarters of 1982. And of course, today’s slump isn’t over yet, either.

As I’ve written previously, productivity is the measure of economic performance in which most economists are least confident (especially in service industries that make up the vast bulk of the U.S. economy). Further, labor productivity is a narrower measure of efficiency than total factor productivity, which measures output as a function of a wide range of inputs used by business (not only workers but capital, technology, materials, etc.) And today’s second quarter results will be revised next month (which recently I mistakenly reported as the date for these preliminary numbers), with the latest set of (annual) revisions coming this fall.

But most legitimate doubts about the productivity data mainly concern their precision, not the direction they show. And all-time worsts and near-worsts surely can’t be mainly attributed to measurement flaws. And as for the total factor results, for decades, they’ve been no great shakes, either, as made clear in the above linked RealityChek post. Maybe the revisions will substantially brighten the picture?

So far, though, that’s just a “maybe.” The best information available indicates that America’s long-time productivity woes are taking a big turn for the worse, and that in combination with recent wage increases could be embedding unacceptably high inflation – and stagnating living standards – into the U.S. economy’s foreseeable future.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: So Much for the Both the Great Resignation and the Recovery?

Tags

CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Employment, Employment to Population Ratio, EPOP, Great Resignation, job openings, Jobs, JOLTS, Labor Department, Labor Force Participation Rate, LFPR, quits, recession, retirement, unemployment, workers, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Yesterday’s official U.S. report on job turnover reenforced two important messages that have sent by lots of recent economic data: first, that the nation’s growth rate really has slowed dramatically this year; and second, that the CCP Virus- and lockdowns-led Great Resignation is ebbing significantly. And not surprisingly, these developments look related.  

The job turnover report, (whose jazzy acronym is JOLTS – Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) takes the story up through June, and shows that the number of vacancies that U.S. private sector employers say they want to fill, preliminarily hit its lowest (9.766 million) since last September’s 9.680 million. Moreover, it’s down 9.67 percent since their peak of 10.275 million from last November. (As known by RealityChek regulars, data focusing on the private sector, whose performance is driven mainly by market forces, reveal more about the economy’s true health than data that include government workers. After all, the public sector’s performance is driven mainly by politicians’ decisions.)

Additional economic slowdown (and even recession) signs: This calendar year so far, when the official statistics on gross domestic product (GDP – the standard measure of the economy’s size and how it changes) have shown two consecutive quarterly drops (a popular definition of recession), private sector job openings are off by 5.58 percent.

Private sector job openings, though, are still a whopping 57.64 percent higher than in February, 2020 – the last full data month before the pandemic and ensuing mandatory and voluntary curbs on economic activity began distorting and roiling the economy. So labor market conditions are still far from having returned to their pre-CCP Virus norm.

In even more important relative terms, a similar though more modest pattern appears as well. The private sector job openings rate – which adds total employment figures and openings figures, and then divides them by the number of openings – hit seven percent in June. That was its lowest level since the previous June’s 6.8 percent, it’s fallen for three straight months, and it’s declined by 6.45 percent during the first two (recession-y looking) quarters of this year. And as with the absolute number of job openings, the openings rate remains much (52.17 percent) higher than just before the virus arrived in force.

The Great Resignation claims have held that the CCP Virus pandemic and resulting curbs on individuals’ economic behavior led unprecedented numbers of Americans to leave the workplace for good – regardless of whatever subsequent ups and downs the economy will wind up experiencing.

The private sector quits numbers contained in each JOLTS report provide some support for idea that this Great Resignation is fading already – but only some. That’s because so many Americans who leave their jobs voluntarily seek and get more desirable jobs. They do, however, buttress the slowdown/recession narrative pretty effectively.

In the private sector in June, job leavers totaled 3.999 million – a decrease of 3.96 percent during this possibly recession-y year, the lowest level since last October’s 3.884 million, as well as the first sub-four million number since then. They’re also down 6.26 percent from their CCP Virus-era high (last November’s 4.266 million.

And although the many more Americans still are leaving their jobs each month than just before the pandemic’s arrival in force, this increase is a not-jaw-dropping 22.86 percent – and of course it’s falling

The private sector quits rate has been drifting down, too. As of June, it was 24 percent higher than in immediate pre-pandemic-y February, 2020 (3.1 percent versust 2.5 percent). But it’s 8.82 percent lower than its peak (3.4 percent last November) and has dropped 6.06 percent so far this calendar year – suggesting that a slowing economy has reduced workers’ confidence that that better job will be there for the asking.

Also throwing cold water on permanent Great Resignation claims – though barely whispering “recession” so far – are the federal government’s two measures of the share of Americans actually working. Both the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) and the Employment to Population Ratio (EPOP) helpfully provide figures for the entire economy (though their definitions are somewhat different), and for different segments of the population (including age groups). So both shed unmistakable light on the Great Resignation question with data sets for the 55-year old and over cohort. (Don’t forget, though, that neither measure separates out public and private sector workers. So the following results apply for the “civilian noninstitutional population.)  

Yet both measures reveal that the share of Americans either at or near retirement age holding jobs has shrunk during the pandemic era – by 4.22 percent for the LFPR and 4.32 percent for the EPOP. But both measures also show that the current percentages who are employed is at the high end of the range of results since 1948, and well within their post-2000 ranges.

In other words, the percentage of these older Americans in the workforce (38.6 percent as of this June according to the LFPR and 37.6 percent according to the EPOP) was steadily shrinking from 1948 (when these data sets begin) through about 2000, and then grew healthily till the CCP Virus came along (by about 25 percent for both the LPFR and EPOP). Once the worst of the pandemic, it edged back up to long-term normal levels, and may only be leveling off or inching down in the last few months because of the current slowdown or recession – not because of any underlying changes in older Americans’ views of work.

Unfortunately, though, because employment levels are one of the economy’s most conspicuously lagging indicators (due to most business’ tendency to view layoffs as a last resort in the face of worsening prospects), we’ll need to wait further to justify a more definitive recession call from the LFPR and EPOP results. Here, the most useful measures are probably those tracking the so-called prime age (for employment purposes) population – the 25 to 54-year olds.

