(What’s Left of) Our Economy: America’s China Trade by the (Industry-Specific) Numbers

Tags

China, commodities, energy, exports, imports, manufacturing, Trade, trade deficit, trade surplus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Last week, RealityChek analyzed in great industry-by-industry detail new government data illuminating U.S. trade trends for the first half of this year. This week, we’ll see how leading sectors of the American economy have fared versus Chinese competition during that period, and how it compares with their performance during the first half of last year. And we’ll also examine how America’s China trade in these respects compare with the nation’s global trade performance.

As with the global trade data presented last week, the industry categories used are those of the most granular level of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), the federal government’s main system for slicing and dicing industry-specific economic data. I like this six-digit level because it draws the greatest number of distinctions between final manufactured products and the parts and components of these products. This distinction is critical because the rapid growth in recent decades of global supply chains (i.e., the rapid growth of American production offshoring) means that a large percentage of U.S. and global trade consists of trade in these manufacturing inputs.

Two other technical notes: First, because trade data for major aerospace products aren’t made public in order to protect corporate information considered proprietary, the six-digit NAICS results in this sector are unreliable, and the five-digit level data are being used. Second, because the release of services trade data lags considerably, these RealityChek reports cover only goods trade (which still comprises the vast majority of U.S. trade flows).

Let’s start with a list of the nation’s top ten goods exports to China for the first half of this year, and how their performance has changed in dollar terms since the first half of 2016:

1. Aerospace: -10.7 percent

2. Autos & light trucks: +26.0 percent

3. Soybeans: +30.6 percent

4. Waste & scrap: +19.2 percent

5. Semiconductors & related devices: -2.7 percent

6. Crude oil & natural gas: +3,250.2 %

7. Plastics materials & resins: +32.3%

8. Semiconductor production machinery: +7.1 percent

9. Pharmaceuticals: +45.2 percent

10. Miscellaneous basic organic chems: +15.7 %

And here’s the list of America’s top ten worldwide goods exports, and how these levels have changed since the first half of 2016:

1. Aerospace: -4.0 percent

2. Petroleum refinery products: +26.1 percent

3. Autos & light trucks: -8.5 percent

4. Special classification provisions: +9.7 percent

5. Semiconductors & related devices: +4.7 percent

6. Miscellaneous auto parts: +1.4 percent

7. Miscellaneous basic organic chemicals: +3.7 percent

8. Pharmaceuticals: +3.9 percent

9. Plastics materials & resins: +6.3 percent

10. Primary smelted non-ferrous metals: +54.0 percent

Both lists contain mainly advanced manufactured products, which is good for the U.S. economy because these sectors are great performers in terms of high wage job creation, innovation, and (historically, anyway) productivity growth. But some important differences between the lists can be seen, too. For example, the year-to-date swings in the China trade flows generally are much greater – both where American exports have risen and where they’ve fallen.

And then there’s the rocket ride taken by American crude oil and gas exports to China. These shipments alone accounted for more than 22 percent of the period’s increase in total U.S. goods exports to China. But how can that pace possibly continue?

Also noteworthy: The big increase in American car and light truck exports to China. Given the PRC’s ambitious plans to become a major automotive production power, (though one whose own output is still dominated by foreign- brand products) how much longer will Beijing remain content to import so many vehicles from abroad?

Speaking of imports, here’s the list of the top ten U.S. goods purchases from China and how they’ve changed between January-to-June, 2016 and January-to-June this year:

1. Broadcast & wireless comm: +26.4%

2. Computers: +7.9 percent

3. Telecomms equipment: +18.2 percent

4. Computer parts: -19.2 percent

5. Games, toys, childrens’ vehicles: +7.1%

6. Printed circuit assemblies: +50.0 percent

7. Audio & video equipment: -15.0 percent

8. Miscellaneous plastics products: +7.1%

9. Institutional furniture: +8.5 percent

10. Metal household furniture: +10.3 percent

And for comparison’s sake, here’s the corresponding list of America’s leading global goods imports:

1. Autos & light trucks: +4.5 percent

2. Crude oil & natural gas: +53.7 percent

3. Pharmaceuticals: +2.3 percent

4. Goods returned from Canada: +4.3 percent

5. Broadcast & wireless communications equipment: +10.3 percent

6. Computers: +6.2 percent

7. Telecomms equip: +8.2 percent

8. Aerospace products: -3.4 percent

9. Petroleum refinery products: +22.2 percent

10. Semiconductors & related devices: -6.4 percent

Unlike the global imports list, the China imports list is entirely comprised of manufactured goods. But they’re hardly all high-value manufactures. Indeed, four of the ten categories consist of relatively simple consumer goods, and three more fall into the consumer electronics area (including that leading broadcast and wireless communications sector, which contains smartphones). The only entry that qualifies as capital- and technology-intensive is telecomms equipment (although the Chinese content of consumer electronics products, and indeed of China’s exports generally, is rising strongly by all accounts).

