(What’s Left of) Our Economy:

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft parts, apparel, appliances, CCP Virus, chemicals, computer and electronics products, coronavirus, COVID 19, durable goods, electrical components, electrical equipment, fabricated metal products, Federal Reserve, furniture, inflation-adjusted output, machinery, manufacturing, medical devices, miscellaneous durable goods, miscellaneous nondurable goods, nondurable goods, nonmetallic mineral products, paper, petroleum and coal products, pharmaceuticals, plastics and rubber products, printing, real growth, recession, semiconductors, textiles, wood products, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Sharp-eyed RealityChek readers have no doubt noticed my habit of noting that “final” versions of official U.S. economic data are typically final only “for now.” That’s because Washington’s statistics gathering agencies, to their credit, look back regularly on several years’ worth of figures to see where updates are needed because new information has come in, and this morning, the Federal Reserve released its own such “benchmark” revision of its manufacturing production data.

The results don’t contain any earthshaking changes, but they do alter the picture of domestic industry’s inflation-adjusted growth during the pandemic period, as well as of the performance of specific sectors, in non-trivial ways.

The main bottom lines: First, the Fed previously estimated that U.S.-based manufacturers had increased their constant dollar production from February, 2020 (the month before the CCP Virus’ arrival in force began roiling the entire American economy) through last month, by 4.94 percent. Today, the Fed told us that the advance was just 4.12 percent.

Second, as a result, domestic industry has further to go in real terms to recover its all-time high than the central bank had judged. As of the last regular monthly industrial production increase, U.S.-based manufacturing was 2.41 percent smaller after inflation than in December, 2007 – still its peak. But the new figures show that these manufacturers are still three percent behind the after-inflation output eight-ball.

Third, and especially interesting given the recent, significant U.S. growth slowdown and distinct possibility of a recession before too long, the revisions add (though just slightly) to the evidence that the overall economy’s woes this year are indeed beginning to affect manufacturing. Before the revision, the Fed judged that real manufacturing output had expanded by 2.68 percent between last December and this May, and slipped by 0.07 percent between April and May. The new figures: 2.46 percent and -0.22 percent, respectively.

The virus-era downward revisions affected durable goods and nondurable goods industries alike. The previous price-adjusted growth figure for the former during the pandemic period was 6.31 percent. Now it’s pegged at 5.18 percent. For the latter, the downgrade was from 3.42 percent to 2.99 percent.

Before the revisions, of the twenty broadest sub-sectors of manufacturing tracked by the Fed, only five suffered inflation-adjusted production declines from immediate pre-pandemic-y February, 2020 through this May, and all were found in the nondurables super-category. They were miscellaneous non-durable goods (down 11.43 percent), textiles (down 3.80 percent), paper (2.33 percent), printing and related activities (1.89 percent), and petroleum and coal products (1.21 percent).

The new data show that the number of growth losers has expanded to eight;. Four sectors were added: fabricated metals products (down 1.30 percent), nonmetallic mineral products (1.06 percent), apparel and leather goods (off by 0.59 percent), and furniture and related products (0.17 percent). And petroleum and coal products’ contant dollar production was upgraded from a 1.21 percent decrease during the pandemic period to a 2.96 percent gain.

The names on the list of top five pandemic period growers remained the same, with after-inflation production actually improving in aerospace and miscellaneous transportation (from 18.99 percent to 19.69 percent), miscellaneous durable goods (from 11.41 percent to 12.43 percent), and machinery (from 6.29 percent to 6.52 percent). But real production gains were revised down in computer and electronics products (from 10.42 percent to 7.38 percent), and chemicals (from 8.48 percent to 7.55 percent).

In absolute tems, the biggest price-adjusted output upgrades were registered in miscellaneous nondurable goods (from an 11.43 pecent nosedive to a smaller drop of 7.56 percent), electrical equipment, appliances and components (from a 2.19 percent rise to one of 4.95 percent), the aforementioned petroleum and coal products sector, wood products (from a 5.24 percent increase to 6.45 percent), and plastics and rubber products (from 1.78 percent growth to 2.76 percent).

The biggest real production downgrades came in the printing sector (all the way from a 1.89 percent inflation-adjusted output shrinkage to one of 9.52 percent), apparel and leather goods (from a 4.59 percent real production rise to a 0.59 percent dip), nonmetallic mineral products (from 2.58 percent price-adjusted growth to a 1.06 percent decline), and the aforementioned computer and electronics product sector.

RealityChek has been following with special interest narrower sectors that have attracted unusual attention since the CCP Virus arrived, and the new industrial production revision shows that constant dollar output climbed by more than previously estimated in aircraft and parts (24.89 percent versus 19.08 percent) and medical equipment and supplies (14.48 percent versus 11.51 percent), and by less in semiconductors and other electronic components (22.48 percent versus 23.82 percent) and in pharmaceuticals and medicine (12.79 percent versus 14.78 percent).

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Will Inflation and a Hawkish Fed Finally Undermine U.S. Manufacturing?

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft parts, appliances, automotive, capital spending, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, electrical components, electrical equipment, Federal Reserve, furniture, inflation, inflation-adjusted output, machinery, manufacturing, medical devices, medicines, non-metallic mineral products, petroleum and coal products, pharmaceuticals, real growth, semiconductor shortage, semiconductors, wood products, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The new (May) U.S. manufacturing production report from the Federal Reserve doesn’t mainly indicate that industry may be facing a crossroads because the sector’s inflation-adjusted output dropped on month for the first time since January.

Instead, it signals that a significant slowdown may lie ahead for U.S.-based manufacturers because its downbeat results dovetail with the latest humdrum manufacturing jobs report (also for May), with results of some of the latest sentiment surveys conducted by regional branches of the Fed (e.g., here), and with evidence of a rollover in spending on machinery and equipment by the entire economy (which fuels much manufacturing output and typically reflects optimism about future business prospects).

Domestic industry shrank slightly (by 0.07 percent) in real output terms month-to-month in May. On the bright side, the strong results of recent months stayed basically unrevised, and April’s very good advance was upgraded from 0.75 percent to 0.77 percent.

Still, the May results mean that real U.S. manufacturing production is now up 4.94 percent since just before the CCP Virus began roiling and distorting the American economy (February, 2020), rather than the 5.07 percent calculable from last month’s report.

