(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Real Wage Growth Keeps Disappointing

Tags

inflation, inflation-adjusted wages, Labor Department, manufacturing, private sector, real wages, recovery, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The economics world is becoming ever more puzzled by the sluggishness with which American wages have been rising during the current economic recovery despite very low rates of official unemployment. Judging by the new June inflation-adjusted wage figures released today by the Labor Department, all the usual suspects are going to be wondering about wages lag for some time to come.

The new data left unrevised both the finalized (for now), April figures, and the still preliminary May results.

For the former, constant dollar wages were flat month-to-month and up 0.28 percent year-on-year, and for the latter, they increased by 0.28 percent on month and 0.56 percent on year.

The June numbers? In the same neighborhood, with a monthly advance of 0.19 percent and a yearly improvement of 0.84 percent. For some context, real private sector wages increased nearly twice as fast between the previous Junes – by 1.62 percent.

Manufacturing, once the economy’s wages leader, kept its recent laggard status. Its (now final) April and (still preliminary) May results were unrevised, too – which in this case contained some good news. The former monthly increase of 0.55 percent, the best since August, 2015’s 0.66 percent, stayed intact. So did the annual increase – which was identical. At the same time, May’s 0.28 percent monthly decline is still on the books, too, as was the year-on-year change – which was zero.

As with after-inflation wages in the private sector overall, after-inflation manufacturing wages performed slightly better in June. They inched up by 0.09 percent on month and rose 0.37 percent on year. But the latest annual increase was much slower than that between June, 2015 and June, 2016 – 1.32 percent.

And nothing makes clearer the long-time stagnation of overall private sector and manufacturing wages than seeing their inflation-adjusted change during the economic recovery – which marked its eighth birthday last month. For the private sector, they’re up a total of 4.46 percent. For the manufacturing sector, the rate has been less than a third as fast – 1.32 percent. Which raises the question, “What comes first: the end of the recovery or the end of wage stagnation?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Rising Fed Rates Amid Slowing Real Wages?

Tags

Federal Open Market Committee, Federal Reserve, inflation-adjusted wages, interest rates, Labor Department, manufacturing, private sector, recovery, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although it’s usually hard to muster much sympathy for the governors of the Federal Reserve, today might be an exception.

On the one hand, this afternoon their Open Market Committee is scheduled to announce its latest decision on interest rates, and it’s given many indications that it’s going to again make the cost of borrowing a little more expensive. That probably means, all else equal, that economic activity in the United States (including growth and hiring) will slow down, at least in the short term.

On the other hand, the U.S. government reported a slew of economic data this morning indicating that the economy is getting weaker – which would make at least the timing of even a modest rate hike awkward. Among them were inflation-adjusted wage figures (for May) that once more reveal a significant slowdown in American workers’ real take-home pay.

For the private sector overall (the Labor Department, which calculates these figures, doesn’t report inflation-adjusted wages for public sector workers, because their government-set pay tells us little about the state of the economy), the news wasn’t bad at all on a month-to-month basis. Constant-dollar wages rose 0.28 percent from their April levels – after having gone exactly nowhere the month before.

But the year-on-year results – which smooth out inevitable random-ish monthly fluctuations – were again nothing less than discouraging. From last May until this May, this price-adjusted pay increased by just 0.56 percent. That was indeed their strongest annual improvement since last December’s 0.75 percent. But it was much less than half the after-inflation pay advance between the previous Mays (1.42 percent), much less that of May, 2014-May, 2015 (2.33 percent).

So largely as a result, during the current economic recovery – which is nearly eight years old – real private sector wages are up only 4.26 percent.

But according to the Labor Department, private workers overall have been enjoying salad days compared with manufacturing workers. The latter’s real wages fell on month in May by 0.28 percent. It’s true that this decline followed an upwardly revised 0.55 percent sequential April increase that was the sector’s best since August, 2015’s 0.66 percent. But the May monthly decline was the sector’s worst since last November’s 0.64 percent slide.

Manufacturing’s year-on-year real wage results are scarcely better. In May, they flat-lined — their worst such performance since September, 2014’s 0.29 percent annual dip. The two previous May annual real wage increases”? Between 2015 and 2016, 2.45 percent, and between 2014 and 2015, 1.53 percent.