And labor force participation for these folks is actually up by 0.49 percent so far in this seeming period of economic shrinkage. The EPOP is off, but by a modest 0.87 percent. 

Significantly, going forward, I suspect that the growth slowdown and at least quite possible recession will weaken the Great Resignation further – especially since the income supports provided by the Covid relief measures have stopped.  What I also suspect, however, is that the jobs seniors will once again keep seeking won’t enough to secure their financial futures. 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Worst of All Possible Inflation Worlds for U.S. Workers?

Tags

ECI, Employment Cost Index, Federal Reserve, inflation, Jerome Powell, Labor Department, labor productivity, PCE, personal consumption expenditures index, productivity, recession, stagflation, wages, workers, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The newest report on a key official measure of worker compensation has just shown that, during today’s high inflation era, American workers could be both significantly fueling the soaring prices that are dominating the U.S. economy and getting shafted by them.

This measure – called the Employment Cost Index – is tracked by the Department of Labor, and is watched closely by the Federal Reserve (the government’s chief inflation-fighting agency) for two major reasons. First, it includes not just wages, but salaries and non-cash benefits. Second, unlike the Labor Department’s average wage figures, it takes into account what economists call compositional effects.

In other words, the those wage figures report hourly and weekly pay for specific sectors of the economy, but they don’t say anything about labor costs for businesses for the same jobs over time. The ECI tries to achieve this aim by factoring in the way that the makeup of employment between industries can change, and the way that the makeup of jobs within industries can change (e.g., from a majority of lower wage occupations to one of higher wage occupations).

In his press conference last Wednesday following the Federal Reserve’s announcement of a second straight big increase in the interest rate it controls directly, Chair Jerome Powell mentioned that the ECI report coming out on Friday would greatly influence the central banks’ decision on how much more tightening of credit conditions would be needed to slow the economy enough to cool inflation acceptably.

That’s because, as he has explained previously, the supposedly superior insights on worker pay provided by the ECI enable the Fed to figure out whether a major inflation engine has started to rev up – employee compensation rising faster than worker productivity. Industries (or entire economies) in this situation are denied the option of absorbing wage increases by achieving greater efficiencies in their operations Therefore, they face more pressure to maintain earnings and profits by passing pay increases onto their customers, their customers face more pressure to keep up with living costs by pushing for pay hikes themselves, and what economists term a classic and hard-to-break wage-price spiral takes off.

The new ECI results per se looked alarming enough from this perspective. They showed that between the second quarter of 2021 and the second quarter of 2022, total employee compensation for the private sector ose by 5.5 percent. That’s the fastest pace since this data series began in 2001. Moreover, this record represented the third straight all-time high. (RealityChek regulars know that private sector numbers are the most important gauge, since its pay and other indicators are mainly driven by market forces, unlike the statistics for government workers, where the indicators largely reflect politicians’ decisions.)

Sadly, though, according to the Fed’s favorite measure of consumer inflation (the Commerce Department’s Personal Consumption Expenditures price index), living costs increased by 6.45 percent. So workers fell further behind the eight ball.

Perhaps worst of all, however, productivity growth is in the toilet. We won’t get the initial second quarter figures until September 1, but during the first quarter, for non-farm businesses (the most closely followed measure for the private sector), it fell year-on-year by 0.6 percent – the worst such performance since the fourth quarter of 1993.

Nor was this figure a one-off for the current high inflation period. From the time consumer prices began their recent speed up (April, 2021) through the first quarter of this year, labor productivity is off by 1.36 percent, the ECI is up 3.95 percent, and PCE inflation has risen by 4.65 percent. So a strong case can be made that workers, businesses, and the economy as a whole are in the worst of all possible worlds.

Whenever productivity is the subject, it’s important to note that it’s the economic performance measure in which economists probably have the least confidence. And even if it’s accurate, don’t jump to blame workers for sloughing off. Maybe management is doing a lousy job of improving their productivity. Alternatively, maybe managers simply haven’t figured out how to do so in the midst of so many unusual challenges posed by the pandemic and its aftermath – chiefly the stop-go nature of the economy’s early aftermath, and the resulting turbulence that, along with the Ukraine war and China’s Zero Covid policy, is still roiling and stressing supply chains.

Whatever’s wrong, though, unless a course correction comes soon, it looks like the odds of the economy sinking into prolonged stagflation – roaring inflation and weak economic growth – are going up. And ultimately, that matters more to the American future than whether some form of recession is already here, or around the corner.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Another Dreadful U.S. Consumer Inflation Report

Tags

Commerce Department, consumer price index, consumers, core inflation, cost of living, CPI, demand, energy, Federal Reserve, food, inflation, Labor Department, monetary policy, PCE, personal consumption expenditures index, prices, supply chains, Ukraine War, Zero Covid, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Optimism about U.S. inflation took another blow yesterday morning – though it shouldn’t have been unexpected – with the release of the latest data on the Federal Reserve’s favorite measure of price changes. I said “shouldn’t have been unexpected” because, as Fed Chair Jerome Powell and others have noted, this gauge and the higher profile Consumer Price Index (CPI) put out by the Labor Department normally track each other pretty closely over the long run, and those CPI results were deeply discouraging.

Nonetheless, latest results from the Price Indexes for Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) monitored by the Commerce Department matter because they strongly confirmed the latest CPI figures – which were pretty awful – starting with the month-to-month changes for the entire economy.

In June, headline PCE inflation shot up sequentially by a full one percent – much faster than May’s 0.6 percent and indeed the fastest rate not only throughout this latest high-inflation period, but the fastest since it increased by one percent in September, 2005.

But another observation should make even clearer how unusual that monthly headline increase was. The Commerce Department has been keeping these data since February, 1959. That’s 749 months worth of results through last month. How many times has monthly headline PCE inflation been one percent or higher? Twelve. And the all-time record is just 1.2 percent, hit in March, 1980, and February and March, 1974.

The annual figures were no better, and RealityChek regulars know that they’re more reliable than the monthlies because they measure changes over a longer time period, and therefore smooth out short-term fluctations.