May’s biggest manufacturing growth winners were:

>Petroleum and coal products, where after-inflation jumped by 2.53 percent sequentially in May. The improvement was the fourth straight, and the increase the best since February’s 2.68 percent. As a result, constant dollar production in these sectors is now 1.21 percent higher than in immediately pre-pandemic-y February, 2020;

>Non-metallic mineral products, whose 1.78 percent sequential growth in May followed an April fall-off that was revised way down from -0.67 percent to -1.72 percent. March’s 0.76 percent decrease was downgraded to a 1.29 percent retreat, but February’s sequential pop was revised down just slightly to a still outstanding 4.37 percent surge. All told, the sector has grown by 2.58 percent after inflation since February, 2020 – exactly the same result calculable from last month’s Fed release; and

>Furniture and related products, whose 1.23 percent May inflation-adjusted output rise was its first such increase since February’s, and its best since that month’s 4.96 percent surge. Moreover, the May advance comes off an April performance that was revised up from a -0.60 percent sequential dip to one of -0.12. In all, these results were enough to move real furniture production above its Februay, 2020 level – by 0.08 percent.

May’s biggest manufacturing production losers were:

>wood products, whose 2.56 percent real monthly output decline was its first decrease since January and its worst since February. 2021’s 3.65 percent. Moreover, April’s previously reported 1.13 percent advance is now estimated to have been just 0.97 percent – all of which means that constant dollar production by these companies is now 5.24 percent higher than just before the pandemic arrived, not the 7.85 percent calculable last month;

>machinery, whose May inflation-adjusted output sank by 2.14 percent – the biggest such setback since February, 2021’s 2.59 percent. As known by RealityChek readers, machinery production is one of those aforementioned indicators of capital spending because it’s sold to customers not just in manufacturing but throughout the economy.

It’s true that machinery’s revisions were mixed. April’s after-inflation production increase was upgraded all the way fom 0.85 percent to 1.69 percent – its best such performance since last July’s 2.85 percent. But March’s performance was revised down from 0.36 percent to one percent shrinkage, and February’s increase was revised up again, but only from 1.17 percent to 1.22 percent. Consequently, whereas as of last month, machinery production was 8.31 percent higher in real terms than in February, 2020, this growth is now down to 6.29 percent.

>electrical equipment, appliances and components, where real output sagged for the second consecutive month, and by a 1.83 percent that was its worst such monthly performance since February, 2021’s 2.34 percent decrease. Revisions were modest and mixed, with April’s previously reported 0.60 percent sequential drop upgraded to -0.42 percent, March’s downgraded 0.04 percent dip upgraded to a 0.19 percent gain, and February’s real output revised up again – from 2.03 percent to 2.08 percent. These moves put real growth in the sector post-February, 2020 at 2.19 percent, less than half the 5.55 percent calculable last month.

By contrast, industries that consistently have made headlines during the pandemic delivered solid May performances.

Aircraft- and aircraft parts-makers pushed their real production up 0.33 percent on month in May, achieving their fifth straight month of growth. Moreover, April’s excellent 1.67 percent sequential production increase was upgraded to 2.90 percent (the sector’s best such result since last July’s 3.44 percent), March’s estimate inched up from a hugely downgraded 0.47 percent to 0.50 percent, and the February results were upgraded again – from 1.34 percent to 1.49 percent. This good production news boosted these companies’ real output gain since immediately pre-pandemic-y 16.37 percent to 19.08 percent.

The big pharmaceuticals and medicines industry performed well in May, too, as after-inflation production increased by 0.42 percent. Revisions were overall negative but small. April’s initially reported 0.20 percent real output slip is now judged to be a0.15 percent gain, but March’s upwardly revised 1.23 percent increase is now pegged at only 0.32 percent, and February’s downwardly revised 0.96 percent constant dollar output drop revised up to -0.86 percent. All told, inflation-adjusted growth in the pharmaceuticals and medicines sector is now up 14.78 percent since February, 2020, as opposed to the 14.64 percent increase calculable last month.

Medical equipment and supplies firms fared even better, as their 1.44 percent monthly real output growth in May (their fifth straight advance) was their best such result since February, 2021’s 1.53 percent. Revisions were positive, too. April’s previously recorded 0.06 percent dip is now estimated as a 0.51 percent increase, March’s downgraded 1.28 percent figure was upgraded to 1.41 percent, and February’s 1.46 percent improvement now stands at 1.53 percent. These sectors are now 11.51 percent bigger in terms of constant dollar output than they were just before the CCP Virus arrived in force – a nice improvement from the 8.92 percent figure calculable last month.

May also saw a production bounceback in the shortage-plagued semiconductor industry. Its inflation-adjusted production climbed 0.52 percent on month, but April’s previously reported 1.85 percent drop – its worst such performance since last June’s 1.62 percent – is now judged to be a 2.25 percent decline. At least the March and February results received small upgrades – the former’s improving from a previously downgraded 1.83 percent rise to 1.92 percent, and February’s upgraded growth of 2.91 percent now estimated at 2.96 percent. The post-February, 2020 bottom line: After-inflation semiconductor production is now 23.82 percent higher, not the 23.38 pecent increase calculable last month.

And since the automotive industry’s ups and downs have been so crucial to domestic manufacturing’s ups and downs during the pandemic era, it’s worth noting its 0.70 percent monthly price-adjusted output growth in May.

Revisions overall were negative. April’s previously reported 3.92 percent constant dollar production growth was revised down to 3.34 percent, March’s 8.28 percent burst was upgraded to 8.99 percent (the best such result since last October’s 10.64 percent jump), and February’s previously upgraded 3.86 percent inflation-adjusted production decrease was downgraded to a 4.24 percent plunge.

But given that motor vehicle- and parts-makers are still dealing with the aforementioned semiconductor shortage, these numbers look impressive, and real automotive output is now 1.17 percent greater than in pre-pandemic-y February, 2020, as opposed to the 0.77 percent increase calculable last month.

Domestic manufacturing has overcome so many obstacles since the CCP Virus’ arrival that counting it out in growth terms could still be premature. But an obstacle that it hasn’t faced since the pandemic-induced downturn have s looming again — a major economy-wide slowdown and possible recession that could result from monetary tightening announced by the Federal Reserve to fight torrid inflation.  And with the world economy likely to stay sluggish as well and limit export opportunities (see, e.g., here), the possibility that industry’s winning streak finally ends can’t be dismissed out of hand.  