And during the nearly eight years since the economy began growing once again, real manufacturing wages are up 1.31 percent.

These glum wage data notwithstanding, there still could be good reasons for the Fed to announce another rate hike today. As RealityChek readers know, it’s entirely possible that recent years of stimulus from the central bank has mainly stolen potential growth from the future by promoting artificial growth. Similarly, as the Fed itself has acknowledged lately, monetary policies that have made credit so cheap – and indeed, practically free for blue-chip borrowers – for so long can encourage the kind of crackpot investing and financial instability that could trigger another global crisis.

If the Fed emphasizes these concerns in its (usually brief) statement accompanying the interest rate announcement, or in the more detailed Open Market Committee meeting minutes it publishes later, it will deserve the nation’s gratitude for straight talk – however overdue it might be. If, however, the central bank insists that it’s raising rates mainly because the economy is looking encouraging, it will be increasingly deserve the label of mindless cheerleader.  

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Productivity Remains in the Doldrums

Tags

China, Labor Department, labor productivity, living standards, manufacturing, multi-factor productivity, offshoring, productivity, reshoring, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The Labor Department reported earlier this week that America’s labor productivity flat-lined at an annual rate between the last quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year. And relatively speaking, that was good news. The initial study of this measure of economic efficiency – and key determinant of the nation’s living standards – estimated that business labor productivity in the non-farm business sector (the government’s main proxy for the entire economy) fell at an annualized 0.6 percent.

Labor productivity, you may recall, is the narrowest of two measures of productivity. It gauges how much in the way of stuff or services Americans produce per hour of work from each worker. So the resulting picture isn’t as complete as that provided by multi-factor productivity – which as the name suggests looks at production per man or woman hour generated by many different inputs. But the labor numbers come out on a much timelier basis (each quarter), and for all the unusual amount of uncertainty that economists admit when they analyze productivity, they’re viewed as being reasonably reliable.

One small consolation, especially if you value manufacturing highly (as you should): Industry’s labor productivity not only grew quarter-to-quarter during the first three months of 2017 (by 0.50 percent annualized). It grew faster than the original estimate of 0.40 percent.

Manufacturing’s role as the economy’s productivity leader is also crystal clear upon reviewing the longer-term trends. During the 1990s expansion (as known by RealityChek regulars, comparing similar phases of the business cycle produces the most informative data), non-farm business labor productivity increased by 23.25 percent, while manufacturing labor productivity improved by 46.18 percent.

That recovery was America’s longest on record – just under ten years. The next expansion, during the bubble decade that preceded the financial crisis, lasted only six years. Non-farm business labor productivity rose by about the same annual pace as during the 1990s – 16.03 percent. But manufacturing labor productivity grew even faster year-by-year, advancing by 41.22 percent during the entire period.

The story is as different during this recovery as it is depressing. Although it’s so far been nearly as long as the 1990s recovery (having started nine years ago), the improvement in non-farm business labor productivity has been just 8.05 percent overall. For manufacturing, it’s been much higher – 21.55 percent – but relatively speaking, it’s a big fall-off.

Incidentally, undoubtedly one big reason for manufacturing’s excellent productivity performance during that bubble decade has to do with production offshoring. As I’ve written repeatedly, the way labor productivity is calculated results in productivity gains being recorded when businesses send jobs overseas, as well as when they use other techniques for saving labor or using their employees more effectively. And because the United States helped China enter the World Trade Organization at the start of that decade, and thus assured multinational companies that they’d remain overwhelmingly free to supply the American market from Chinese factories, that bubble decade was a major manufacturing offshoring decade.

The fall in productivity growth could indicate that, as widely claimed, manufacturing offshoring has dropped off significantly. But the evidence is mixed at best. What’s much more apparent is that, if Americans want their country’s productivity performance to rebound, they’ll press their leaders to make robust growth in domestic manufacturing a much higher priority.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: JOLTS of Confusing News About the U.S. Jobs Market

Tags

government jobs, job openings, JOLTS, Labor Department, labor shortage, living standards, manufacturing, private sector, productivity, recovery, retail, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Since the U.S. economy has settled at its current level of near-full employment (at least by the official figures), the monthly JOLTS reports issued by the Labor Department have been attracting much less attention – including from me! After all, with so many Americans working, it’s been less important (though not totally unimportant) to learn about one of the key findings in each such survey of labor market turnover – how many new job opportunities business and government say they’ve been creating. 