June’s 6.8 percent rise was the strongest of the current high inflation era, and a significant pickup from May’s 6.3 percent. And it looks even worse when the fading baseline effect is taken into account. The June yearly jump in headline PCE came off a June, 2020-21 increase of four percent. So that year’s June PCE rate was already twice the Federal Reserve’s two percent annual inflation target.

By comparison, headline PCE this March was only a little lower than the June result – 6.6 percent. But the baseline figure for the previous March was only 2.5 percent. That rate was still higher than the Fed target, but not by much. So arguably unlike the price advances of June, this March’s inflation reflected some catching up from price increases that were still somewhat subdued due to the economy’s stop-go recovery from earlier during the pandemic.

Core PCE was lower by both measures, because it strips out the food and particularly energy prices that have spearheaded much headline inflation, and that are excluded supposedly because they’re volatile for reasons having little to do with the economy’s fundamental vulnerability to inflation. But here the monthly figures revealed new momentum, with the June seqential increase of 0.6 percent twice that of May’s 0.3 percent, and the highest such number since May and June of 2021.

Before then, however, core inflation hadn’t seen a monthly handle in the 0.6 percent neighborhood since September and October of 2001, which registered gains of 0.6 and 0.7percent, respectively.

On an annual basis, June’s core PCE increase of 4.8 percent was slightly higher than May’s 4.7 percent, but well below the recent peak of 5.3 percent in February. But the baseline effect should dispel any notions of progess being made. For June-to-June inflation for the previous year was 3.5 percent – meaningfully above the Fed’s two percent target. Core annual PCE inflation for the previous Februarys was just 1.5 percent – meaningfully below the Fed target.

As with most measures of U.S. economic perfomance, an unprecedented number of wild cards that can affect both PCE and CPI inflation has rendered most crystal balls (including mine) pretty unreliable. To cite just a few examples: Will China’s Zero Covid policy keep upending global supply chains and thus the prices of Chinese exports? Will the ongoing Ukraine War have similar impacts on many raw materials, especially energy? Will the Federal Reserve’s tightening of U.S. credit conditions per se bring inflation down significantly in the foreseeable future by dramatically slowing the nation’s growth? Will high and still soaring prices, coupled with vanishing savings rates, achieve the same objective if the Fed’s inflation-fighting zeal wanes? Or will the still huge amounts of money in most consumers’ bank accounts along with continuing robust job creation keep the demand for goods and services elevated for the time being whatever the Fed does?

Here’s what seems pretty certain to me: As long as that consumer demand remains strong, and as long as producer prices keep jumping, businesses will pass these rising costs on to their customers and keep consumer inflation worrisomely high. That seemed to be precisely the case in the last two months, with a torrid May read on producer prices being followed by the equally torrid June consumer inflation reports. So unless this wholesale inflation cooled a great deal this month, I’d expect at least another month of red hot consumer inflation. That producer price report is due out August 11.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S.-Based Manufacturing Returns to Pre-Pandemic Job Levels

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft parts, Bureau of Labor Statistics, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Employment, fabricated metal products, Federal Reserve, food products, inflation, Jobs, Labor Department, machinery, manufacturing, miscellaneous non-durable goods, monetary policy, non-farm jobs, non-farm payrolls, personal protective equipment, pharmaceuticals, PPE, printing, private sector, recession, semiconductors, supply chain, surgical equipment, textiles, transportation equipment, vaccines, {What's Left of) Our Economy

A power outage in my Maryland suburb of Washington, D.C. prevented me from filing my usual same-day post on the manufacturing highlights of the latest official U.S. jobs release, but the big news is still eminently worth reporting:

Specifically, “It’s back.” According to yesterday’s employment report from the Labor Department (for June), as was the case with the private sector overall, U.S.-based manufacturing last month finally regained all the jobs it lost – and then some – during the deep but short CCP Virus- and lockdowns-induced recession of spring, 2020.

The new figures show that by adding 29,000 workers on net sequentially during June, and having added slightly more to their headcounts in April than previously reported, domestic industry’s employment last month stood at 12.797 million. That’s 0.09 percent more than the 12.785 million on their payrolls in February, 2020, the last full data month before the pandemic’s arrival in force began decimating and distorting the economy.

As of June, American private sector workers now number 129.765 million – 0.11 percent above its immediate pre-pandemic level of 129.625 million.

Yet the entire non-farm economy (the employment universe of the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks employment trends for the federal government) still hasn’t recovered all the jobs it lost during March and April, 2020. Because public sector employment is still off some, June’s 151.980 million non-farm payroll count remains 2.38 percent below the February, 2020 total of 152.504 million.

The June jobs report left manufacturing employment at the same level of total non-farm employment (8.42 percent) as in May, and a slightly smaller (9.86 percent versus 9.87 percent) share of total pivate sector employment that month.

But since the CCP Virus’ large-scale arrival, domestic industry has boosted these percentages from 8.38 percent and 9.83 percent, respectively.

Another reason for optimism about the manufacturing results of the June jobs report: The 29,000 payrolls boost was a nice increase from May’s unrevised 18,000 increase – the worst monthly performance since April, 2021’s 28,000. And as noted above, this past April’s excellent results saw their second upward revision – from 58,000 to 61,000 (the highest month-to-month gain since last July’s 62,000).

May’s biggest manufacturing jobs winners among the broadest Individual industry categories monitored by the Labor Department were:

>transportation equipment, which has been on a genuine rollercoaster. June’s hiring increase of 7,200 followed a May loss revised down from 7,900 to 9,800 – the worst such monthly drop since February’s 19,900. Yet the April figure for the sector was upgraded from an unrevised 19,500 to 20,100 – and followed a March advance of 25,000. That was the best such performance since October’s 28,200.