Following Up: Back on National Radio Tonight & Podcast On-Line of Yesterday’s Appearance

Tags

CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, China, Federal Reserve, Following Up, inflation, manufacturing, Market Wrap with Moe Ansari, monetary policy, recession, tariffs, Trade

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my interview late last night on the nationally syndicated “Market Wrap with Moe Ansari.” Click here to and scroll down a bit till you see my name for a timely discussion about the Federal Reserve’s latest inflation-fighting moves, the odds that its tighter monetary policies will trigger a U.S. recession, and where President Biden’s trade policies toward China and the rest of the world may be heading.

In addition, as mentioned yesterday, I’m scheduled to return to the nationally syndicated “CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor” to update the U.S. China policy story. The exact time for the segment hasn’t yet been set, but the show is broadcast weeknights between 9 PM and 1 AM EST, and is always worth tuning in.

If you can’t listen live on-line at websites like this one, as always, I’ll post a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Is the New (April) U.S. Trade Report a False Dawn?

Tags

Advanced Technology Products, Biden, Census Bureau, China, Donald Trump, exports, goods trade, imports, Made in Washington trade deficit, manufacturing, non-oil goods trade deficit, services trade, South Korea, stimulus, supply chains, Switzerland, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, Zero Covid, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although today’s new official figures showed a major dropoff in the U.S. trade deficit between March and April, and the results came from a normally encouraging combination of more exports and fewer imports, the Census data also show that big caveats and questions are hanging over these results and how enduring they might be.

First and foremost, the improvement in the combined goods and services deficits, and all virtually all the trade balances comprising it, could be resulting from a dramatic slowdown in U.S. economic growth. Second, the latest decline in the chronic and huge U.S. goods trade gap with China surely stems from Beijing’s recent over-the-top (but surely temporary) Zero Covid policies, which have further snagged already tangled up supply chains. And third, large revisions in some of the numbers (especially for services trade) inevitably cast some doubt as to their reliability lately.

In fact, these features of the report – along with the still-near historic levels of many of these trade deficits and other usually typical gap-widening developments like a strong U.S. dollar and still-astronomical levels of economic stimulus from Washington – are telling me that my prediction last month of higher deficits to come will age pretty well.

Not that the narrowing of the trade gap in April was bupkis. The combined goods and services deficit fell 19.11 percent from March’s all-time high of $107.65 billion (which itself was revised down a hefty 1.96 percent) to $87.08 billion. This level was the lowest since December’s $78.87 billion and the nosedive the biggest since December, 2012’s 19.85 percent.

And as just mentioned, the improvement came from the right combination of reasons. Total exports hit their third straight monthly record, rising 3.49 percent from an upwardly revised (by 0.99 percent) $244.11 billion to $252.62 billion

Overall imports, meanwhile, tumbled 3.43 percent from their record $351.79 billion to $339.70 billion. The total was the second biggest ever, but the decrease was the greatest since the 13.16 shrinkage during pandemic-y and recession-y April, 2020.

The trade shortfall in goods was down 15.04 percent from a downwardly revised (by 1.04 percent) $126.81 billion in March to $107.74 percent in April. This level, too, was the lowest since December’s $100.52 billion, and the 15.04 percent sequential tumble the biggest since April, 2015’s 15.09 percent.

Goods exports rose sequentially by 3.57 percent in April, from 170.04 billion to a third consecutive record of $176.11 billion. And U.S. purchases of foreign goods sank by 4.38 percent on month in April, from a downwardly revised (by 0.65 percent) record $296.85 billion to $283.84 billion (as with total imports, the second highest result of all time). The decrease was the biggest since the 12.79 percent drop in that pandemic-y April, 2020.

But even the above sizable revisions paled before those made for services trade. The March surplus was upgraded fully 4.48 percent, from $18.34 billion to $19.16 billion, and the April figure grew by another 7.83 percent to $20.66 billion – the highest level since December’s $21.66 billion.

Services exports (apparently) deserve much of the credit. They reached an all-time high of $76.52 billion. This total bested May, 2019’s previous record of $75.41 billion by only 1.46 percent, but the milestone is significant given the outsized hit suffered by the service sector worldwide during the pandemic period.

April services exports, moreover, rose 3.30 percent from March’s $74.07 billion – a total that itself was revised up by 4.23 percent.

Services imports set their third consecutive monthly record in April, rising 1.73 percent, to $55.86 billion, from March’s upwardly revised (by 4.19 percent) $54.19 billion.

A big April fall-off also came in the non-oil goods trade deficit – known to RealityChek regulars as the Made in Washington trade deficit, because by stripping out figures for oil (which trade diplomacy usually ignores) and services (where liberalization efforts have barely begun), it stems from those U.S. trade flows that have been heavily influenced by trade policy decisions.

This shortfall decreased by 14.72 percent in April, to $108.68 billion, from March’s downwardly revised record $127.42 billion. The drop was the biggest since March, 2013’s 16.74 percent.

The enormous and persistent manufacturing trade deficit retreated in April from record levels, too. But even though the month’s $124.41 billion shortfall was 12.71 percent lower than March’s all-time high $142.22 billion, and even though the monthly decline of 12.71 percent was the biggest since pandemic-y February, 2020’s 23.09 percent, this deficit was still the second biggest ever.

April’s manufactures exports of $109.36 billion were 4.03 percent lower than March’s record $113.96 billion, but were still the second best total on record. Ditto for the month’s manufactures imports, which tumbled 8.85 percent from their March record of $256.18 billion to $233.50 billion.

Another April fall-off from a record monthly deficit came in advanced technology products (ATP). After ballooning by 73.65 percent sequentially in March, to $23.31 billion, the recently volatile gap narrowed in April by 21.50 percent, to $18.30 billion.

Both the better manufactuing and ATP trade figures surely stemmed at least in part from the Zero Covid policies that interfered with so much industrial production from China. The U.S. goods deficit with the People’s Repubic, however, narrowed by just 10.02 percent on month in April, from $34 billion to $30.57 billion. Even so, the level was the lowest since last July’s $28.56 billion.

U.S. goods exports to China were down on month in April by 16.25 percent (their biggest drop since February, 2021’s 278.85 percent), from $13.38 billion to $11.20b. This total is the lowest since last September’s $11.03 billion.

The much greater amount of U.S. goods imports from China plummeted 11.82 percent n month in April, from $47.37 billion to $41.77 billion – the lowest level since last July’s $40.32 billion.

