(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing Growth is Overcoming the Ukraine War, Too

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft parts, appliances, automotive, electrical components, electrical equipment, Federal Reserve, furniture, inflation, logistics, machinery, manufacturing, medical devices, medical equipment, metals, monetary policy, non-metallic mineral products, pharmaceuticals, printing, semiconductors, supply chains, textiles, transportation, {What's Left of) Our Economy

My day got away from me yesterday, so I couldn’t finish up my report on that morning’s Federal Reserve’s newest U.S. manufacturing production figures (for March) till now. But they’re worth examining in detail because although they’re the first such data to be released since the Ukraine war broke out and began disrupting global supply chains for important goods, they strongly resembled last month’s statistics – which were the final pre-war figures.

And just as interesting: Many of the results for individual industries illustrated strikingly the roller coaster ride on which much of domestic industry remains, with multi-month bests in particular coming right on the heels of multi-month worsts. Moreover, underscoring much of the uncertainty created by Ukraine-related tumult coming on top of (and in China’s case, alongside) CCP Virus-related tumult, some revisions of previous months’ readings were unusually large.

In inflation-adjusted terms, American manufacturing output grew 0.87 percent sequentially in March. The increase was powered largely by a 7.80 percent monthly jump in real output in the exceptionally volatile automotive sector. But even stripping out vehicles and parts production, price-adjusted manufacturing production improved by 0.40 percent in March.

In addition, revisions were mildly positive. February’s initially reported 1.20 percent constant dollar month-on-month production increase – the best such performance since last October’s 1.71 percent – was upgraded to 1.22 percent. January’s downwardly revised 0.03 percent improvement is now estimated at 0.11 percent. And December’s small dip was revised up again – from -0.06 percent to -005 percent.

Consequently, since the last full data month before the CCP Virus began roiling the U.S. economy (February, 2020), domestic manufacturing has expanded by 4.42 percent – up from the 3.37 percent calculable last month.

At the same time, U.S.-based industry is still 2.91 percent smaller than at its all-time peak – reached just before the Great Recession in December, 2007 – although that’s up from the 3.88 percent deficit calculable last month.

March’s biggest manufacturing production winners were:

>automotive, as mentioned above. That was the biggest sequential gain since last October’s 10.64 percent, but it follows a February drop that’s been downgraded from 3.55 percent to 4.64 percent. And that was the worst monthly figure since last September’s 6.32 percent. All these (and previous) ups and downs left after-inflation vehicle and parts production 3.50 percent below their immediate pre-pandemic (February, 2020) levels;

>aerospace and miscellaneous transportation, where after-inflation production rose by 1.90 percent on month. The February advance, was downgraded substantially, from 3.22 percent to 1.64 percent, leaving the March increase the biggest since last July’s 4.21 percent. These industries are now 16.43 percent larger in real terms than in February, 2020;

>electrical equipment, appliances and components’ price-adjusted production climbed 1.03 percent sequentially and February’s increase was revised all the way up from 0.48 pecent to 1.95 percent– best since last July’s 3.24 percent. Inflation-adjusted output in these sectors is now 5.55 percent above thei February, 2020 levels; and

>plastics and rubber products, which displayed a similar pattern. Real output was up 1.14 percent sequentially in March, and February’s results were more than doubled – from +1.46 percent to +3.14 percent. That burst – the best since August, 2020’s 3.85 percent – left constant dollar production for these industries 3.56 percent greater than in immediate pre-pandemic-y February. 2020

In addition machinery, which is such a bellwether for both the rest of industry and the entire economy because of the widespread use of its products, price-adjusted output in March improved by 0.78 percent over February’s results. And although the February improvement was downgraded from 0.78 percent to 0.54 percent, after-inflation machinery production is still up 8.29 percent since February, 2020.