As with U.S. worldwide trade, however, the big test of America’s competitiveness in China trade consists of the trade balance figures. For mainstream trade theory teaches that products that countries trade most successfully will turn out to be products that countries make most successfully.

So here are the U.S. goods categories running the biggest trade surpluses with China, and how these surpluses have changed between the first six months of last year and the first six months of this year:

1. Aerospace products: -11.58 percent

2. Autos & light trucks: +14.46 percent

3. Waste & scrap: +17.92 percent

4. Crude oil & nat gas: +3,228.07%

5. Plastics materials & resins: +29.94%

6. Semiconductor production machinery: -1.91%

7. Liquid natural gas: +66.25 percent

8. Sawmill products: +24.96 percent

9. Non-poultry meat products: +2.83%

10. Pulp mill products: +6.09 percent

If you agree that advanced manufacturing’s fortunes are central to the U.S. economy’s fortunes, this list is only mildly encouraging, at very best. Yes, the top two categories merit that label, along with plastics materials and resins and semiconductor machinery. But two of those surpluses have shrunk over the past year. And all the other categories are commodities or low-value products. They’re also the categories that saw the greatest trade surplus improvements.

Here are the biggest surplus sectors in America’s worldwide trade:

1. Aerospace products: -2.03 percent

2. Petroleum refinery products: +33.11 percent

3. Plastics materials & resins: +4.73 percent

4. Soybeans: +28.21 percent

5. Other special classification provns: +7.13 percent

6. Corn: +20.26 percent

7. Waste & scrap: -7.82 percent

8. Liquid natural gas: +56.54 percent

9. Semiconductor production machinery: +64.73 percent

10. Non-anthracite coal & natural gases: +223.22 percent

Interestingly, this global list is even more low-value and commodity-heavy than the list of the biggest bilateral China deficit categories. Moreover, here, too, it’s mainly the commodity and lower value products that have seen the biggest improvements in these surpluses.

Finally, let’s examine the biggest deficit categories in America’s trade with China, and how they compare with the global results. First, the China figures and how they’ve changed on a year-to-date basis:

1. Broadcast & wireless communications equipment: +29.14%

2. Computers: +7.56 percent

3. Telecomms equipment: +19.46 percent

4. Computer parts: -20.75 percent

5. Games, toys, children’s vehicles: +7.05%

6. Printed circuit assemblies: +49.77%

7. Audio & video equipment: -15.52%

8. Miscellaneous plastic products: +6.88%

9. Institutional furniture: +8.61 percent

10. Metal household furniture: +10.28%

The biggest total U.S. goods trade deficit categories and their similar increases and decreases?

1. Autos & light trucks: +10.64 percent

2. Crude oil & natural gas: +45.31 percent

3. Goods returned from Canada: +4.25 percent

4. Computers: +1.16 percent

5. Broadcast & wireless communications equipment.: +11.06 percent

6. Telecomms equipment: +19.10 percent

7. Printed circuit assemblies: +47.12 percent

8. Audio & video equipment: -11.50 percent

9. Institutional furniture: +8.56 percent

10. Iron & steel: +76.28 percent

On the value-added scale, the two sets of figures look pretty comparable. But here’s something revealing: Six of the categories appear on both lists, which certainly squares with the idea that the U.S. trade deficit problem is largely a China trade deficit problem. Something else revealing: Tariffs work. Just look at how important iron and steel are on the worldwide deficit list, but don’t even appear on the China deficit. That’s largely because of the steep punitive duties slapped on Chinese steel starting in 2015.

Next up: Which major sectors of America’s goods economy have seen the biggest year-to-date improvement and deterioration on the China goods front, and what do those figures augur for the nation’s economic, industrial, and technological future?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Worsening Automotive Recession Drives Down Manufacturing Output

Tags

aluminum, automotive, Federal Reserve, industrial production, inflation-adjusted output, manufacturing, manufacturing production, recession, steel, tariffs, Trade, Trump, vehicles, {What's Left of) Our Economy

According to the Federal Reserve’s new industrial production figures, a sharp automotive drop-off in July helped pull real U.S. domestic manufacturing output down on month (by 0.06 percent) for the third time this year. Since May, 2015, sector’s inflation-adjusted production is down 2.33 percent – a period much longer than the two-consecutive-quarter definition of recession. July’s annual automotive real output decrease (4.98 percent) was the biggest since September, 2009’s 7.21 percent. And the sector’s 3.64 percent sequential output fall was its biggest since August, 2015’s 3.82 percent.

The vehicle sector performed even worse. Its year-on-year July constant dollar production plunge (9.20 percent) was its greatest since August, 2009 (12.54 percent). And vehicles’ July monthly after-inflation production slide (5.92 percent) was the steepest since August, 2015’s 6.31 percent. Largely as a result, July’s real vehicles production was the lowest monthly total since October, 2014.