Also notable – breaking a pattern going back several years — the 10.02 percent April monthly drop in the U.S. goods deficit with China was smaller than the month’s sequential decline in the non-oil goods deficit (14.72 percent). And on a yar-to-date basis, the China deficit is up only slightly less (27.59 percent) than the non-oil deficit (28.95 percent). So the next few months’ worth of data may shed some light on whether the Trump (now Biden) tariffs on China are losing their effectiveness, or whether the last few months’ numbers are anomalies.

Other significant April results for individual U.S. trade partners: The goods deficit with South Korea set a new record of $4.09 billion – 23.79 percent higher than March’s total of $3.30 billion and 21.70 percent greater than the old record of $3.36 billion set last September.

And the goods deficit with Switzerland cratered in April by 67.63 percent, to $2.89 billion, from March’s $8.93 billion level. The percentage shrinkage of this bilateral trade gap was the biggest since September, 2018, when a $1.22 billion U.S. deficit turned into a $149 million surplus.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why U.S. Manufacturing’s Record Trade Deficits Aren’t Biting — Yet

Tags

Biden administration, CCP Virus, China, consumers, coronavirus, COVID 19, Covid relief, exports, Federal Reserve, imports, inflation, manufacturing, manufacturing jobs, manufacturing production, stimulus, tariffs, Trade, Trade Deficits, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Perceptive RealityChek readers (no doubt the great majority!) have surely noticed something odd about my treatment of trade-related developments and the American domestic manufacturing base. For most of the CCP Virus period, I’ve been writing both that U.S.-based industry has been performing well according to practically every major measure, and that the manufacturing trade deficit has been setting new record highs.

It’s not that I’ve ignored a situation that would normally strike me as being utterly paradoxical and even inconceivable over any serious time span. I’ve mainly attributed it to the pandemic’s main economic damage being inflicted on services industries, and to the Trump tariffs on Chinese imports, which have shielded domestic manufacturers from hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of competition that has nothing to do with free trade or free markets.

But the longer manufacturing has excelled as the trade gap has skyrocketed, the more convinced I’ve been that something else was at work, too. What finally illuminated this influence has been the recent controversy these last few weeks over President Biden’s suggestion that he might cut some of those Trump China tariffs in order to curb inflation.

As I’ve written previously (see, e.g., here), there’s no shortage of economic-related reasons to dismiss the claims that levies that began being imposed in mid-2018 bear any responsibilityfor inflation that only became worrisome three years later, and that reducing the tariffs would ease this inflation meaningfully. Even the Biden administration keeps admitting the latter point.

But the increasingly striking contrast between manufacturing’s strong output, job creation, and capital equipment spending on the one hand, and its historically awful trade deficits on the other points to the paramount importance of another explanation I’ve mentioned for doubting that tariffs have fueled inflation. It’s the role played by the economy’s overall level of demand.

I’ve written that trade levies will contribute to higher prices or boost prices all by themselves overwhelmingly when consumers are spending freely – and consequently when businesses understandably believe they have scope to charge more for tariff-ed goods. That is, companies are confident that the higher costs stemming from tariffs can be passed along to customers who simply aren’t very price sensitive.

Strong enough demand, however, has another crucial effect on manufacturing – and on other traded goods: It creates a market growing fast enough to enable domestic companies to prosper even when their foreign competitors are out-performing them and taking share of that market. In other words, even though all entrants aren’t benefitting equally, all can still benefit.

Conversely, when demand for manufactures is expanding sluggishly, or not at all, this kind of win-win situation disappears. Then U.S.-based and foreign industry are competing for a stagnant group of customers, and one’s gain of market share becomes the other’s loss. In this situation, increasing trade deficits mean that American demand is being met by imports to eliminate any incentive for domestic manufacturers to boost production or employment. Indeed, they become hard-pressed even to maintain output and payrolls.

Of course, even if trade deficits keep surging during periods of slow domestic demand, U.S.-based manufacturers can still in principle keep turning out ever more products and hiring ever more workers if they can achieve one goal: super-charging their export sales. But the persistently mammoth scale of the American manufacturing trade shortfall indicates either that foreign demand for U.S.-made goods almost never improves enough to compensate for reduced or stagnant domestic sales, or that foreign economies prevent such growth by keeping many American goods out, or some combination of the two.

Super-strong demand for manufactured goods is precisely what’s characterized the economy since the CCP Virus arrived in force. As a result, the pie has gotten so much bigger that domestic industry as a whole has had no problem finding enough new customers to support healthy production and hiring levels even though imports’ sales have been lapping them.

Specifically, between the first quarter of 2020 and the fourth quarter of last year (the last quarter for which current-dollar (or pre-inflation) U.S. manufacturing production data are available, the U.S. market for manufactures increased by 22.83 percent – or $1.518 trillion. Revealingly, this demand would have been strong enough to enable domestic industry to pass tariff hikes on to customers, and enable these levies to fuel inflation on at least a one-time basis. But tariffs of course have not been raised during this stretch.

Meanwhile, the manufacturing trade deficit soared by 64.31 percent ($566 billion). And the import share of the U.S. market rose from 29.50 percent to 32.47 percent.

But domestic industry was able to boost its production (according to a measure called current-dollar gross output) by 16.55 percent, or just under $954 billion. ,

Contrast these results with the pre-CCP Virus expansion. During those 10.5 years (from the second quarter of 2009 through the fourth quarter of 2019), the U.S. market for manufactured goods increased by just 45.37 percent, or $2.154 trillion. That is, even though it was more than five times longer than the above pandemic period, that market grew by only about twice as much.

The manufacturing trade deficit actually also grew at a slower rate than during the much shorter pandemic period (169.2 percent). But because the pie was expanding more slowly, too, the import share of this domestic manufacturing market climbed from 23.12 percent to 31.10 percent.  These home market share losses combined with inadequate exports were enough to limit the growth of U.S. manufacturing output to 34.64 percent, or $1.512 trillion. Again, though this 2009-2019 growth took place over a time-span more than five times longer than the pandemic period, it was only about twice as great. That is, the pace was much more sluggish.

And not so coincidentally, because pre-CCP Virus demand for manufactures was so sluggish, too, businesses concluded they had little or no scope to raise prices when significant tariffs began to be imposed in 2018. Further, the levies generated no notable inflation over any significant period even on a one-time basis. Companies all along the relevant supply chains (including in China) had to respond with some combination of finding alternative markets, becoming more efficient, or simply eating the higher costs.