So it’s not surprising that today’s JOLTS report (for April) hasn’t had much impact on the financial markets this morning. But it still contained more than its share of noteworthy results that reinforce what we think we already know about the economy’s current biggest problems, and that raise major questions about other portions of the conventional wisdom.

The overall job openings number, for example, was quite the stunner: At 6.044 million, it was an all-time high in absolute terms. (The JOLTS series dates from December, 2000.) And the 4.48 percent increase over May’s 5.785 million level represented the biggest monthly jump since last July’s 7.91 percent.

Openings in the private sector hit a new record in April, too (5.464 million). And that 4.20 percent monthly rise was the great sequential increase since last July (8.46 percent).

But as RealityChek regulars know, the economy’s growth has been sluggish even by the meager standards of the current economic recovery. In the first quarter of this year, real growth came in at a paltry 1.15 percent annual rate. So the JOLTS figures indicate that employers feel they need record numbers of new employees even though as a group their output is historically lousy.

That adds up to more evidence that American business boosting its productivity only sluggishly at best – which is awful news given that productivity growth is the nation’s best hope for improving living standards in a sustainable, not bubble-ized, way. And as I’ll be reporting on shortly, the latest government labor productivity numbers once more confirm that the economy is stuck in a productivity crisis.

Yet these JOLTS results carry more complicated implications for another broadly accepted feature of the American economy. They support the idea that U.S. businesses are struggling to overcome almost unprecedented labor shortages. How else to explain the enormous number of reported job openings? But companies that desperate to find workers should be raising wages at rapid and indeed accelerating rates. Everything that we know about hourly pay, though, tells us that nothing of the kind is happening. If anything, wage growth, which has underwhelmed throughout the current recovery, is showing signs of slowing.

One other new record revealed by today’s JOLTS report – total government job openings (540,000) have never been higher except in April, 2010, when the call went out for temporary Census workers. Even more interesting, most of the openings were in state and local governments outside the schools.

Also somewhat surprising: The “retail-pocalypse” so commonly bemoaned or hailed (depending on your viewpoint) is nowhere to be seen in this JOLTS report. Sure, retail job openings fell between March and April from 593,000 to 577,000. Moreover, that’s the lowest level since December, 2015, and the numbers now are generally, though unevenly, trending down. But for the first more than seven years of this nearly eight-year old recovery, they were trending solidly up. With overall economic growth down and consumers still cautious, the reported retail openings numbers are far from screaming “disaster!” – or even “serious trouble!”

Finally, although manufacturing output has been modestly recovering lately from its most recent recession, its job openings fell from 404,000 in March (the second highest record and best since January, 2001’a 496,000) to 359,000 in April. Still, the decline followed a major increase in March (from 364,000), and the manufacturing numbers have been pretty volatile for more than two years.

Maybe the safest conclusion to draw from the JOLTS numbers is that, for now, the economy is heading for more of the same. Whether that’s the safest result for incumbent American politicians is another matter entirely.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing Productivity Growth is Not Only Weak, but Low Quality

Tags

inflation-adjusted growth, Labor Department, labor productivity, manufacturing, multi-factor productivity, offshoring, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Granted, the Labor Department’s latest detailed data on American manufacturing productivity isn’t as exciting as the news about President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey. But if you attach any importance to the future of the U.S. Economy, you need to pay attention. For these figures simply trash the standard claims that American manufacturing is in great shape except for its workforce, which is steadily being replaced by labor-saving technologies and brilliant management innovations.

We already know that manufacturing productivity has slowed to a crawl in recent years. That’s been true both on the labor productivity front (the data that comes out on the timeliest basis, which measures output per hour worked) and on the multi-factor productivity front (the figures that take longer to calculate, and that measure how much output results from a broad range of inputs). What the new statistics reveal is that its sluggishness may not be the most worrisome aspect of manufacturing’s labor productivity lately. For the quality of that productivity growth has been very low quality, too.