With President Trump postponing his decision on tariffs for the import-battered steel and aluminum sectors, their price-adjusted production remained weak in July. The former’s sequential real production slumped by 1.50 percent, and although the annual figure rose by a strong 5.50 percent, the sector is still nearly 20 percent smaller in real terms than at the last recession’s onset. The latter’s July monthly real output inched down while growing slightly on a year-on-year basis, but this industry remains less than half its size when the recession struck. Indeed, for the entire manufacturing sector, after-inflation production in July was down four percent from the level hit as the recession broke out – back at the end of 2007.

Here are the manufacturing highlights of the Federal Reserve’s new release on July industrial production:

>The worst U.S. real automotive production performance in many years – especially in vehicles – helped pull the nation’s after-inflation manufacturing output down 0.06 percent on month in July. Although small, the sequential decline was the third so far this year.

>Leading the way was an automotive sector that had led manufacturing’s strong rebound from a deep recessionary dive.

>Combined vehicles and parts output sank by 3.64 percent on month in July, its biggest such downturn since August, 2015’s 3.82 percent.

>Year-on-year, constant dollar total automotive output was down in July by 4.98 percent – the worst such deterioration since September, 2009’s 7.21 percent.

>Largely as a result, real automotive production in July hit its lowest level since June, 2015.

>The automotive output drop in turn was led by vehicles. Final price-adjusted production in this sector plunged by 5.92 percent sequentially in July – its worst output month since August, 2015 (6.31 percent).

>The year-on-year figures for vehicles were much worse. Compared with the previous July, they plummeted by 9.20 percent – the biggest such decline since August, 2009 (12.54 percent).

>Largely as a result, as of July, real vehicle output stood at its lowest level since October, 2014.

>The new Fed figures also show that the American steel and aluminum industries continue to pay a price for floods of imports widely thought to benefit from government subsidies – and from the Trump administration’s hesitation to impose tariffs.

>July iron and steel production decreased on month by 1.50 percent in real terms. The 5.50 percent year-on-year result was much better, but was helped by favorable comps.

>Moreover, the steel sector’s real output is still 19.70 percent smaller than at the last recession’s onset – more than eight years ago.

>July primary aluminum production declined on month by 1.02 percent, but advanced by 2.90 percent on year.

>Yet primary aluminum production is down 53.49 percent since the last recession began.

>In fact, since that December, 2007 watershed, U.S. manufacturing’s output is down by four percent – meaning that it still hasn’t recovered from the recession.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Into the (Crucial!) Weeds on America’s Trade Performance

Tags

comparative advantage, exports, imports, manufacturing, Trade, trade balances, Trade Deficits, trade surpluses, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The U.S. International Trade Commission has finally added the June American trade statistics to its wonderful Trade Dataweb, an invaluable database and search engine. So now it’s possible to view in needed detail the nation’s trade performance for the first half of 2017, and the first groups of these figures is presented below.

Just so you’ll know exactly what you’re seeing, these are results according to the most granular level of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), the federal government’s main system for slicing and dicing industry-specific economic data. I like this six-digit level because it draws the greatest number of distinctions between final manufactured products and the parts and components of these products. This distinction is critical because the rapid growth in recent decades of global supply chains (i.e., the rapid growth of American production offshoring) means that a large percentage of U.S. and global trade consists of trade in these manufacturing inputs.

Another technical note: Because trade data for major aerospace products aren’t made public in order to protect corporate information considered proprietary, the six-digit NAICS results in this sector are unreliable, and the five-digit level data are being used.

So here are the nation’s top ten goods exports for the first half of this year, and how their performance has changed in dollar terms since the first half of 2016:

1. Aerospace: -4.0 percent

2. Petroleum refinery products: +26.1 percent

3. Autos & light trucks: -8.5 percent

4. Special classification provisions: +9.7 percent

5. Semiconductors & related devices: +4.7 percent

6. Miscellaneous auto parts: +1.4 percent

7. Miscellaneous basic organic chemicals: +3.7 percent

8. Pharmaceuticals: +3.9 percent

9. Plastics materials & resins: +6.3 percent

10. Primary smelted non-ferrous metals: +54.0 percent

It’s an encouraging list because most of these products are high-value manufactures, which historically have been very productive, still create lots of high-wage jobs, and incorporate lots of innovation. At the same time, these export growth rates seem pretty meh.

Here is a similar list of the top ten goods import categories and how their levels have changed on a year-to-date basis:

1. Autos & light trucks: +4.5 percent

2. Crude oil & natural gas: +53.7 percent

3. Pharmaceuticals: +2.3 percent

4. Goods returned from Canada: +4.3 percent

5. Broadcast & wireless communications equipment: +10.3 percent

6. Computers: +6.2 percent

7. Telecomms equip: +8.2 percent

8. Aerospace products: -3.4 percent

9. Petroleum refinery products: +22.2 percent

10. Semiconductors & related devices: -6.4 percent

This looks like a higher value list, and the growth rates seem somewhat higher. So that appears less bullish.