The good news is that as long as the U.S. market for manufactures keeps ballooning, domestic industry can keep boosting production and employment even if the manufacturing trade deficit keeps worsening or simply stays astronomical, and even if domestic industry keeps losing market share.

The bad news is that the rocket fuel that ignited this growth spurt is running out. Massive pandemic relief programs that put trillions of dollars into consumers’ pockets aren’t being renewed, and Americans are starting to dig into the savings they were able to pile up in order to finance their expenses (although, as noted here, these savings remain gargantuan). Credit is being made more expensive by the Federal Reserve’s decision both to raise interest rates and to reduce its immense and highly stimulative bond holdings. And some evidence shows that U.S. consumer spending is shifting from goods like manufactures to services (although some other evidence says “Don’t be so sure.”)

Worse, when the stimulus tide finally recedes, domestic industry will likely find itself in a shakier competitive position than before. For without considerably above-trend demand growth, and with the foreign competition controlling more of the remaining market than before the pandemic, it will find itself more dependent than ever on maintaining production and employment (let alone increasing them) by winning back customers it has already lost. And changing purchasing patterns in place will be much more challenging than selling to customers whose patterns haven’t yet been set.

U.S. based manufacturing is variegated enough – including in terms of specific sectors’ strengths and weaknesses – that the above generalizations don’t and won’t hold for every single industry. But the macro numbers make clear that domestic manufacturing as a whole has experienced unusually fat years lately, and generally has been competitive enough to take some advantage of these favorable conditions. But industry’s continuing and indeed widening trade shortfall and market share losses in its own back yard should also be warning both manufacturers overall and Washington that many of domestic industry’s pre-pandemic troubles could come roaring back once leaner years return.

(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: A Phony “Industry’s” Phony Case Against Solar Tariffs

Tags

China, clean energy, Commerce Department, dumping, green energy, innovation, manufacturing, misinformation, renewable energy, solar energy, solar panels, Southeast Asia, subsidies, tariffs, trade law, transshipment, {What's Left of) Our Economy

What a disgraceful scandal a leader of America’s renewable energy industry just spotlighted! The main evidence presented for imposing steep tariffs on some imports of solar panels has been disavowed by a main source of that evidence!

Except the real scandal is the misinformation-y nature of this claim – which is becoming par for the course for certain supporters of a faster transition to a clean energy-dominated economy..

Let’s begin at the beginning. On March 28, the Commerce Department, one of two federal agencies responsible for administering the U.S. trade law system, agreed to investigate charges by a California-based manufacturer of panels that factories in Southeast Asia are being used by China to circumvent the tariffs that began to be imposed in 2012 on panels and key components made in the People’s Republic. The levies aimed to offset China’s practice of selling these panels at prices far below production costs not because of market forces, but because of subsidies for the manufacturers.

But tariffs to counter this predatory tactic, also called dumping, can sometimes be circumvented by two types of schemes that are also sanctionable by U.S. trade law. Under the first, called transshipment, the guilty parties send their finished goods to other foreign countries, where they’re re-labeled and sent off for final sale in America. Under the second, the guilty parties send the parts and components of finished products to factories in other foreign countries, where they’re assembled and then exported to the United States.

It’s the second practice that formed the basis for this latest circumvention allegation, and as standard in trade law cases, the lawyers for the U.S. plaintiff – a company called Auxin Solar – tried to persuade the Commerce Department to probe whether circumvention was occuring with a brief containing evidence they’d gathered. This is the request approved on March 28, and the investigation is still ongoing.

In an op-ed article yesterday afternoon, though, Gregory Wetstone of the American Council on Renewable Energy made a bombshell accusation. Writing in TheHill.com, Wetstone contended that the research company whose findings Auxin’s lawyers heavily relied on to prove their charges claimed that some of their key data had been used inaccurately.

The lawyers attempted to show circumvention by citing findings from the research firm BloombergNEF documenting that fully 70 percent of the value of the solar panels imported into the United States from some plants in Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam came from China. If true, this finding would strongly confirm Auxin’s position that the panels were little more than products sent in pieces from China to Southeast Asia, to be snapped together for shipment to the United States – that is, that the anti-China tariffs had indeed been circumvented.

But according to BloombergNEF, the 70 percent figure only referred to the “cash cost” of the panel inputs. Left out were the upfront capital costs of building the Southeast Asian factories themselves – which they argued made clear that these facilities performed the kind of genuine manufacturing of the imported materials that in turn absolved them of the circumvention charge. In trade law terms, the parts and components and other inputs supposedly underwent substantial transformation, and were not simply disassembled pieces of final products.

As should be clear to anyone familiar with manufacturing, though, the scale of the investment needed to build a factory has no intrinsic relationship to the nature of the work it performs. Moreover, it’s just as reasonable to view the upfront investment as a one-time cost required to launch a simple assembly operation aimed at lasting for many years. So the longer this ruse continues, the greater the importance of the cost of the panel inputs.  

At the same time, plaintiff Auxin’s case doesn’t rely solely or even mainly on reason, or on the 70 percent figure however it’s interpreted. It doesn’t even rely solely or even mainly on trade data showing that remarkably soon after the original tariffs were placed on the Chinese-made solar cells, Chinese shipments to the United States nosedived, and shipments from the four Southeast Asian countries began skyrocketing. Nor does it rely solely or significantly on additional trade data showing that these countries’ imports of Chinese-made solar panel parts, components, and materials have also soared, often exponentially, over the last decade.

Instead, the brief also presents abundant evidence — that’s never been challenged by the tariff opponents — that many of the new Southeast Asian factories exporting so many solar panels to the United States themselves are Chinese-built or -acquired, and therefore -owned. For example:

>”Jinko Solar Group is a producer of solar products, including silicon ingots, wafers, solar cells, and modules, with its production predominantly based in China. After imposition of the [anti-dumping tariffs] in 2015, Jinko Solar built a solar cell and module processing facility in Penang, Malaysia.”

>”JA Solar launched a solar cell processing facility in Penang, Malaysia in 2015. JA Solar produces ingots and wafers in its Chinese facilities. When the company first started exporting solar cells from Malaysia, the company stated that ‘raw materials such as silicon wafers were being imported from China . . . .’”