Yet all this tumult – due largely to an ongoing semiconductor shortage still plaguing the automotive sector in particular – still left transportation equipment employment 2.23 percent lower than in immediately pre-pandemic-y February, 2020 – as opposed to the 2.57 percent figure calculable last month;

>miscellaneous non-durable goods, where headcounts improved by 5,400 – the biggest monthly increase since February, 2021’s 5,500. But volatility is evident here, too, as May’s previously reported 2,900 jobs decrease was revised downgraded 3,400 – the biggest decline since December, 2020’s -9,400. Yet payrolls in this catch-all sector are now 9.68 percent higher than in February, 2020 – up from the 8.12 percent calculable from last month’s figures;

>plastics and rubber products, whose 5,300 hiring advance was its best since April’s now twice upgraded 8,000 rise. Moreover, May’s initially reported jobs decrease of 400 is now judged to have been a gain of 2,600. These companies now employ 4.33 percent more workers than just before the pandemic’s large-scale arrival in February, 2020, versus the 2.88 percent calculable last month; and

>food manufacturing, which added 4,800 employees on month in June. In addition, May’s initially reported 6,100 increase was revised up to 7,600, more than offsetting a second downgrade of the April advance from 7,700 0 7,100. This huge industry’s workforce is now 2.87 percent greater than in February, 2020, as opposed to the 2.53 percent figure calculable last month.

The biggest jobs losers in June among the broadest manufacturing sectors were:

>printing and related support activities, where 900 jobs were cut in the biggest monthly decrease since January’s 1,800. Worse, May’s initially reported employment retreat of 400 is now estimated at 700, and April’s upgraded increase (of 3,100) was revised down to 3,900. Employment by these companies is now down by 10.63 percent since just before the CCP Virus’ arrival in force in February, 2020, versus the 10.23 percent calculable last month;

>textile product mills, whose sequential June jobs loss of 700 was its worst since last September’s 900. May’s initially reported 100 employment dip stayed unrevised, but April’s initially upgraded results (from a headcount loss of 400 to one of 300) is now judged to be a decline of 400 once again. Consequently, payrolls in this sector are now off by 5.32 percent since February, 2020, as opposed t the 4.60 percent calculable last month; and

>fabricated metal products, whose 600 job loss in June was its worst such retreat since April, 2021’s 1,600, and the first fall-off since then. Revisions were mixed, with May’s initially reported increase of 7,100 downgraded to 6,900 (still its best sequential performance since February’s 9,300 surge) but April’s losses were revised down again, from 1,600 to 1,400. Despite its recent hiring hot streak, however, payrolls in this large sector are still 2.31 percent below pre-pandemic-y February, 2020’s level, versus the 2.24 percent calculable last month.

As known by RealityChek regulars, the big machinery industry is a bellwether for all of domestic manufacturing and indeed the entire U.S. economy, since so many industries use its products. So it was definitely good news that employment in this sector rose on month in June by 1,000 after having dropped by a downwardly adjusted 3,200 in May. That’s the sector’s worst such performance since it shed 7,000 workers last November. (Note: Last month, I mistakenly reported the May, 2021 decrease at 7,900.)

Yet April’s hiring gains were revised down again – from 5,900 to 5,800 – and machinery employment is still off since just before the pandemic’s arrival by 2.05 percent, versus the 2.12 percent calculable last month.

As always, the most detailed employment data for pandemic-related industries are one month behind those in the broader categories, and interestingly, their May performance was generally better than that for domestic industry as a whole.

The semiconductor industry still struggling with the aforementioned shortages boosted employment on month in May by 800, and April’s initially reported 900 increase was revised up to 1,100 – the best since December’s 1,400. Even though March’s jobs improvement remained at a downgraded 400, payrolls in the sector moved up to 2.20 percent higher than just before the pandemic arrived in February, 2020 from the 1.66 percent calculable last month. And although progress seems modest, it must be remembered that even during the early spring, 2020 downturn, these companies added to their headcounts.

In surgical appliances and supplies (which includes all the personal protective equipment and other medical goods so widely used to fight the CCP Virus), employment in May climbed by 400 on month, April’s initially reported 200 loss is now estimated at just 100, and March’s unrevised 1,100 increase stayed unrevised. These results mean that these sectors have increased their workforces by 4.36 percent since February, 2020, versus the 3.88 percent calculable last month.

The large pharmaceuticals and medicines industry was a partial exception to this pattern, losing 100 jobs sequentially in May. But April’s initially reported 1,400 rise (the best monthly performance since last June’s 2,600) is now judged to have been 1,500. And March’s advance stayed at an upwardly revised 1,200. As a result, these industries now employ 10.10 percent more workers than in immediately pre-pandemic-y February, 2020, versus the 9.78 percent calculable last month.

The medicines subsector containing vaccines hired 600 net new employees on month in May, April’s 1,100 payrolls increase (the best such performance since December’s 2,000), stayed unrevised, as was March’s previously upgraded 600 increase. Consequently, these companies’ headcounts are now 25.08 percent above their February, 2020 levels, versus the 24.47 percent improvement calculable last month.

Good job creation also continued throughout an aerospace cluster hit especially hard by CCP Virus-related travel restrictions. Aircraft manufacturers added 1,300 workers in May, their most robust monthly hiring since last June’s 4,000 jump. April’s initially reported climb of 200 was upgraded to 500, and March’s results stayed at an upwardly revised 1,200. These companies’ workforces have now crept to within 10.30 percent of their pre-pandemic total, versus the 10.96 percent shortfall calculable last month.\

In aircraft engines and engine parts, jobs rose by 700 sequentially in May, and though April’s initially reported increase of 900 is now judged to be 800, it was still the best such performance since February’s increase of 900. March’s new hires stayed at an upwardly revised 600, leaving employment in this sector 10.91 percent below February, 2020 levels, versus the 11.56 percent calculable last month.\

Non-engine aircraft parts and equipment makers kept making steady employment progress as well. They added 300 workers on month in May, and their initially reported new April hiring of 300 is now estimated at 400. March’s employment increase stayed unrevised at 700, but this sector still employs 15.14 percent fewer workers than in February, 2020, versus the 15.48 percent calculable last month.