By high quality labor (or multi-factor) productivity growth, I mean better efficiency that’s accompanied by more output. That’s the kind of productivity growth that the conventional wisdom apparently assumes domestic manufacturing has been generating. Low quality productivity growth means that better efficiency is taking place while output is shrinking. When we’re talking about low quality labor productivity growth, we’re talking about industries that are getting less efficient while turning out fewer goods. And that description applies to exactly half of the categories used to classify American manufacturing at the most detailed level that’s commonly used by the government.

The new Labor Department report tracked labor productivity, output, and a variety of related performance indicators for 86 manufacturing sectors. Exactly 16 managed to boost both their labor productivity and inflation-adjusted output in 2016. One sector grew in real terms with no improvement in labor productivity (motor vehicle bodies and trailers). But fully half – 43 – recorded falling productivity and falling output. The rest were judged to have either become less productive while growing after inflation, or more productive while contracting in real terms.

Moreover, as was the case the previous year, the lists of winners and losers aren’t what you’d expect. In the former (higher productivity and price-adjusted growth) we see for example fabric mill products; saw mill products; petroleum and coal products; lime and gypsum products; iron and steel mill products; miscellaneous non-ferrous metals; and paints, coatings, and adhesives. Rightly or wrongly, few would make many rosters of “industries of the future.”

Other high quality labor productivity industries appear less surprising – like computers and parts, plastics resins, and agricultural chemicals (the best performer when you add up productivity and output growth). But can you really imagine an American president rewarding any company in the latter category with a factory visit?

The list of low quality labor productivity industries is at least as surprising. It includes pharmaceuticals and medicines, metal working machinery (which contains machine tools and related products), turbines and power generation equipment, motor vehicles (the sector whose growth has led the manufacturing comeback for most of the current economic recovery), semiconductors and electronic components, and aerospace products. The worst performer on a combined basis was audio and video equipment.

Overall, only 27 of the 86 manufacturing sectors surveyed improved their labor productivity last year, whether they expanded output or not. Fifty nine suffered labor productivity declines and, again, labor productivity among motor vehicle body and trailer makers flat-lined.

A final point: Never forget that, if anything, these bleak results are probably overstating American manufacturing’s productivity performance. For the Labor Department states that the offshoring of manufacturing production has boosted industry’s labor productivity figures by more than 20 percent annually between 1997 and 2006. (Here’s a layman’s explanation.) Apparently, the Department hasn’t examined the situation for later years, but it’s tough to avoid concluding that, if the nation is serious about solving its manufacturing productivity problem, ending the longstanding offshoring focus of U.S. trade policy would be a great place to start.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Has Subsidized Private Sector Hiring Peaked (Relatively Speaking)?

Tags

CNN.com, Employment, healthcare services, Jobs, Labor Department, non-farm jobs, private sector, real private sector, recession, recovery, subsidized private sector, The New York Times, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The Snob’s Manual tells us (often correctly) that you know when the stock market’s peaked when the retail investor rushes in, and that you know when a fad is passe when the mainstream media report it. Could the same maxim be on target for economic trends, like the outsized role played by the U.S. subsidized private sector in job creation during the recovery? I’m not sure yet, but the last few sets of monthly American employment data (including last Friday’s April figures) are certainly food for thought.

As RealityChek regulars know, I’ve been spotlighting this trend since well before RealityChek was born. And it was great to see the theme picked up last month by a major reporter who covers the healthcare sector (the core of that part of the economy dubbed private sector but in fact heavily dependent on government spending). Since then, healthcare hiring’s unusual recent robustness has been covered by The New York Times and CNN.com.

Here’s the rub: So far this year, subsidized private sector job creation has become less important in the overall employment picture, not more. The March and April statistics are still preliminary, but since January, the pace of subsidized private sector hiring has ranged between 7.87 percent of total monthly job creation (in January) to 29.31 percent (in February). The April figure was right in the middle: 19.43 percent.

The subsidized private sector’s waning momentum – at least relatively speaking – comes through more clearly when the first four months of this year are compared with their last few counterparts. From January through April, 2017, subsidized private sector net new job creation (which also includes social assistance agencies and the for-profit education sector) represented 18.43 percent of the non-farm total (the Labor Department’s definition of the American employment universe.