The real test of trade performance, though, has to do with trade balances. For the theory of comparative advantage that’s at the heart of modern thinking and policy in the trade field tells us that economies that trade goods and services most successfully (as indicated by surpluses) will wind up as the most successful producers of those goods. Conversely, economies that trade goods and services least successfully will wind up as the least successful producers of those goods. How else could unfettered trade flows create an optimal global division of labor – which is supposed to be their prime economic virtue according to mainstream economics?

So here are the ten goods sectors that wracked up the biggest trade surpluses in the first half of this year, and how those balances compare with the first-half 2016 figures:

1. Aerospace products: -2.03 percent

2. Petroleum refinery products: +33.11 percent

3. Plastics materials & resins: +4.73 percent

4. Soybeans: +28.21 percent

5. Other special classification provns: +7.13 percent

6. Corn: +20.26 percent

7. Waste & scrap: -7.82 percent

8. LNG: +56.54 percent

9. Semiconductor machinery: +64.73 percent

10. Non-anthracite coal & natural gases: +223.22 percent

If you recognize the outsize economic value of manufacturing, this is a less encouraging list, since fully half the products are commodities. Nor is the growth rate of the surpluses in these manufacturing sectors impressive except for semiconductor production equipment and petroleum refinery products.

And here’s the trade balance flip side: the sectors with the top ten U.S. goods trade deficits and their rates of change:

1. Autos & light trucks: +10.64 percent

2. Crude oil & nat gas: +45.31 percent

3. Goods returned from Canada: +4.25 percent

4. Computers: +1.16 percent

5. Broadcast & wireless communications equip.: +11.06 percent

6. Telecomms equipment: +19.10 percent

7. Printed circuit assemblies: +47.12 percent

8. Audio & video equipment: -11.50 percent

9. Institutional furniture: +8.56 percent

10. Iron & steel: +76.28 percent

This list is full of high-value manufactures – so that should be a concern. Ditto for the growth rates, which are mainly well into the double-digits. And check out the number for steel — a sector that’s been making headlines because of the Trump administration’s consideration of national security-related tariffs.  

Coming up tomorrow: the best and worst export and import growers, and the sectors with the most rapidly improving and the most rapidly worsening trade balances.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Smile When You Say “Wage Inflation”

Tags

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

If you’re really determined to make the case that wage inflation is (finally) taking hold in the U.S. economy, you can find some supporting evidence in the government’s new report on the subject. But you need to look awfully hard, and you also have to ignore other data suggesting that this proposition is still pretty far-fetched.

First the new (July) numbers. (They’re still preliminary, like the June results, which are unchanged.)

For the private sector overall, real wages rose by 0.19 percent month-to-month – lower than June’s 0.28 percent increase. Year-on-year, real wage improvements decelerated, too – from 0.94 percent in June to 0.75 percent in July.

Manufacturing’s results were more robust, with inflation-adjusted wages advancing faster on month in July (0.46 percent) than in June (0.18 percent). Acceleration was evidence on an annual basis, too, with the July year-on-year growth of 0.83 percent besting June’s 0.55 percent. In fact, the July annual increase was the greatest since December (1.03 percent).

The annual constant-dollar statistics contain the strongest signs of vibrant life on the wages front. In particular, year-on-year increases this year have strengthened from 0.09 percent in January to 0.75 percent in July, and in manufacturing from 0.28 percent to 0.83 percent during this period. And that manufacturing figure was the year’s best. As reported above, however, the best annual private sector real wage growth of this year came in June.

In addition, if you more than a year back, you can see that annual real wage growth has slowed considerably after a notable speed-up earlier in the current economic recovery.

For example, for the private sector, after improving by 0.59 percent total between July, 2011 and July, 2014, real wages jumped 2.04 percent between 2014 and 2015, and by 1.90 percent between 2015 and 2016, before the latest, much slower, 0.75 percent rise.

In manufacturing, between July, 2011 and July, 2014, real wages actually dropped by 0.66 percent. The following Julys saw a 1.34 percent increase that nearly doubled to 2.26 percent over the next year before settling back to 0.83 percent during the latest July-July period.

But for me, the most revealing real wage numbers are those measuring its change throughout the current economic recovery. Since it began, in mid-2009, after-inflation private sector wages have risen only by 4.75 percent, and real manufacturing wages are up a mere 2.05 percent. Until those increases get much bigger, warnings of wage inflation understandably will be seen as sick jokes by most American workers.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Still Desperately Seeking Decent Productivity Growth

Tags

Labor Department, labor productivity, manufacturing, multi-factor productivity, non-farm business, productivity, recovery, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The good news about America’s productivity growth that came out this morning is that new Labor Department figures showed it’s gotten a little bit better lately. The bad news is that it needs to get a lot better if the nation is going to achieve the economic goals everyone says they want: economic growth that’s healthy, and wages rising satisfactorily.