The biggest March manufacturing growth losers were:

>non-metallic mineral products, whose 1.15 percent March monthly decline was the worst such figure since last May’s 2.29 percent decrease. But this drop-off followed a February monthly surge that was upgraded from 3.46 percent to 3.94 percent – the .best such showing the 4.34 percent of June, 2020 – early in the recovery from the deep economic downturn triggered by the first wave of the CCP Virus and related lockdowns and behavioral curbs. Real output in this sector has now risen by 3.28 percent since February. 2020;

>primary metals, where similarly. March’s 1.69 percent fall was the biggest since January’s 2.46 percent drop – and followed a February 2.26 percent increase that was upgraded from the previously reported 2.10 percent and represented the best monthly performance last April’s 3.48 percent. Primary metals inflation-adjusted output is now 1.16 greater than in Februrary, 2020;

>furniture and related products’ after-inflation production sank by 1.51 percent from February to March – the worst such figure since February, 2021’s 3.21 drop. But March’s lousy results followed a February increase that was also more than doubled – from 2.52 percent to a 5.63 jump that was this sector’s best since June 2020’s 5.66 percent. These results brought real output in furniture and related products to within 0.80 percent of its immediate, February, 2020 pre-pndemic level;

>textiles’ 1.46 percent monthly March real output decrease was its worst monthly result since January’s 2.30 percent drop. But it, too, followed a strong February. That month’s improvement was upgraded from 0.03 percent to 0.97 percent – the biggest monthl increase since September’s 1.36 percent. Yet in real terms, the industry is still 5.84 percent smaller than in February. 2020;

>and printing and related support activities. It’s 1.10 percent March sequential after-inflation output retreat was also its worst since January’s 2.16 percent decrease. But it, too, followed a strong February. Indeed, that months’ inflation-adjusted production increase was revised up from 1.66 percent to 2.66 percent – its best such performance since last May’s 2.75 percent rise. This cluster, though, has still shrunk by 4.69 percent in constant dollar terms since February. 2020.

Growth was solid, too, in industries that consistently have made headlines during the pandemic.

In the aircraft and aircraft parts sector, real production increased in March by 2.31 percent. Because February’s initially reported 2.52 percent monthly rise was marked all the way down to 1.13 percent, the March figure became these industries’ best since last July’s 3.44 percent (which I mistakenly reported last month was an August total). January’s results were downgraded, too – and for a second time, to 0.91 percent. But the sector is still 15.86 percent bigger than it was after inflation than in February, 2020.

The big pharmaceuticals and medicines sector turned in a more mixed performance. March’s 1.17 percent price-adjusted monthly production increase was the best such total since last August’s 2.39 percent. But February’s initially reported 1.08 percent gain is now reported as a 1.15 percent loss. January’s constant dollar production change, however, was revised up from a 0.14 percent drop to a 0.45 percent increase. All told, pharamaceuticals and medicines production is 14.75 percent higher afte inflation than in February, 2020.

But the news was unambiguously good in the medical equipment and supplies sector that contains so many of the products needed to fight the pandemic. The March inflation-adjusted output improvement was 1.81 percent and February’s production growth was upgraded from 1.39 pecent to 1.73 percent. Further, the January after-inflation growth figures – which had already been revised up from 2.50 percent to 3.26 percent – was upgraded further to 3.28 percent. And a December result that was first reported as a decline of 2.75 percent is now estimated to be a dip of just 0.37 percent. All told, output in these sectors has increased by 10.80 percent since immediately pre-pandemic-y February, 2020.

And although the national and global semiconductor shortage persists, U.S. domestic production kept rising healthily. Output in March improved month-to-month by 1.99 percent adjusted for inflation, February’s initially reported rise of 1.96 percent was upgraded to 2.87 percent (the best such growth since April, 2017’s 3.78 percent), and January’s downwardly revised 0.37 percent sequential output decline was revised up to a 0.05 percent gain. As a result, semiconductor production is upfully 25.99 percent over its immediate pre-pandemic levels.