That share is considerably higher than the figure for the first two months of 2013 and 2014 (14.56 percent and 12.53 percent, respectively). But it’s also considerably lower than the 27.68 percent for 2015 and the 23.87 percent for the same time span in 2016. In addition, these numbers show that the subsidized private sector’s importance has not fallen for two straight years.

That’s not to say that the subsidized private sector isn’t still punching above its weight. Its 19.43 percent of net new job creation was still greater than its share of total employment on a standstill basis (15.75 percent). It’s also still higher than the share at the mid-2009 onset of the current recovery (14.97 percent). And it’s much higher than the share at the start of the last recession at the end of 2007 (13.22 percent). But there’s no doubt that this year it’s not punching quite as hard.

The flip side of the equation tells a similar, but not identical, story. The “real private sector” – where job creation is determined largely by market forces, not government decisions – stood at 68.95 percent of total non-farm jobs last month. That’s actually a little higher than its share at the start of the recovery (67.80 percent). But it’s also still a little lower than its share at the start of the last recession – more than nine years ago (70.62 percent).

There’s still a long way to go in figuring out whether these early 2017 results will hold up even through the end of this year, much less whether they represent hiring that’s peaking (again, relatively speaking) in the subsidized private sector. And of course a huge question mark is hanging over this entire chunk of the economy in the form of the healthcare debate. But the real implications are unchanged. Although subsidized private sector jobs serve many valuable purposes, the more the economy leans on them to generate employment and incomes, the less dynamic and productive the nation is bound to be.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New Evidence of a Crossroads for the U.S. Jobs Market

Tags

benefits, compensation, Employment Cost Index, Federal Reserve, inflation, Labor Department, labor market, labor unions, private sector, recovery, salaries, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

If you’re one of the American workers who’s been happy with the current economic recovery, you might have already seen peak pay gains. If you haven’t been satisfied, get ready for greater disappointment. And whatever category you fall into, you’d better hope that new U.S. government data on overall compensation paid by American employers is just a blip. Ditto that for the Federal Reserve, which is set to announce its latest decision on interest rates later today, and which seems convinced that the American labor market is healthy enough to withstand a series of hikes back toward historically normal levels.

Last week, the Labor Department issued its latest quarterly report on how much business shells out in terms of both wages, salaries, and benefits. The results in the main release looked pretty good, but they’re not adjusted for inflation – which means that they don’t tell the full story about whether or not compensation is keeping up with the cost of living. Luckily, Labor released the inflation-adjusted figures, too, and they make clear that whatever real compensation progress workers might have been recently been making could be in danger.

According to these constant-dollar Employment Cost Index (ECI) figures, real pay for all private sector workers was flat year-on-year for the quarter ending in March. (I don’t usually examine pay data that include government workers because their compensation is set overwhelmingly by political decisions, not market forces, and therefore don’t say much about the underlying strength of the labor market or the broader economy.)

That annual result was the worst since the quarter ending in June, 2014 – when after-inflation compensation also flatlined on an annual basis. By comparison, the real ECI between that first quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016 rose by 0.97 percent.

Looked at quarter-to-quarter, the real ECI for private sector workers fell by 0.10 percent. The previous sequential change was a 0.29 percent improvement. Indeed, the latest numbers broke a two-quarter string of gains.

From a longer-range perspective, however, the current recovery still stacks up pretty well for private sector workers (although the data only go back to mid-2001). Since it began, in mid-2009, their total compensation is up by 3.60 percent. During the previous (shorter) expansion – which ran from late 2001 through late 2007, total inflation-adjusted compensation rose by only 2.36 percent.

The new real ECI results reveal similar trends for American manufacturing workers. The first quarter’s year-on-year 0.20 percent drop was the worst such result since an identical decrease in the final quarter of 2012. And the previous first quarter annual change was a 1.49 percent rise.

Sequentially, real manufacturing compensation also fell during the first quarter – by 0.29 percent. And as with overall private sector compensation, that was the first such decline in three quarters.

Interestingly, in terms of real total compensation, the current recovery has been a winner for manufacturing workers to an even greater extent than for all private sector workers. Combined constant dollar employer costs for wages, salaries, and benefits have risen by 4.72 percent – compared with a 1.99 percent advance during the previous recovery. (RealityChek regulars will note that these results contrast strikingly with those for wages alone, where manufacturing has been a major laggard. One reason is surely manufacturing’s relatively high unionization rate – which typically results in better benefits won and kept.)