Today’s data, which report the results on a relatively narrow but timely measure of productivity growth, also furnish a handy opportunity to review recently released productivity measures that are broader but not quite so up to date.

According to the Labor Department’s preliminary read, U.S. labor productivity for non-farm businesses (the standard definition of the American economic universe) rose in the second quarter of this year at a 0.99 percent annual rate. The first quarter’s advance (feel free to make the “air quotes” gesture) was revised up from literally nothing to next-to-nothing. As RealityChek regulars know, labor productivity measures how much output is generated by each hour worked by each worker.

And that’s where the good news stops. The new Labor Department release also revised these labor productivity figures going back to 2014. These updates left the dismal recent productivity picture little changed, with one noteworthy exception: On an annual basis, labor productivity last year is now judged to have fallen (by 0.1 percent) for the first time since 1982.

Just how gloomy the labor productivity picture has gotten becomes clear when comparing its performance during the last few U.S. economic expansions (a methodology that gives us the best apples-to-apples growth). Note: Because of the new revisions, these figures supersede those contained in RealityChek’s past posts on labor productivity.

2Q 1991 to 1Q 2001: +23.25 percent

4Q 2001 to 4Q 2007: +16.03 percent

2Q 2009 to present: +8.49 percent

Manufacturing’s labor productivity performance shows this kind of deterioration, too. It’s second quarter rise was judged preliminarily to have been 2.44 percent annualized – much better (as has usually been the case) than the increase for the rest of the economy. But the first quarter figure was revised down to 0.29 percent.

And here are the figures for the current economic recovery and its two predecessors:

2Q 1991 to 1Q 2001: +46.81 percent

4Q 2001 to 4Q 2007: +41.23 percent

2Q 2009 to present: +22.25 percent

So manufacturing has seen a big labor productivity slowdown during this expansion, but it’s still leading the economy in this form of productivity growth by far.

But there’s one fly in the ointment here. As previously reported, the way the Labor Department measures labor productivity throughout the economy results in the offshoring of work generating better productivity. And of course nothing’s been offshored in recent decades like manufacturing work. Since offshoring-produced productivity gains aren’t the kind any thinking person would want, this means that the improvements seen in industry lately aren’t quite so impressive as they look. In fact, according to the Department between 1997 and 2006, offshoring accounted for 23 percent of the sector’s labor productivity gains.

At the same time, labor productivity isn’t the only kind of productivity. Multi-factor productivity is a broader, and more reliable measure; it tells us how much output is generated from the use of a wide variety of inputs, like technology, materials, capital, and energy as well as labor. The problem is that the multi-factor productivity data don’t come out nearly as often, and the latest take us only through 2015.

Still, that’s what we have, and what’s striking is that they reveal that, at least for “now,” manufacturing has lost its productivity growth lead. Here are the annual changes reported by the Labor Department for manufacturing in a July 12 release, combined with the latest such figures for the non-farm business sector as a whole:

non-farm business +0.61 percent

manufacturing -2.80 percent

Nor are the longer-term results any better for industry during the last three expansions:

                                        1991-2001          2001-2007           2009-2015

non-farm business       +11.51 percent     +9.91 percent      +5.52 percent

manufacturing             +13.98 percent   +14.66 percent       -2.17 percent

Although honest economists will admit that productivity is one of the most mysterious subjects they study, they’ll also insist that the official statistics provide a reasonably accurate picture about how the nation is using this crucial “secret sauce” for sustainable prosperity. These new Labor Department reports once again remind that the U.S. economy urgently needs to get its productivity culinary skills back up to snuff.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Manufacturing’s Out of its (Short Term) Jobs and Wages Doldrums

Tags

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment, inflation adjusted wages, Jobs, manufacturing, non-farm payrolls, recession, recovery, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

American domestic manufacturing created 16,000 net new jobs in July on month, its best such performance since February’s 22,000. Coupled with a major (11,000) upward revision for June, the figures demonstrated that U.S. industry has for now emerged from a springtime slump. On an annual basis, manufacturing’s July 66,000 employment improvement was its strongest since February, 2016’s 69,000.

But since the current recovery began, private net job creation has topped manufacturing’s by a factor of nearly 2.5. The same story characterized pre-inflation manufacturing wages. In July, they improved sequentially faster than the private sector’s (0.53 percent to 0.34 percent) but lagged year-on-year (2.42 percent to 2.53 percent) and trailed the previous Julys’ 3.13 percent. And during the current recovery, the private sector’s current dollar wages have increased nearly 20 percent faster than manufacturing’s, although the gap has narrowed year-on-year. But despite its good last two months, manufacturing’s share of total nonfarm employment remained at a record low of 8.47 percent.

Here’s my analysis of the latest monthly (July) manufacturing figures contained in this morning’s employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

>U.S. domestic manufacturing net new job creation and wage gains both accelerated sequentially in July, pulling the sector out of a sluggish spring on both fronts.