>”LONGi owns and operates a wholly owned facility in Malaysia. Li Zhenguo, President of Longi Green Tech, touted LONGi’s Malaysia factory as ‘mainly targeting the U.S. market,’ recognizing that ‘Chinese solar products are imposed by about 150% import tariffs by the U.S. {so} {i}t’s almost impossible for China-made products to be sold there.’”

>A company representative has stated that “Trina Solar supplies U.S. orders from Thailand (as opposed to from China). Additionally, the Chairman and CEO of Trina Solar stated that Trina Solar’s projects in the pan-Asia region align the company with the Chinese government’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative.”

>Suzhou Talesun Solar Technology has directly cited the solar tariffs “as the reason for its Thai facility’s existence by stating that it ‘seized the chance to break through the U.S. market through Thai production capacity.’ Talesun’s company website markets its ability to circumvent the orders on CSPV cells and modules from China: ‘with our factories in China and Thailand, we offer a solution adapted to markets affected by anti-dumping laws such as the United States or Europe.’”

>LONGi Green Tech’s president “touted LONGi’s Vietnam factory as ‘mainly targeting the U.S. market,’ recognizing that shipments from China cannot compete based on existing tariffs.”

>”According to the company’s blog, one reason why Boviet’s [an affiliate of Chinese entity Boway] assembly is based out of Vietnam is because ‘Vietnam is not a U.S. listed Anti-dumping and Countervailing region. No tariffs influence Boviet’s U.S. business, and those cost-savings ultimately trickle down to the buyer.’ Boviet Solar also openly advertises that it sources glass for its solar modules from China.”

>”Chinese solar cell manufacturer ET Solar has reported that it was transferring 300 MW of cell capacity from China to be assembled in Cambodia, where it will also assemble modules to target the U.S. market.”

Somehow Hill op-ed author Wetstone and the alternative energy businesses he helps represent missed all of this. Not that anyone should be surprised. Because for many years they’ve been deceptively describing as the U.S. “solar energy industry” a sector that overwhelmingly consists of companies that install solar power systems for homes, businesses, and utilities.

Certainly they create American jobs and facilitate whatever clean energy transition is proceeding. But this sector generates little value or innovation or productivity growth for the U.S. economy. And it has about as much in common with solar manufacturers as nursing home operators have with the cutting-edge American pharmaceutical industry, or as taxi or ride-sharing companies have with U.S.automakers. Therefore, where the solar panels they stick on American roofs and emplace in lots and other vacant or cleared space are concerned, the cheaper the better, no matter where they come from — including China.

In other words, the U.S. “solar energy industry’s” case against tariffs on Southeast Asian panels fails not only on legal and factual grounds (because circumvention of the China levies is so clearly happening). It fails on policy grounds – except for those who don’t mind much of America’s clean energy future, and all the economic and technological and climate benefits it can create, being made by a hostile dictatorship. No wonder these companies and their leaders are so dependent on spreading misinformation to persuade Washington to lift the solar tariffs.

Making News: Podcast Now On-Line of Ohio Radio Interview on China Policy & the U.S. Economy — & More!

Tags

Akron, Biden, China, Gordon G. Chang, IndustryToday.com, inflation, Making News, manufacturing, manufacturing jobs, Ohio, Ray Horner, recession, tariffs, The Hill, WAKR-AM

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast of my latest radio appearance is now on-line. Click here to listen to a wide-ranging conversation last Friday between me and WAKR-AM (Akron, Ohio)’s Ray Horner.  The subjects: President Biden’s suggestion that he might unilaterally lift some of the Trump administration’s tariffs on imports from China in order to fight inflation; China’s recent devaluation of its currency; and the chances that the U.S. economy will tip into recession.

In addition, it was great to be quoted on Mr. Biden’s China trade policy in Gordon G. Chang’s May 11 op-ed for The Hill. Here’s the link.

Finally, IndustryToday.com reprinted (with permission!) two recent posts of mine – on why cutting the China tariffs is such a lousy idea (on May 10) , and on the latest (strong) official U.S. manufacturing jobs figures (on May 9).

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The New Official U.S. Manufacturing Data Look Anything but Recession-y

Tags

aerospace, aircaft, aircraft parts, appliances, automotive, electrical equipment, electronic components, Federal Reserve, furniture, industrial production, inflation, machinery, manufacturing, medical devices, medicines, metals, non-metallic mineral products, pharmaceuticals, plastics and rubber products, semiconductor shortage, semiconductors, supply chains, transportation equipment, Ukraine, wood products, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s Federal Reserve industrial production report (for April) is making clearer than ever that if the U.S. economy is headed for a recession or a major growth slowdown, domestic manufacturing won’t deserve significant blame unless it takes a major nosedive before too long.

The report showed that despite the Ukraine war, despite ongoing supply chain snags, despite torrid inflation, and despite Federal Reserve plans to cool these price rises with interest rate hikes that will almost have to moderate growth if they work, U.S.-based industry increased output for the seventh straight month – and by a thoroughly respectable 0.75 percent.

Moreover, modest and mixed revisions left those strong recently results entirely intact. As a result, since February, 2020 – the last full data month before the CCP Virus’ arrival in force began upending the economy – domestic manufacturing has grown in real terms by 5.07 percent, up from the 4.42 percent calculable from last month’s release. In addition, in constant dollars, these sectors’ production is now within 2.29 percent of its all-time high – reached in December, 2007, just as the Great Recession triggered by the global financial crisis was beginning.

The list of April’s main manufacturing growth leaders was headed by the volatile automotive sector, but many of the biggest industry sub-sectors tracked by the Fed enjoyed healthy expansions last month.

Especially encouraging about the combined performance of vehicle and parts makers – which continue to be plagued by the global semiconductor shortage – was the follow-through. Their vigorous April sequential 3.92 percent after-inflation output increase followed a March gain upgraded from 7.80 percent to 8.28 percent, and that represented the biggest monthly advance since last October’s 10.64 percent. And that result followed a September tumble of 6.32 percent. Moreover, February’s big monthly dropoff was upgraded again, to a 3.86 percent loss.

All told, price-adjusted automotive output in April moved above its February, 2020 immediate pre-pandemic level (by 0.77 percent) for the first time since July, 2020.