With the Federal Reserve still on record as seeing the need for slowing the economy’s growth (at best) in order to fight inflation, signs of recession multiplying (e.g., here), domestic industry’s major export markets looking increasingly weak as well, the Ukraine War dragging on, and supply chain problems ongoing (see, e.g., here and here) it’s difficult to expect U.S.-based manufacturers to escape these powerful downdrafts. But these companies have kept turning in remarkably strong results in production as well as hiring, so who’s to say they can’t keep bucking the odds?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing’s Hiring Takes a (Slight) Breather

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft parts, automotive, CCP Virus, chemicals, computer and electronics products, coronavirus, COVID 19, fabricated metals products, Federal Reserve, fiscal policy, food products, inflation, Jobs, Labor Department, machinery, manufacturing, medical devices, medicines, monetary policy, non-farm jobs, non-farm payrolls, personal protective equipment, pharmaceuticals, PPE, semiconductor shortages, semiconductors, stimulus, transportation equipment, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, vaccines, wood products, {What's Left of) Our Economy

U.S.-based manufacturing’s employment performance has been so strong lately that the 18,000 net gain for May reported in today’s official U.S. jobs report was the worst such performance in more than a year – specifically, since April, 2021’s 28,000 employment loss. And even that dismal result stemmed mainly from automotive factories that were shut down due to semiconductor shortages – not from any underlying weakness in domestic industry.

Moreover, revisions of the last several months’ of sizable hiring increases were revised higher. April’s initially reported 55,000 increase is now pegged at 61,000, and March’s headcount boost was upgraded again, this time all the way from 43,000 to 58,000.

Indeed, taken together, this payroll surge has enabled U.S.-based manufacturing to increase its share of American jobs again. As of May, industry’s employment as a share of the U.S. total (called “non-farm payrolls” by the Labor Department that releases the data) rose sequentially from the 8.41 percent calculable last month to 8.42 percent. And the manufacturing share of total private sector jobs climbed from the 9.86 percent calculable last month to 9.87 percent..

The improvement since February, 2020 – the last full data month before the CCP Virus’ arrival began roiling and distorting the entire U.S. economy – has been even greater. Then, manufacturing jobs represented just 8.38 percent of all non-farm jobs and 9.83 percent of all private sector employment.

Domestic industry still slightly lags the private sector in terms of regaining jobs lost during the worst of the pandemic-induced recession of March and April, 2020. The latter has recovered 99.01 percent of the 21.016 million jobs it shed, compared with manufacturing’s 98.75 percent of its 1.345 million lost jobs.

But the main reason is that industry’s jobs losses during those months were smaller proportionately than those of the private sector overall.

Viewed from another vantage point, the May figures mean that manufacturing employment is just 0.13 percent smaller than just before the pandemic struck.

May’s biggest manufacturing jobs winners among the broadest individual industry categories tracked by the Labor Department were:

>fabricated metals products, which boosted employment on month by 7,100 – the sector’s biggest rise since since February’s 9,300. Its recent hiring spree has brought fabricated metals products makers’ payrolls to within 2.24 percent of their immediate pre-CCP Virus (February, 2020) levels;

>food products,where payrolls grew by 6,100 sequentially in May. Employment in this enormous sector is now 2.53 percent higher than in February, 2020;

>the huge computer and electronics products sector, whose headcount improved by 4,400 over April’s levels. As a result, its workforce is now just 0.19 percent smaller than in immediate pre-pandemic-y February, 2020;

>wood products, which added 3,800 employees in May over its April levels. Along with April’s identical gain, these results were these businesses’ best since May, 2020’s 13,800 jump, during the strong initial recovery from the virus-induced downturn. Wood products now employs 6.85 percent more workers than in February, 2020; and

>chemicals, a very big industry whose workforce was up in May by 3,700 over the April total. The result was the best since January’s 5,500 sequential jobs growth, and pushed employment in this industry 4.76 percent higher than in February. 2020.

The biggest May job losers among those broad manufacturing groupings were:

>transportation equipment, another enormous category where employment fell by 7,900 month-to-month in May. That drop was the biggest since February’s 19,900 nosedive. But it followed an April monthly increase that was revised up from 13,700 to 19.500. All this volatility – heavily influenced by the aforementioned semiconductor shortage that has plagued the automotive industry – has left transportation equipment payrolls 2.57 percent smaller than just before the pandemic’s arrival in February, 2020;

>machinery, whose 7,900 sequential job decline in May was its worst such result and first monthly decrease since November’s 7,000. Moreover, April’s initially reported 7,400 payroll increase in machinery is now judged to be only 5,900. These developments are discouraging because machinery’s products are used so widely throughout the entire economy, and prolonged hiring doldrums could reflect a slowdown in demand that could presage weakness in other sectors. Machinery payrolls are now down 2.12 percent since February, 2020; andent since February 2020; and

>miscellaneous nondurable goods, where employment shrank in May by 2,900 on month. But here again, a very good April increase first reported at 3,300 is now judged to have been 4,400, and thanks to recent robust hiring in this catch-all category, too, its employment levels are 8.12 percent higher than in February. 2020.

As always, the most detailed employment data for pandemic-related industries are one month behind those in the broader categories, and their April job creation overall looked somewhat better than that for domestic manufacturing as a whole.

Semiconductors are still too scarce nationally and globally, but the semiconductor and related devices sector grew employment by 900 on month in April – its biggest addition since last October’s 1,000. March’s initially reported 700 jobs gain was revised down to 400, and February’s upgraded hiring increase of 100 stayed unrevised. Consequently, payrolls in this industry are up 1.66 percent since just before the pandemic arrived in full force, and it must be kept in mind that even during the deep spring, 2020 economy-wide downturn, it actually boosted employment.

The news was worse in surgical appliances and supplies – a category containing personal protective equipment (think “facemasks”) and similar medical goods. April’s sequential jobs dip of 200 was the worst such performance since October’s 300 fall-off, but at least March’s initially reported 1,100 increase remained intact (as did February’s downwardly revised – frm 800 – “no change.” Employment in surgical appliances and supplies, however, is still 3.88 percent greater than in immediate pre-pandemic-y February, 2020.

In the very big pharmaceuticals and medicines industry, this year’s recent strong hiring continued in April, as the sector added 1,400 new workers sequentially – its biggest gains since last June’s 2,600. In addition, March’s initially reported increase of 900 was revised up to 1,200, and February’s slightly downgraded 1,000 rise remained unchanged. Not surprisingly, therefore, this sector’s workforce is up by 9.78 percent during the CCP Virus era.