The March manufacturing production figures portray a domestic industry resilient enough to withstand not only pestilence but (so far) war and the beginnings of tighter Federal Reserve monetary policy aimed at slowing U.S. growth in the name of reducing  inflation. No one knows what catastrophes the future may hold, or how much more the aforementioned problems could worsen. But it’s looking like any force powerful enough to derail American manufacturing for long may need to be truly Biblical in its proportions.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: No Winter of Discontent for U.S. Manufacturing Production

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft parts, automotive, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Federal Reserve, food products, inflation-adjusted output, machinery, manufacturing, medical equipment, Omicron variant, pharmaceuticals, real output, semiconductor shortage, semiconductors, supply chains, textiles, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s Federal Reserve report on industrial production (for January) showed once again that if you’re looking for clickbait-y news about the economy, don’t look at U.S. manufacturing. The new figures showed not only that inflation-adjusted domestic manufacturing output grinded out another pretty good monthly gain (0.22 percent), but that whatever Omicron-related hit to industry’s growth was delivered in December was much smaller than first estimated (a decline of just -0.07 percent instead of -0.28 percent). And revisions overall for previous months were positive.

This performance left real manufacturing production 2.49 percent above the levels it hit in February. 2020 – the last full data month before the CCP Virus and its effects began impacting the economy (and everything else). December’s revision, moreover, pushed industry’s constant dollar expansion in 2021 up from 3.71 percent to 4.06 percent. That’s still the highest level since 2011’s 6.48 percent, but this strong growth also partly reflected one of those CCP Virus baseline effects – since between 2019 and 2020, domestic manufacturing shrank by 1.94 percent after inflation.

With January’s price-adjusted monthly production increases broad-based, the list of significant winners was longer than usual. For the major industry groupings tracked by the Fed, it includes (in descending order):

>the 1.43 percent monthly jump in textiles and products’ constant dollar production, which continued a strong recent run. All the same, these industries remain 1.61 percent smaller in real terms than in pre-pandemic-y February, 2020;

>an especially encouraging 1.37 percent real output rise in miscellaneous durable goods – a category that contains the personal protective equipment and respirators so crucial to the pandemic response. This advance did follow a big sequential production drop in these products in September, but at least it’s now judged to be 1.91 percent, rather than 2.68 percent. As a result, the miscellaneous durable goods industries put together are now 7.20 percent larger than in February, 2020;

>a 1.08 percent rise in inflation-adjusted machinery production that’s also encouraging because this sector’s products are used so widely throughout the rest of manufacturing and the non-manufacturing economy. This increase was the best since July’s 2.85 percent pop, and December’s good initially reported 0.68 percent improvement is now pegged at 0.87 percent;

>food products’ 0.90 percent after-inflation growth, which continues a long stretch of steady improvement. Inflation-adjusted output in this sector is only 1.25 percent higher than in February. 2020 – but it never suffered the huge downturn of spring 2020 that the rest of manufacturing and the economy experienced, So it’s never benefited much from any baseline effect;

>a 0.87 percent increase in the aerospace and miscellaneous transportation sector. January’s performance didn’t make up for the 0.97 percent December drop that was these industries’ worst since August’s 2.31 percent nosedive. But output in this cluster is still 13.08 percent greater after inflation than in February, 2020.

Manufacturing’s biggest January production losers included:

>petroleum and coal products, where a 1.47 percent monthly after-inflation slump was its second consecutive significant decrease (although December’s decrease is now judged to be 1.46 percent, not 1.58 percent). Price-adjusted production in this sector is now down by 5.92 percent since February, 2020, just before the pandemic rocked the economy;

>the 1.44 percent retreat registered by printing and related support activities. December’s initially reported 1.82 percent downturn is now estimated at just 1.02 percent, but real output in these sectors is still down 4.95 percent since Febuary, 2020;

>and a 0.89 percent constant dollar monthly production fall-off in automotive, which keeps struggling with the global semiconductor shortage. Both the December and November results received big upgrades (from a 1.29 percent decrease to a 0.38 percent slide in the former, and from a 1.69 percent drop to a 0.41 percent decline in the latter). But real output of vehicles and their parts is 6.25 percent short of their February, 2020 figure.

January’s generally good manufacturing output results carried over into industries that have been prominent in the news during the pandemic.