A banner April also was registered by aerospace and miscellaneous transportation equipment companies. They boosted inflation-adjusted production by a sequential 2.15 percent. But March’s initially reported 1.90 percent after-inflation increase – previously the best monthly performance since last July’s 4.21 percent jump – is now judged to be a negligible 0.08 percent rise, February’s downgraded 1.64 percent real production improvement, however, was revised up to 1.82 percent, leaving these businesses 17.28 percent larger than in February, 2020 – as opposed to the 16.43 percent growth calculable from last month’s Fed report.

Inflation-adjusted primary metals production rose on month by 1.36 percent in April, and March’s initially reported 1.69 percent sequential drop – the biggest since January’s 2.53 percent plunge – is now judged to be just 0.75 percent. And February’s already upwardly revised constant dollar production surge was upgraded again – to a 2.94 percent figure that’s still the best since last April’s 3.48 percent. After-inflation production of these metals is now 4.01 percent greater than in February, 2020, compared with the 1.16 percent calculable last month;

Wood products output expanded nicely in real terms, too – by 1.13 percent sequentially in April. This improvement pushed this industry’s price-adjusted production to 7.85 percent above its immediate pre-pandemic level.

And consistent with manufacturing’s overall output winning streak, machinery production continued in April continued to excel as well – although more unevenly. Real output in this bellwether sector – whose products are used so widely throughout the economy – climbed by 0.85 percent sequentially in April. And although March’s results were revised way down from 0.78 percent growth to 0.36 percent contraction, February’s previously reported and downgraded 0.54 percent improvement was revised way up to 1.17 percent. As a result, the sector is now 8.31 percent bigger after inflation than in immediately pre-pandemic February, 2020.

The biggest April manufacturing growth losers were:

>plastics and rubber products, where a March real output increase of a sharply downgraded 0.58 percent was followed by a 0.79 percent decrease that was the biggest monthly decline since December’s 0.94 percent. February, moreover, saw another discouraging revision – from a 3.14 percent constant dollar monthly advance to 2.80 percent. At least that result still was the best since August, 2020’s 3.85 percent. Consequently, this sector is now just 1.05 percent bigger in real output terms than in February, 2020 – as opposed to the 3.56 percent calculable last month;

>non-metallic mineral products, where inflation-adjusted production dipped for a second straight month – this time by 0.67 percent. March’s drop, however, is now pegged at only 0.76 percent instead of 1.15 percent, and February’s upgraded real output burst of 3.94 percent is now estimated at 4.42 percent, its best such performance since the 9.19 percent increase in May, 2020, early during the rapid recovery from the steep recession caused by the CCP Virus’ first wave and associated economic and behavioral curbs. But whereas as of last month’s industrial production report, these sectors had grown by an inflation-adjusted 3.28 percent since February, 2020, this figure is now down to 2.58 percent.

>electrical equipment, appliances, and components, where real output fell for a second straight month. The April sequential decrease was 0.60 percent and followed a 0.04 percent March drop that was first reported as a 1.03 percent increase. Fortunately, February’s results were upgraded a second time, to a 2.03 percent advance that’s still the sector’s best since last July’s 3.24 percent. But the net result is a group of industries that’s now only 3.55 percent larger in real output terms than in February, 2020, as opposed to the 5.55 percent calculable last month; and

>furniture and related products, whose price-adjusted output decreased in April for the second straight month. The 0.60 percent monthly retreat means that these sectors have shrunk by an inflation-adjusted 1.56 percent since February, 2020.

Growth, however, generally tailed off in April in industries that consistently have made headlines during the pandemic.

The aircraft and aircraft parts sectors were the out-performers. Their real output rose on month in April by a strong 1.67 percent. But even here, March’s initially reported even better 2.31 percent increase is now pegged at just 0.47 percent. The February estimate, however, bounced back from a downgraded 1.13 percent gain to an improvement of 1.34 percent, helping the sector to register 16.37 percent real production growth since February, 2020, compared with the 15.86 percent calculable last month.

Inflation-adjusted output in the big pharmaceuticals and medicines industry dropped sequentially in April for the third time in the last four months. More encouragingly, that 0.20 percent decline followed March growth that was revised up from 1.17 percent to 1.23 percent. But February’s 1.15 percent decrease is now estimated at a still dreary 0.96 percent retreat, and January’s previously upgraded 0.45 percent increase is now thought to be a contraction of 0.26 percent. So where as of last month, real pharmaceuticals and medicines output was reported as 14.75 percent higher than in immediately pre-pandemic-y February, 2020, that growth is now down to 14.64 percent.

As for medical equipment and supplies, these sectors suffered their first monthly production decline (0.06 percent) since December’s 0.68 percent. In addition, March’s previously reported 1.81 percent rise was revised down to 1.28 percent, February’s previously upgraded 1.73 percent increase was cut back to 1.46 percent, and January’s upwardly revised gains were trimmed from 3.28 percent to 2.94 percent. As a result, these industries’ post-February, 2020 real production increase is now estimated at 8.92 percent, down from the 10.28 percent improvement calculable last month.

Even semiconductor output took a hit in April. The shortage-plagued sector saw real production sink by 1.85 percent sequentially last month – its worst such performance since last June’s 1.62 percent. Revisions were mixed, with March’s initially reported 1.99 percent constant dollar advance reduced to 1.83 percent; February’s big jump upgraded again to 2.91 percent; and January’s fractional 0.05 percent increase revised up to 0.06 percent. These results still left price-adjusted semiconductor production up 23.38 percent since February, 2020, but that figure is down from the 25.99 percent calculable last month.

An entirely new hurdle to domestic manufacturing output could appear in late June. That’s when the Fed’s data gatherers tell us they’ll issue their next annual benchmark revision – which could reveal that U.S.-based industry’s performance has been weaker in recent years than they’d thought. At the same time, it could turn out to be stronger.  Given how domestic manufacturing has overcome so many other headwinds recently, that would be an upside surprise that I at least wouldn’t find completely surprising.   

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing Job Creation Gains More Momentum

Tags

aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft parts, automotive, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Employment, Federal Reserve, furniture, inflation, Jobs, machinery, manufacturing, miscellaneous durable goods, non-farm payrolls, personal protective equipment, pharmaceuticals, plastics and rubber products, PPE, recession, semiconductor shortage, semiconductors, supply chains, transportation equipment, Ukraine-Russia war, vaccines, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s official April U.S. jobs report featured such a strong showing by U.S.-based manufacturers that, by one measure, they reclaimed title of America’s best job-creating sector during the CCP Virus era (and its aftermath?).