>Industry’s monthly July jobs gain of 16,000 was its best such performance by far since the 22,000 payrolls improvement in February. Moreover, June’s initially reported 1,000 employment increase is is now judged to have been more than ten times greater (12,000).

>Fiurther, the July figures showed that manufacturing payrolls swelled by 66,000 year-on-year in July – the best annual gains since February, 2016’s 69,000.

>Monthly pre-inflation manufacturing wages growth picked up notably as well in July, from an upwardly revised 0.19 percent in June to 0.53 percent. In May, manufacturing paychecks actually fell on a current dollar basis – by an upwardly revised 0.26 percent.

>Manufacturing’s June sequential pre-inflation wage gains equaled those of the overall private sector, and beat the private sector’s 0.34 percent performance in July.

>Over the longer term, however, manufacturing lagged the overall private sector in both respects, although the paycheck gap has been narrowing slightly recently.

>During the current economic recovery, which began in mid-2009, manufacturing employment is now up by 5.96 percent. Private sector jobs as a whole are up by 14.58 percent during this period.

>Since the late-2007 onset of the last recession, manufacturing’s performance is equally poor. From that time to the early 2010 troughs, manufacturing lost 2.293 million jobs and private sector payrolls shrank by 8.801 million.

>Since then, manufacturing has regained just 42.39 percent of those lost jobs (a total of 972,000). The private sector as a whole has boosted employment by 17 million.

>As a result, total private sector employment is now 7.08 percent higher than at the recession’s late-2007 onset, but manufacturing employment is still 9.61 percent lower.

>Therefore, it’s no surprise that manufacturing’s share of total nonfarm employment in July stayed stuck at its all-time low level of 8.47 percent.

>Wage trends reveal the same manufacturing relative weakness. Industry’s July annual current dollar wage gains of 2.42 percent were lower than the overall private sector’s 2.53 percent. They were also much lower than the 3.13 percent increase recorded for manufacturing during the previous Julys.

>Manufacturing wages before inflation have fared little better during the recovery. As of July, they were up by 15.99 percent since the economy resumed expanding in mid-2009. But overall private sector wage increased by 19.06 percent – 19.20 percent faster.

>Last July, though, the gap was bigger – 23.24 percent.

>Manufacturing generally performs even worse on an inflation-adjusted basis. The latest figures are for June, and show a sequential manufacturing gain of 0.18 percent versus a 0.28 percent read for the private sector overall.

>Year-on-year, real manufacturing wages have risen by only 0.55 percent. That’s both slower than the private sector’s 0.94 percent and manufacturing’s own 2.46 percent constant dollar rise between July, 2015 and July, 2016.

>During the entire recovery, overall private sector real wages are up 4.56 percent as of June – 2.87 times faster than the manufacturing real wage improvement (1.59 percent).

>As bad as that comparison looks, it’s actually narrower than the gap last year – when overall private sector wages had increased 3.48 times faster after inflation than manufacturing wages.

Making News: Appearing Tonight on National Radio About China Trade War Reports – & More!

Tags

China, defense manufacturing, Forbes.com, Foxconn, Gordon Chang, Lifezette.com, Making News, manufacturing, The John Batchelor Show, Trade

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to return to John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show tonight to talk about reports that the Trump administration is gearing up to fight a trade war with China. The segment, which will also feature co-host Gordon Chang, is set to air at 10:30 PM EST.

You can listen live at this link. And as usual, I’ll post a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

In addition, Gordon was nice enough to cite my views in his July 29 post on Forbes.com on the Taiwanese electronics giant Foxconn’s recent announcement of a major new investment in American domestic manufacturing and what it might mean for the nation’s industry.

And Lifezette.com interviewed me for a July 21 article on the Trump administration’s plan to study how dependent the U.S. defense manufacturing base is on foreign-made products.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Real Promise – & Pitfalls – of Foxconn’s New US Manufacturing Plan

Tags

assembly, Carrier, components, flat panel displays, Foxconn, incentives, innovation, Jobs, manufacturing, Paul Ryan, productivity, regulatory reform, Scott Walker, subsidies, tariffs, tax breaks, tax reform, Terry Gou, Trade, trade policy, Trump, Wisconsin, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Sorry for the recent absence – and during an incredibly newsworthy period!  There’s been lots of important economic data released recently, which I’ll be reporting on in upcoming days.  So what to focus on in this return offering?  One recent story that seems to reflect many of the biggest developments and trends of the Trump administration’s first six months is the announcement this past week that the Taiwanese electronics giant Foxconn will be spending $10 billion to build a new factory for flat panel displays in southeastern Wisconsin. 

Think this is a stretch?  Then consider this:

The announcement, which could become a big win for the American economy – and a big feather in the president’s cap –was completely upstaged by a series of White House personnel shakeups orchestrated by Mr. Trump himself.

Moreover, the Mainstream Media accounts invariably combined their longstanding hostility to the president with their instinctive rejection of the possibility that unconventional economic ideas and policies can have any merit. 