Job creation was excellent as well in the medicines subsector containing vaccines. April’s 1,100 monthly headcount growth was the greatest since last December’s 2,000. March’s initially reported payroll rise of 400 was upgraded to 600, and February’s results stayed at a slightly downgraded 500. In all, vaccine manufacturing-related jobs has now increased by fully 24.47 percent since February, 2020.

Aircraft manufacturers added just only 200 employees on month in April, but March’s jobs gain was revised up from 1,100 to 1,200 (the best such result since last June’s 4,000), and February’s upwardly revised 600 advance remained unchanged. Aircraft employment is still off by 10.96 percent since the pandemic’s arrival in force.

Aircraft engines and engine parts makers were in a hiring mood in April, too. Their employment grew by 900 sequentially, March’s 500 increase was revised up to 600, and February’s unrevised monthly increase of 900 stayed unrevised. Payrolls in this sector have now climbed to within 11.56 percent of their level just before the CCP Virus hit.

As for the non-engine aircraft parts and equipment sector, it made continued modest employment progress in April, with the monthly headcount addition of 300 following unrevised gains of 700 in March and 200 in February. But these companies’ workforces are still 15.48 percent smaller than their immediate pre-pandemic totals.

The U.S. economy is clearly in a period of growth much slower than last year’s, and since there’s no shortage of actual and potential headwinds (e.g., the course of the Ukraine War, the Fed’s monetary tightening campaign, persistent lofty inflation, the likely absence of further fiscal stimulus), no one can reasonably rule out a recession that drags down manufacturing’s hiring with it. But until domestic industry’s job creation and production growth starts deteriorating dramatically and remains weak, today’s so-so employment figures look like a breather at worst – and not much of one at that.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: More Evidence that Pay Really is Worsening U.S. Inflation

Tags

ECI, Employment Cost Index, Federal Reserve, inflation, Labor Department, labor productivity, multifactor productivity, productivity, recession, wages, workers, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Back in February, I wrote that although U.S. workers’ hourly wages were rising more slowly than the standard measure of consumer prices (the Consumer Price Index, or CPI), and therefore on that basis couldn’t be blamed for the recent, historically high inflation, there was one reason to be worried about the last few years’ healthy pay hikes: Such pay was rising faster than worker productivity.

I explained that this trend inevitably fueled inflation because “when businesses are in situations where wages are rising but their operations are becoming more efficient at a faster rate, they can maintain and even increase profits without passing higher costs on to their customers. When productivity is rising more slowly than inflation, this option isn’t available – or not nearly as readily.”

And more important than my views on the subject, these concerns have been expressed by Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the U.S. central bank that has the federal government’s main inflation-fighting responsibilities.

So it’s discouraging to report that new government data on both pay and productivity have come out in the last two weeks, and they make clear that the pay-productivity gap has just been widening faster than ever.

The pay data come from the Labor Department’s latest Employment Cost Index (ECI), which tracks not only hourly wages but salaries and benefits, while the productivity figures come from Labor’s new release on labor productivity, which measures how much output a single worker turns out in a single hour. And conveniently, both releases take the story through the first quarter of this year.

The results? From the fourth quarter of last year through this year’s first quarter, total compensation for all private sector workers, the ECI increased by 1.42 percent, while labor productivity for non-farm businesses (the category most closely followed, and basically identical with the private sector) fell by 1.93 percent. That last number was labor productivity’s worst such performance since the third quarter of 1947. (As RealityChek regulars know, I focus on private sector workers because their pay levels largely reflect market forces, not politicians’ decisions, and consequently reveal more about the labor picture’s fundamentals.)  

The year-on-year statistics aren’t much better – if at all. Between the first quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year, the ECI for the private sector grew by 4.75 percent, but labor productivity dipped by 0.62 percent.

And since the U.S. economy began recovering from the first wave of the CCP Virus pandemic, during the third quarter of 2020, the private sector ECI is up by 6.61 percent, while labor productivity is down by 0.78 percent.

As also known by RealityChek readers, labor productivity isn’t the economy’s only measure of efficiency. Multifactor productivity is a broader, and therefore presumably more useful gauge. It’s not as easy to work with because its results only come out annually, and the latest only take the story up to the end of last year.

The picture is decidedly more encouraging – at least recently. From 2020-2021, multifactor productivity for non-farm businesses improved by 3.17 percent. But it still wasn’t good relatively speaking, since from the fourth quarter of 2020 through the fourth quarter of 2021, the private sector ECI increased by 4.38 percent.

Worse, from 2001 (when the Labor Department began the ECI) to last year, pay b that gauge was up 74 percent while non-farm business multifactor productivity had advanced by a mere 16.46 percent.  Therefore, clearly the recent pay and productivity numbers don’t simply stem from pandemic-related distortions of the economy. 

To repeat important points from last February’s post, the productivity lag doesn’t mean that U.S. workers overall don’t deserve nice-sized raises and better benefits, and it certainly doesn’t mean that they’re solely or largely to blame even for poor labor productivity growth. After all, managers are paid as handsomely as they are fundamentally to figure out how to make their employees more productive. Also, productivity is a barometer of economic performance that’s unusually difficult to determine precisely.

But the new figures do strengthen the case that labor costs bear significant responsibility for boosting inflation, and that a major fear surrounding overheated price increases – that inflation acquires powerful momentum as surging prices lead to big wage hike demands and vice versa, and create a spiralling effect that’s excuciatingly difficult to end without the Fed throwing the economy into recession. Just as depressingly, the new pay and productivity figures also strengthen the case that, unless the economy becomes a lot more productive very quickly, the sooner this harsh medicine is administered, the better for everyone in the long run.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A New Sign That Inflation Will Long Stay Lofty

Tags

consumer inflation, consumer price index, cost of living, CPI, Federal Reserve, inflation, Labor Department, monetary policy, PPI, Producer Price Index, recession, wholesale inflation, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Yesterday’s RealityChek post showed that the baseline effect was no longer a prime driving force behind the historically high consumer inflation rates with which Americans have struggled. That is, the new Labor Department data for the Consumer Price Index (CPI) revealed that unlike its monthly predecessors, the March annual inflation rate wasn’t so strong largely because prices were catching up from having risen so weakly the year before. Instead, because March, 2020-21 CPI was already getting pretty warm – because the U.S. economy had continued recovering (unevenly) from the deep spring, 2020 downturn – the March, 2021-22 inflation result made clear that worrisome price increases had acquired a momentum of their own.