If the Federal Reserve decides today to raise the federal funds rate it controls directly, or even if it simply stays determined to remains on a tightening path, it would signal its confidence that the American labor market remains on the mend following devastating losses during the last recession. Any doubts the central bank voices about its current strategy might indicate that it’s genuinely worried about the new ECI statistics – and that U.S. workers should be, too.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Real U.S. Private Sector’s Employment Role Keeps Shrinking and Shrinking

Tags

Bill Clinton, Employment, George W. Bush, healthcare services, Jobs, Labor Department, non-farm jobs, Obama, private sector, recoveries, subsidized private sector, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Because the latest monthly U.S. jobs figures that were released last Friday incorporated revisions going back to last March, our picture is clearer than ever of how dependent former President Obama’s job-creation record was on employment gains in what I call the economy’s subsidized private sector. Those are industries, notably healthcare service, where levels of demand (and therefore employment) are heavily reliant on government subsidies (and therefore politicians’ decisions) instead of on market forces.*

And unless you believe that government or parts of the economy it largely underwrites should be America’s job-creation leaders – which you shouldn’t – you’ll recognize that the more prominent that subsidized private sector is in the nation’s employment picture, the weaker the job market’s dynamics, and the U.S. economy’s genuine strength.

The verdict? These subsidized industries played a large, growing role in U.S. employment gains achieved during the economic expansion that began in June of Mr. Obama’s first year in office. At the same time, although the economy under Mr. Obama performed much better in this crucial respect than under his predecessor, George W. Bush, it fell short of the job-creation pattern under Mr. Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton.

The easiest way to show these trends is to focus on the share of total non-farm employment (the American jobs universe according to the U.S. Department of Labor, which officially tallies these numbers) accounted for by the subsidized private sector on a stand-still basis and the share of total job gains it represents. That methodology also yields the data on how employment in what might be called the “real private sector” is faring. And here are the numbers for the last administration:

 
Non-farm job change: +14.534m Percentage change: +11.09

Private sector job change: +14.833m Percentage change: +13.68

Subsidized private sector job change: +3.276m Percentage change: +16.70

Real private sector job change +11.557m Percentage change: +13.01

 

The following numbers show how strongly the subsidized private sector has influenced overall job creation under Mr. Obama:

 
Share of total non-farm job gains: 22.54 percent

Share of conventionally defined private sector job gains: 22.09 percent

 
As a result, the real private sector accounted for 80.51 percent of total non-farm job gains – a high but much smaller share than that resulting from failing to strip out the subsidized jobs (102.06 percent – the discrepancy comes from the absolute reduction in government jobs under President Obama).

Moreover, the subsidized private sector’s importance grew impressively during the Obama years. Between 2015 and 2016, it produced 24.44 percent of all non-farm jobs generated and 26.68 percent of all the employment improvement in the private sector as conventionally defined.

Nevertheless, if the subsidized private sector’s employment role grew robustly under President Obama, it positively skyrocketed during the Bush recovery of the 2000s compared with the rest of the economy. Let’s start by examining the job increases in the relevant major sectors of the economy from the end of 2001 to the end of 2007 – an expansion much shorter than that which began under President Obama:

 
Non-farm job change: +7.139m Percentage change +5.45

Private sector job change: +6.388m Percentage change +5.83

Subsidized private sector job change: +2.827m Percentage change +17.56

Real private sector job change +4.191m Percentage change +4.48

 
The contrast with the Obama years is even more striking when you specify the percent of jobs created for which the subsidized private sector was responsible. In the most important measures, both numbers are roughly twice as high:
Share of total non-farm job gains: 39.60 percent

Share of conventionally defined private sector job gains: 44.25 percent
As a result, the real private sector accounted for just 58.71 percent of total non-farm job gains under former President Bush – way smaller than the share than that resulting from failing to strip out the subsidized jobs (89.48 percent).

But the data leave little doubt that the best recent job-creation performance of recent presidents was turned in by Bill Clinton – with one caveat. Here are the figures for the economic expansion that began in April, 1991 (several months before his first inauguration) and February, 2001 (a month after he left office).