Domestic industry boosted its payrolls sequentially last month by 55,000 workers, its best such performance since July’s 62,000 gain. In addition, revisions were excellent. March’s initially reported 38,000 increase is now pegged at 43,000, and February’s upgraded 38,000 rise is now judged to have been 50,000.

As a result, manufacturing’s share of U.S. non-farm employment (the federal government’s definition of the American jobs universe), has improved from 8.38 percent in February, 2020 – the last full data month before the virus began roiling the national economy – to 8.41 percent as of last month.

And during this period, manufacturing’s share of America’s private sector jobs is up from 9.83 percent to 9.86 percent.

Domestic industry has recovered a slightly smaller share of the jobs it lost during the sharp pandemic-induced downturn of spring, 2020 (95.89 percent) than the private sector (97.62 percent). But it also shed fewer jobs proportionately than the rest of the private sector during that terrible March and April. (For the record, because of a drag created by public sector hiring, the share of all non-farm jobs regaine d now stands at 94.59 percent.

In all, U.S.-based manufacturing employment is now down a mere 0.44 percent from immediate pre-pandemic-y February, 2020.

April’s manufacturing jobs winners were broad-based, but the biggest among the major sectors tracked by the Labor Department were:

>transportation equipment, whose 13,700 employment improvement was its best such performance since last October’s 28,200. (Last month I erroneously reported that the sector’s best recent monthly performance was last August’s 19,000.) Unfortunately, March’s initially reported employment advance of 10,800 was revised down to 8,800, and February’s previously estimated 19,800 jobs plunge (the worst monthly performance since April, 2021’s automotive shutdown-produced nosedive of 48,100) is now judged to be 19,900. Bottom line: This sector’s employment levels are still 3.38 percent below those of that last full pre-pandemic data month of February, 2020;

>machinery, where 7,400 jobs were added on month – an especially encouraging result since its products are so widely used throughout the rest of manufacturing and the entire economy. Even better, March’s initially reported 1,700 employment increase was revised all the way up to 6,700, and February’s perfomance – which had been revised down from an 8,300 rise to one of 6,600, recovered a bit to 6,700. As a result, machinery employment is off just 1.55 percent from its February, 2020 levels;

>automotive, which boosted headcounts by 6,400 – its best monthly gain since last October’s 34,200 plant reopening-driven burst. But March’s initially reported 6,400 jobs rise was downgraded to 3,600, and even though February’s major job losses were revised for the better again, they’re still pegged at 14,000 – the worst since the 49,100 employees shed during the shutdowns last April. These gyrations have left the combined vehicles and parts workforce 0.78 pecent smaller than in February, 2020;

>plastics and rubber products, which upped employmment by 5,700 sequentially in April, the best such performance since last August’s 7,800. Job-wise, these sectors are now 3.38 percent larger than in February, 2020.

The only significant jobs losers in April were furniture and related products and miscellaneous durable goods. The former lost 1,100 positions in April, but employment has still inched up by 0.57 percent since pre-pandemic-y February, 2020. The latter – which includes much of the protective gear needed to fight and contain the CCP Virus – reduced employment by 1,400 sequentially last month. But this decrease was the first since last August’s 600 loss, and followed a strong 3,100 jobs gain in March. This catch-all category’s employment is now 1.54 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 as with the rest of domestic industry for March, their employment picture showed improvement overall.

The semiconductor and related devices sector is still struggling to meet demand, but hiring continued its slow-but-steady pandemic-era increase in March with job gains of 700. February’s initially reported 100 employment loss now stands at a 100 employment gain, and January’s numbers stayed at plus-300 – the best monthly performance since last October’s 1,000. This sector now employs 1.34 percent more workers than in February, 2020 – impressive since during the sharp spring, 2020 economic downturn, it kept adding jobs.

The latest employment results were mixed for surgical appliances and supplies makers – a category within the aforementioned miscellaneous durable goods sector, and one in which personal protective equipment and similar medical goods abound. In March, the industry added 1,100 workers, but revisions completely wiped out February’s initially reported 800 jobs gain. The January hiring increase stayed at a downwardly revised 1,300. Even so, since just beforet the pandemic’s arrival in force in the United States, these companies have increased payrolls by 4.07 percent.

The very big pharmaceuticals and medicines industry continued to be a moderate employment winner in March. It hired an additional 900 workers on month, and though its February improvement was downgraded (from 1,300 to 1,000), the number was solid. Moreover, January’s hugely upgraded 1,100 employment rise stayed intact. Since February, 2020, this sector’s headcount is up fully 9.23 percent.

March jobs gains were more subdued in the medicines subsector containing vaccines, but they still totaled 400. February’s initially reported employment increase of 800 is estimated at just 500 now, and January’s identical increase stayed the same. But over time, this industry’s jobs growth has been impressive – 23.15 percent since the last pre-pandemic data month of February, 2020.

Good job gains continued in March in the aviation cluster as well. Aircraft manufacturers (including still-troubled industry giant Boeing) rose by 1,100 sequentially – the best monthly gain since last June’s 4,400. February’s increase was upgraded from 500 to 600, but January’s sequential job loss stayed unrevised at 800. This net increase brought aircraft employment to within 11.08 percent of its February, 2020 level.

The aircraft engines and engine parts industry followed February’s unrevised 900 hiring increase by adding 500 more workers in March. January’s results, however, stayed at a slightly downgraded 900 loss. And these companies’ still employ 12.65 percent fewer workers than in February, 2020.

The deep jobs depression in the non-engine aircraft parts and equipment sector remained deep in March, but a little less so. Jobs gains for the month totaled 700, February’s initially reported 200 increase was unrevised, and January’s way upwardly revised job rise was downgraded only from 1,500 to 1,400. But since just before the pandemic, the non-engine aircraft parts and equipment sector has still shrunk by 15.74 percent.

Having recently navigated its way skillfully through a once-in-a-century pandemic, a virtual shutdown of the entire U.S. economy, continuing supply chain disruption, multi-decade high inflation, a major war in Europe (so far), former export champ Boeing’s woes, and sluggish-at-best growth in much of the foreign markets it relies on heavily, it’s tempting to say that U.S-based manufacturing will have finally met its match if the Federal Reserve’s inflation-fighting campaign dramatically slows growth domestically — or worse.  But since the pandemic began, the next time the manufacturing pessimists are right will be the first.