This morning came both another sign that the baseline excuse for high inflation has run its course, and that rapid price increases could well continue for many more months – the Labor Department’s March inflation report for wholesale prices. As opposed to the CPI, which measures what business charge consumers, the so-called Producer Price Index (PPI) gauges what businesses themselves pay for the goods and services they need in order to turn out whatever they sell to individuals and households.

And because the new PPI makes clear that the baseline excuse can no longer be used for such wholesale inflation either, it augurs more torrid consumer price hikes, too – since businesses naturally try to pass on their higher costs to their final customers, and often succeed. Moreover, if you look at the annual inflation increases for recent months, you see that the baseline effect for the PPI ended in February.

The table below presents in the left column the annual PPI increases for each month from January, 2021 through this March, and in the right column, the same numbers for the previous year 2019-2020. As with the Consumer Price Index, the baseline year for the 2021-22 results is 2020-21.

Jan 2021:         1.60 percent            1.97 percent

Feb 2021:        2.96 percent            1.11 percent

March 2021:   4.15 percent            0.34 percent

April 2021:     6.51 percent           -1.52 percent

May 2021:      6.99 percent           -1.10 percent

June 2021:      7.56 percent            -0.68 percent

July 2021:       7.96 percent            -0.25 percent

Aug 2021:       8.65 percent            -0.25 percent

Sept 2021:       8.78 percent             0.34 percent

Oct 2021:        8.87 percent             0.59 percent

Nov 2021:       9.88 percent             0.85 percent

Dec 2021:       9.99 percent             0.84 percent

Jan 2022:      10.08 percent             1.60 percent

Feb 2022:     10.27 percent             2.96 percent

March 2022: 11.18 percent             4.15 percent

As the table indicates, the baseline effect for producer prices began earlier than that for consumer prices, was more dramatic, and lasted longer. Between January and August, 2020, such inflation plummeted from 1.97 percent to -0.25 percent. And yes, you read that last number right. Inflation became outright deflation, and producer prices actually fell on year for five straight months. The last time anything close to this happened was “never” (though, to be fair, the data for this measure of PPI, which is called final demand for both goods and servies, only go back to 2009).

So this dramatic descent into deflation deserves much of the blame for the surge in annual wholesale price inflation between January and August, 2021 – from 1.60 percent to 8.95 percent.

Moreover, 2019-20 annual PPI increases stayed below one percent through December. In January, 2021, the annual rate nearly doubled, to 1.60 percent – signaling that the baseline effect was ending. And its final (for now) demise came the following month, when it jumped to 2.96 percent. Yet during February, 2022, yearly wholesale inflation soared past ten percent. So these price increases obviously entailed much more than a return to normal from unusually low 2020-21 inflation (including those falling prices for nearly half the year). And the more so for this March, since its baseline comparison figure was a whopping 4.15 percent.

These PPI trends and the prolonged high consumer inflation they portend only sharpen the dilemma faced by the Federal Reserve – the only part of the federal government able to act relatively quickly to bring price increases under control. If it tightens monetary policy too dramatically, it could slow economic growth equally dramatically and even bring on a recession. If the central bank is too hesitant, it could still slow growth but leave inflation unacceptably high – a condition called “stagflation.” 

That is, there’s a real prospect that the economy could enter a state it last experienced during the era of disco, streaking, and shag haircuts. But as those of us who lived through it know, economically speaking, this “Seventies Show” was no comedy.        

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why Inflation Now Looks More Confounding Than Ever

Tags

baseline effect, Commerce Department, consumer price index, CPI, Federal Reserve, global financial crisis, inflation, Labor Department, monetary policy, moral hazard, PCE, personal consumption expenditures index, recession, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Thanks to the Ukraine War, the challenge of figuring out whether and exactly how greatly inflation-prone the U.S. economy has become – and therefore what to do about it – has become more complicated than ever. In fact, it might have become impossible, at least for the foreseeable future. And the latest evidence comes from the most recent official report on the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of price changes – the price indexes for personal consumption expenditures (PCE) put out by the Commerce Department.

This quandary matters decisively because the main conflicting views of today’s inflation support two equally conflicting policy responses by Congress and the administration, but mainly by the Fed — which has the authority to put anti-inflation measures into effect faster than the rest of the federal government.

Simply put, let’s suppose that current, and multi-decade record, inflation mainly stems from government policies that injected too much money into the economy, through massive spending, rock-bottom interest rates, or some combination of the two. Then the remedy is starting to “tighten” such policies by raising interest rates further and selling the bonds bought by the Fed through its quantitative easing program, or by cutting federal spending, or some combination of all these. Strengthening this case is the magnitude of this policy support for the economy – which ballooned due to the emergency created by the CCP Virus pandemic that finally seems on the wane for good.

But if today’s inflation stems mainly from one-time shocks to the economy that by definition don’t have staying power (which is why for quite a while, the Fed was calling elevated inflation “transitory”), then such tightening moves either could have little effect whatever on prices, and/or backfire by dramatically slowing growth and even causing a recession.

To date, that’s been my interpretation, with the main one-time shock being the pandemic. First the virus produced abnormally low inflation readings when its spread and the lockdowns and behavioral changes that resulted crashed the economy briefly. The rapid recovery that followed wound up producing abnormally high inflation readings as economic activity – choppily – returned to quasi-normal (the “baseline effect” I keep writing about).

Moreover, that stop-start nature of the recovery – which stemmed from the fluctuations in CCP Virus waves and consequent mandates and business curbs – fouled up global supply chains that led to widespread shortages, and therefore pushed up prices, as companies struggled to figure out future demand for the goods and services they supplied.