For instance, they uniformly focused on the job-creation effects of the new factory – which, as typical for capital-intensive products and industries, will be relatively modest – to portray the news as ruse by the president to convince voters that he was keeping his campaign promise to revive manufacturing employment.  Their main evidence?  The tax breaks and other subsidies the project would receive, which came to many thousands of dollars per position, which were easy to depict as a first class boondoggle.

Further, the media uniformly depicted employment as the only possible upside to strengthening the nation’s high value manufacturing.  Its major contributions to the economy’s productivity growth – which could use a major helping hand – and to its innovative capacities, were completely ignored. 

At the same time, the reporting overlooked crucial questions that need to be answered to assess whether the new Foxconn factory will live up to its promise.  Principally, will it be engaged in components production – where so much of manufacturing’s value-added comes from?  Or will it simply be assembling final products from imported components, as has been the case with other recent foreign electronics investments?  If the latter, the subsidies it’s garnered will be much more difficult to justify.  And in this vein, have either federal or Wisconsin authorities imposed any conditions that would encourage genuine manufacturing?   

Not that the Foxconn announcement completely vindicates globalization policy critics, either – or at least not those who, like me, have insisted that manufacturing revival that matters will require a thorough recasting of American trade policy.  I’ve been especially skeptical of the idea that jaw-boning a la Trump plus some subsidies could make a real difference – though I’ve insisted since Mr. Trump as president-elect intervened in the Carrier company’s decision to offshore Indiana manufacturing jobs that his use of the bully pulpit could greatly aid the welcome transformation of America’s approach to manufacturing that he seemed to have in mind.  And for the record, I’ve been skeptical that subsidies can be decisive, either – because America’s financial support for manufacturing was so unlikely even to approach the scale of, say, China’s. Finally, I’ve never thought that the kinds of regulatory reform efforts Mr. Trump has launched would matter much, either, given that so many potent American trade rivals are practically regulation-free.  

At this early stage, the jury is still out.  But since the Foxconn announcement has hardly been unique, and no significant changes have taken place in U.S. trade policy other than a withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the president so far is doing a pretty good job of proving me wrong.

Nonetheless, I’m still confident that, sooner rather than later, the manufacturing needle won’t be moved without imposing trade curbs of some kind.  Although avowed fiscal conservatives like House Speaker Paul Ryan (of Wisconsin) and his state’s governor, Scott Walker, enthusiastically supported the Foxconn incentives package, their appetite for such measures – even when reduced taxes are involved — is likely to be limited for other parts of the country because of their budget-busting effects.  Indeed, it looks like Ryan may wind up accepting a smaller corporate tax cut in Congress’ tax reform package for precisely this reason.  Moreover, these breaks could easily be offset by similar moves by foreign governments – and added to existing predatory practices like currency manipulation and tariffs of their own.  And I remain convinced that a high-income country, first world country like the United States can never rely heavily on deregulation to compete better against very low-income, largely regulation-free third world countries like China or Mexico. Nor should it want to. But no initiatives could match the power of policies that would limit or close off access to the world’s greatest economic and commercial prize by far, the American market.

In fact, as Foxconn’s CEO has strongly suggested, the threat of U.S. tariffs helped persuade him to promise to manufacture much more in America.  And he’s hardly alone in the corporate world, as I’ve reported.  That’s why I’m somewhat worried about the administration’s reluctance actually to impose tariffs, as opposed to threatening them.  If Mr. Trump keeps hemming and hawing about steel tariffs, and if he keeps opposing ideas like the border adjustment tax, which has just been stripped from Congress’ tax reform package, America’s competitors could easily conclude that his trade policy is largely bluff, and that they can keep using Americans as customers and not workers after all.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Trump’s NAFTA Rewrite Blueprint is an Encouraging Start

Tags

bubbles, Buy American, Canada, dispute resolution, environmental standards, GATT, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, government procurement, labor standards, manufacturing, Mexico, NAFTA, national treatment, non-discrimination, North American Free Trade Agreement, reciprocity, rules of origin, tariffs, TPP, Trade, trade deficit, trade enforcement, trade laws, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trump, value-added taxes, VATs, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The Trump administration is out with its detailed statement of renegotiation objectives for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and if you’ve favored turning U.S. trade policy from an engine of debt-creation and offshoring into one of production-fueled growth and domestic job creation, you should be pretty pleased.

As critics have noted, yesterday’s statement does lack numerous important details about how the administration intends to achieve its goals, and some of these omissions (as will be explained) raise legitimate questions about the depth of the president’s commitment to these changes. But the statute requiring the release of such statements doesn’t mandate disclosure of every – or any – specific strategy for reaching these goals. Moreover, the talks haven’t even started, and these tactics naturally tend to change with circumstances. So those accusing the administration of excessive vagueness should start holding their fire.