 

Non-farm job change: +24.412m Percentage change +22.53

Private sector job change: +21.991m Percentage change +24.47

Subsidized private sector job change: +4.109m Percentage change +35.84

Real private sector job change +17.882m Percentage change +22.80

 

In terms of the employment-generation role played by the subsidized private sector, here’s what these numbers show for the Clinton expansion:

 
Share of total non-farm job gains: 16.83 percent

Share of conventionally defined private sector job gains: 18.68 percent

 

The one blemish in the Clinton record is the very strong relative growth shown by the subsidized private sector both in absolute and percentage terms. Yet these developments didn’t move the overall job change numbers nearly as much as under Presidents Bush and Obama because they started from a considerably smaller base.

 
Finally, let’s examine how the subsidized and real private sectors’ share of total employment on a static basis has changed since the Clinton expansion began, with the beginning and end of that recovery and subsequent recoveries as our benchmarks:

 
Subsidized private sector as share of non-farm employment, start of Clinton recovery: 10.58 percent

Real private sector share: 72.36 percent

 

Subsidized private sector as share of non-farm employment, end of Clinton recovery: 11.73 percent

Real private sector share: 72.53 percent

 

Subsidized private sector as share of non-farm employment, start of Bush recovery: 12.29%

Real private sector share: 71.41 percent

 

Subsidized private sector as share of non-farm employment, end of Bush recovery: 13.67%

Real private sector share: 70.16 percent

 

Subsidized private sector as share of non-farm employment, start of Obama recovery: 14.97 percent

Real private sector share: 67.80 percent

 

Subsidized private sector as share of non-farm employment, latest Obama data: 15.73

Real private sector share: 68.97 percent

 
The best way to sum up these trends?  In my view, it’s realizing that, since the Clinton recovery began three and one half decades ago, the American economy has generated 37.188 million net new jobs. At that time, the subsidized private sector represented 10.58 percent of total employment.  Since then, it’s been responsible for 30.72 percent of the net new jobs created in the nation — punching way above its weight

The real private sector in April, 1991 accounted for 72.36 percent of the country’s total employment.  Since then, it’s produced 59.08 percent of net new jobs — punching well below its weight.  And finally, fully 52 percent of all the added employment created since April, 1991 that is officially classified as private sector has actually come in the subsidized private sector.

In other words, Presidents come and presidents go, and the economy expands and contracts. But for the last 35 or so years, the subsidized private sector has continued to grow in relative importance. Donald Trump is already considered to be the greatest disruptor in the presidency’s recent history. Is this trend, though, too powerful even for him to resist?

*As always, my definition of the subsidized private sector is not meant to be inclusive.  It simply includes three parts of the economy – healthcare services, the for-profit education sector, and social assistance agencies – that are broken out in the Labor Department data, and that therefore are easy to identify.  It should also encompass workers in sectors like defense-related manufacturing, but many of these are much more difficult to quantify.  

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New Wages Data Shed Light on Trump’s Rise

Tags

blue-collar workers, inflation-adjusted wages, Labor Department, manufacturing, recovery, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

January is becoming one of my favorite months, and for this winter-hater, it has absolutely nothing to do with the weather. Instead, it’s when we start getting at least preliminary economic data for the previous full-year, and the results can be eye-opening – as yesterday’s government figures on inflation-adjusted U.S. wages once again show. In fact, they do a great job of illustrating why the nation’s subpar economic performance contributed to Donald Trump’s rise to the presidency.

Not that they’re the only downbeat figures in this latest data set. But these are the numbers that in my view make the case most vividly:

>Accounting for inflation, wages for private sector workers in toto have gone exactly nowhere since March. (Government workers are left out of these statistics because their wages are determined overwhelmingly by politicians’ decisions, not economic fundamentals.)

>For production and non-supervisory workers, the story is even worse. After inflation, their wages have actually gone down since February – by 0.22 percent.

>Manufacturing workers as a whole have seen their inflation-adjusted wages drop since May – by 0.18 percent.

>Blue-collar manufacturing workers did a little better – their real wages have simply been flat since February.