Last month, I wrote that the baseline effect seemed to be disappearing for the Labor Department’s inflation measure — the Consumer Price Index, or CPI), and a few weeks later, predicted that it fading for the overall PCE in March and for core PCE in April.

But of course, since then have come more outside shocks – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the unexpectedly long conflict that’s followed, and the sanctions- and war-related disruptions in global supplies of fossil fuels and grain from both countries. All these closely related developments are certain to send prices to yet another level, and the effects will be felt throughout the entire economy, since more expensive fuels affect any business that transports its products or uses oil or gas to power its operations. As a result, the distinction drawn by both inflation measures between overall inflation rates and “core” inflation rates (which leave out food and energy prices because they’re so vulnerable to outside shocks) will become inceasingly academic.

So where do the new PCE data fit in? In brief, they show that, only a monthly basis, overall inflation hit 0.6 percent in February, and core inflation came in at 0.4 percent. The former monthly inflation rate hasn’t risen since October, and January’s initially reported 0.6 percent result has been revised down to 0.5 percent. The latter figure, meanwhile, was the lowest since September. So no speed-up in inflation is apparent from these statistics.

The annual figures are where the acceleration can be seen. February’s year-on-year PCE inflation rate of 6.4 percent – the fastest rate since 1982, and a meaningful increase over January’s six percent. In fact, overall annual PCE inflation pierced the Fed’s two percent target last March and have risen every single month since.  Core PCE has followed an almost identical pattern, though at slightly lower absolute levels.

Yet as explained previously, both surging annual PCE inflation rates have much to do with the price increases of 2019-2020 that were pushed down so low by the virus’ arrival that they took more than a year to recover even as the economy bounced back (unevenly, to be sure).

Specifically, in February, 2021, the annual overall PCE inflation rate was only 1.6 percent, and the annual core rate was only 1.5 percent.

As mentioned above, the return of annual inflation rates above the Fed target – in March, 2021 for overall PCE and April for the core – meant that this baseline effect looked set to end soon. But the Ukraine war has upset these calculations.

As a result, the big question facing the Fed now is whether inflation – whatever its causes – has become so high, and could last so long, that it needs to be reduced significantly even at the risk of triggering recession. That seems to be the central bank’s stance right now, but color me skeptical. After all, slowing growth to a near-halt during an election year would look like an awfully political move, and one I have difficulty believing would be taken by an institution that touts itself as resolutely non-political.

BTW, as if all this wasn’t bewildering enough, there’s a school of thought that supports major Fed tightening even if recession does result – and has supported it for many years. It holds that the super-low interest rates of recent decades have dangerously distorted the economy and indeed sapped its productivity by creating “moral hazard” – incentivizing foolish and indeed wasteful investments by reducing the costs of failure, and leaving less capital over for spending that fosters greater efficiency and technological progress.

I’ve long found these arguments compelling, especially since the global financial crisis of 2007-09 made the dangers of such moral hazard clear. But there’s no sign of concern about this problem anywhere in Washington. The focus there is — somehow — coping with inflation. The next statistics will be out on Tuesday, and the only certainty is that they won’t make the task look any easier.         

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Pro-Immigration Labor Shortage Claims Keep Going Up as Real Wages Keep Going Down

Tags

compensation, Employment Cost Index, immigrants, Immigration, inflation, inflation-adjusted wages, Labor Department, labor shortage, productivity, wages, Washington Post, workers, {What's Left of) Our Economy

It’s as if the Open Borders Lobby – both its conservative and liberal wings – has recently decided that it’s really had enough of labor market tightness that’s due to reduced immigration, and that’s also giving so many of America’s workers a long-needed pay raise. So it’s been re-upping the pressure to open the floodgates once again and solve this terrible problem. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.)

As is so often the case, the Open Borders-happy Washington Post editorial board has made the case most succinctly: “[C]ompanies are frantically trying to hire enough workers to keep up with the surge in demand for everything from waffle irons to cars. The nation has more than 11 million job openings and 6 million unemployed.

“This imbalance is giving workers and job seekers tremendous power. Pay is rising at the fastest pace in years….”

Yet this claim is not only profoundly anti-American worker. It’s completely false – at least if you look at the only measures of pay that reveal anything about whether employees are getting ahead or not. And they’re of course the compensation measures adjusted for inflation.

What do they show? Between 2020 and 2021, inflation-adjusted hourly pay for all U.S. workers in the private sector were down by 2.10 percent and for blue-collar workers by 1.52 percent. (As known by RealityChek regulars, the U.S. Labor Department that tracks pay trends for the federal government doesn’t monitor any type of compensation for public sector workers because their wages and salaries and benefits are determined largely by politicians’ decisions, not the forces of supply and demand. As a result, they’re thought to say little about the labor market’s true strengths or weaknesses.)

Do you know when such wages have fallen by that much? Try “never” for the entire workforce (where the Labor Department data go back to 2006), and for blue collar workers, several times during the 1970s, which were a terrible time for the economy overall. (For this group, the official numbers go back to 1964).

But haven’t better benefits compensated? Two Labor Department data sets do measure changes in all forms of compensation. The best known, and the one most closely followed by the Federal Reserve and leading economists everywhere, is the Employment Cost Index (ECI). It covers state and local government (though not federal) employees as well as private sector workers. But there’s no evidence of any inflation-adjusted gains for the nation’s workforce – much less outsized gains – from these statistics either.

From the fourth quarter of 2020 to the fourth quarter of 2021, this index did increase by 4.37 percent for all covered workers (breakouts for white- and blue-collar employees only go up to 2006). Yet during this period, the Labor Department’s inflation measure, the Consumer Price Index, was up 7.42 percent. That’s called “falling behind” in my book.

When business (and government on the state and local levels) starts offering pay that’s rising higher than the inflation rate, then Americans as a whole can start worrying about genuine labor shortages. (And even then, as I’ve written, it would be much better for the economy as a whole if companies responded by boosting their productivity, rather than by agitating for more mass immigation with the aim of driving wages down and of course dodging any incentives to operate more efficiently.) For now, though, it’s obvious that what U.S. business is “frantic” about (to use the Post‘s term) isn’t a shortage of workers. It’s a shortage of cheap workers.