As indicated in yesterday’s post, the most important change needed in NAFTA is the addition of teeth to the agreement’s existing rules of origin – the requirements that goods sold within the NAFTA free trade zone comprised of the United States, Mexico, and Canada be made overwhelmingly of parts, components, and materials made inside the zone.

After all, manufacturing dominates trade not only inside NAFTA, but between the NAFTA countries and the rest of the world. Without imposing teeth, non-NAFTA countries will have no meaningful incentive to invest in new NAFTA-area facilities to produce the intermediate goods that comprise the content of final products, like automobiles. And the economies, businesses, and workers in the three countries will be denied immense opportunities to boost production and employment. Indeed, this is precisely this opportunity that’s been missed under the current NAFTA.

It’s difficult to imagine these teeth taking a form other than steep tariffs on goods imports from outside NAFTA, and the Trump blueprint never mentions that “t” word. But it does contain a call to “Update and strengthen the rules of origin, as necessary, to ensure that the benefits of NAFTA go to products genuinely made in the United States and North America.” And it specifies that these improved origin rules must “incentivize the sourcing of goods and materials from the United States and North America.” How could anyone supporting more U.S. manufacturing production and employment not be heartened?

Also impressive – as widely reported, the administration has prioritized preserving America’s ability to “enforce rigorously its trade laws, including the antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard laws” chiefly by eliminating the NAFTA provisions that established international tribunals as the last word in resolving trade complaints among the signatories, rather than the U.S. trade law system. The Trump administration is also seeking to reestablish America’s unfettered authority to impose “safeguard” tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada when they begin to surge into the United States. So if you’re worried that NAFTA and other recent U.S. trade agreements have needlessly undermined American sovereignty, this blueprint is for you.

Similarly, critics have long complained about NAFTA’s overriding of the Buy America provisions of U.S. public procurement regulations aimed at maximizing the American taxpayer dollars used to purchase goods and services for government agencies. The Trump strategy laid out in the blueprint seeks to preserve these and other key domestic preference programs.

It’s true, as is being contended, that in areas ranging from promoting high labor rights and environmental standards, to dealing more effectively with the trade distortions created by state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the Trump NAFTA blueprint looks a lot like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal that the president condemned as a candidate and withdrew from on his first day in office.

It’s just as true, however, that formidable obstacles were bound to prevent effective enforcement of those proposed TPP rules. These loom as large as ever – notably, the huge numbers of U.S. government officials that would be needed to monitor the even huge-er Mexican manufacturing sector on anything close to an ongoing basis. But the final TPP text demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the Obama administration failed to address these concerns adequately. Maybe the Trump administration will come up with viable answers.

Finally, the Trump NAFTA blueprint contains two conceptual objectives that have never been prioritized since the current world trading system was created shortly after World War II, and that trade policy critics should be applauding vigorously. The first is the endorsement of reciprocity as a lodestar of American trade strategy. The second is an emphasis on reducing America’s mammoth trade deficits.

Although reciprocity (i.e., America opens its markets to certain trade partners only to the extent that their markets are open to U.S.-origin goods and services) seems like an uncontroversial trade goal for Washington to seek, and is often presumed to be the goal, nothing until now could be further from the truth. In particular, the foundational principles of the world trade system under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are national treatment and non-discrimination.

National treatment simply insists that countries deal with foreign enterprises the same way they deal with their own domestic enterprises. Non-discrimination simply mandates that countries treat imports from all trade partners’ identically. The big problems? They enable closed economies to maintain way too many trade barriers. For instance, countries that favor certain companies over others for either political reasons (as with China’s state-owned sector) or reasons of national economic strategy (as with Japan’s efforts to limit entrants into certain industries to prevent excessive domestic competition) can continue discriminating in similar ways against foreign competitors. And countries can maintain high trade barriers as long as they apply equally to all imports.

As for trade deficit reduction, it’s a great way to promote healthy, production-led American growth, rather than the kind of debt-led, bubble-ized growth that’s been engineered arguably going back to the 1990s. But here’s where the Trump blueprint can be faulted. Especially if the new NAFTA contains better rules of origin, it’s likeliest to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with non-NAFTA countries, not with the treaty signatories that the blueprint targets. And nothing would be wrong with that result at all.

Two other aspects of the NAFTA objectives deserve comment – and merit genuine concern. First, although it’s good that the administration has included on the list currency manipulation, critics are right to note that specifics are urgently needed. Their development, moreover, is important not mainly because Canada and Mexico have been important culprits (they haven’t been) but because this is a challenge that President Trump needs to meet in connection with countries that clearly have manipulated in the past and could well do so again.

Second, the Trump blueprint makes no mention of value-added taxes (VATS). Mexico’s is 16 percent, Canada’s is five percent at the federal level and eight percent at the provincial level. As with all other VATs, these levies act as barriers to imports and subsidies for exports. Candidate Trump rightly called for American countermeasures in order to level the trade playing field inside NAFTA. President Trump should take heed.   

(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?