Only a little less bleakly, the last two years have seen a major deceleration in price-adjusted wage growth. Here are the numbers for all private sector workers:

2014-15: +1.92 percent

2015-16: +0.85 percent

And the results for private sector production and non-supervisory workers:

2014-15: +2.24 percent

2015-16: +0.55 percent

The figures for all manufacturing workers”

2014-15: +1.90 percent

2015-16: +1.21 percent

And finally, for blue-collar manufacturing employees:

2014-15: +2.25 percent

2015-16: +0.81 percent

It’s true that even this dreary situation represents an improvement over the early years of the current recovery – when real wages generally were falling. But since economic growth resumed in America in mid-2009, real wages have barely budged. Here are the increases:

Overall private sector workers: +3.78 percent

Overall non-supervisory and production workers: +3.96 percent

Overall manufacturing workers: +1.21 percent

Overall manufacturing non-supervisory and production workers: +0.81 percent

Glass half-full types can say that at least workers to varying if small degrees have kept ahead of the cost of living. Glass half-empty types can point out that these gains have been stretched out over seven and a half years. No one should have great difficulty understanding why so many voters this year weren’t especially grateful.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: White House Fakeonomics on Tariffs and the Poorest Americans

Tags

China, consumer spending, Council of Economic Advisers, incomes, Jobs, Labor Department, NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama, offshoring, poverty, tariffs, Trade, White House, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

We’ve heard a lot lately about fake news. But President Obama’s outgoing Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) has just reminded us that at least as great a problem is fake policy analysis. For its new report emphasizing that tariffs are “an arbitrary and regressive tax” that hits low-income Americans especially hard glosses over and ignores completely the biggest trade-related income questions that any intellectually honest researcher would ask.

CEA argues that “tariffs – taxes on imported goods – likely impose a heavier burden on lower-income households, as these households generally spend more on traded goods as a share of expenditure/income and because of the higher level of tariffs placed on some key consumer goods.”

But here’s the main point it glosses over: The vast majority of spending by poorer Americans goes to goods and service that are lightly traded, at best. Indeed, the White House economists provide the first clues themselves. As they show (in the figure below), even though the tariff burden on after-tax income does rise as such income falls, the absolute levels are very low – a little over 1.50 percent of such income for the poorest 10 percent of households.

Figure 2 Tariff burden relative to after-tax income

And as the next figure reveals, when totally untraded mortgage, rent, and utilities are removed, both the tariff burden gap between the richest and poorest Americans, and the absolute tariff burden, shrink dramatically. The latter falls all the way down to less than 0.60 percent of the total income of the lowest 10 percent.

Figure 3 Tariff burden relative to expenditures excluding mortgage, rent, and utilities

Looking at what lower-income households actually spend explains these rock-bottom numbers. According to the same Labor Department consumption data set used by the CEA economists, households in the lowest decile on the American income scale are spending fully 42 percent of their income on housing (which is not at all traded internationally) and another 17 percent on food (which is mainly produced domestically). Another six-plus percent of these households’ economic intake goes to health care, five percent to education, and a bit over four percent to entertainment (also all wholly or largely un-traded).

Interestingly, another 14 percent of the lowest-income group’s expenditures goes to transportation. U.S. oil imports are (lightly) tariffed. But assuming most of the poorest Americans don’t own, lease, or rent their own vehicles, the impact on their finances is surely minimal.

Add these numbers up, and clearly America’s lowest-income consumers spend hardly anything on imported goods that are subject to tariffs.

Moreover, here’s what the CEA economists completely ignore: The last few decades’ worth of trade policies they implicitly endorse here have wreaked havoc on the employment – and therefore incomes – of many of these same lower-income households.

Just look at what’s happened to domestic payrolls in two industries that used to provide jobs for many Americans who have no doubt fallen way down the income ladder: furniture and apparel. According to Labor Department data, since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect in 1994 and ushered in the current era of U.S. trade policy, employment is down by more than a third in the former and by nearly 85 percent in the latter. Moreover, import- and offshoring-related job losses have been especially steep since China entered the World Trade Organization at the end of 2001 – as widely cited scholarship has emphasized.

As NAFTA also triggered a heated debate on trade policy in the United States, critics started printing up and handing out garments reading “My job went overseas and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.” Obviously, these are gifts that someone should have mailed the White House economists who suggest that tariffs have delivered the main trade-related hit to America’s poorest.