In aircraft and parts, price-adjusted monthly production rose 1.37 percent – the best rate since August’s 3.44 percent. Revisions were mixed, with December’s 0.38 percent decrease revised down to a 0.74 percent fall-off, and November’s once-upgraded 1.04 percent decrease pushed up again to a 0.69 percent dip. Even so, inflation-adjusted output in these industries is now 13.14 percent higher than in pre-pandemicky February, 2020, as opposed to the 10.71 percent growth calculable from last month’s Fed release.

Pharmaceuticals and medicines saw a January constant dollar output advance of 0.27 percent, and December’s previously reported 0.13 percent decrease was revised all the way up to a 0.81 percent gain. In real terms, therefore, these industries are 14.91 percent bigger than in February, 2020, as opposed to the 13.42 percent calculable last month.

In line with the pattern revealed in their miscellaneous durable goods super-sector, inflation-adjusted output of medical equipment and supplies rebounded in January, with its 2.50 percent increase representing the best monthly performance since July, 2020’s 10.78 percent burst. (In last month’s report, I mistakenly wrote that April, 2020 had seen the previous best.)

Moreover, the initially reported 2.75 percent after-inflation output swoon for December has been upwardly revised to a decrease of 1.97 percent. These developments were enough to leave real medical equipment and supplies production 4.43 percent above their levels of February, 2020. As of last month, they were 1.50 percent below.

Finally, let’s add semiconductors to the list of pandemic industries examined. In tandem with “other electronic components” (the joint category tracked by the Fed), their real output declined fractionally on month in January, which broke a streak of steady growth that resumed last June. Price-adjusted output in this group of industries is fully 20.66 percent above its immediate pre-pandemic level – and was never significantly depressed by the steep virus-induced recession of early spring, 2020.

Especially if the CCP Virus actually moves to the rear-view mirror in upcoming weeks and months (in the form of becoming endemic, not disappearing altogether), then the outlook seems bright for domestic manufacturing. Granted it’s benefited from gigantic stimulus from fiscal and monetary policy, and those spigots are being tightened and crimped. But historically speaking, they’re by no means tight or closed, and there’s no reason to believe that if smaller amounts of stimulus start slowing growth meaningfully, that Washington won’t open the floodgates again. In addition, consumers’ finances still seem healthy, and Americans’ determination to spend seems unchecked (which is in part why inflation has been so persistent).

A return to public health normality should further untangle supply chain snags, ease labor shortages, and open recovering foreign economies wider to U.S. exports (though U.S. imports can be expected to rise as well). Just as important, it will remove most of the unprecedented uncertainty manufacturers have faced for the last two years and counting.

And although inflation is still likely to be elevated (not least because of energy prices, which are a big major cost to many manufacturing industries), so far domestic industry has shown the ability to handle it. As they say on Wall Street, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. But it’s at the least impressive evidence for optimism.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing Returns to Growth – On Automotive’s Back

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft parts, appliances, automotive, Boeing, CCP Virus, climate change, consumers, coronavirus, COVID 19, election 2021, electrical equipment, Federal Reserve, inflation, inflation-adjusted output, machinery, manufacturing, medical devices, medical equipment, monetary policy, petroleum and coal products, pharmaceuticals, printing, real output, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Just as earlier in this CCP Virus-whipsawed economy of ours, as goes the U.S. automotive sector, so goes domestic manufacturing when it comes to output (at least to a great extent). That’s the main story told not only by the inflation-adjusted manufacturing production figures released by the Federal Reserve this morning (for October), but by virtually this entire data series this year.

Domestic industry grew in price-adjusted terms by a healthy 1.30 percent on month in October, snapping a two-month losing streak, and the results were pulled up powerfully by combined vehicle and parts production – which shot up by 10.98 percent. That was its biggest sequential increase since July, 2020’s 29.39 percent, when industry and the entire economy were snapping back strongly from the steep but short virus-induced recession. Without this automotive spurt, real manufacturing output would still have risen nicely in October, but that 0.62 percent monthly gain was less than half the total with automotive.

Complicating the picture still further: Mainly because of the semiconductor shortage, after-inflation automotive output has been on a nothing less than a roller coaster this year. Here are the monthly results for 2021 so far:

January:         +0.63 percent

February:      -10.65 percent

March:            -3.99 percent

April:              -7.23 percent

May:              +5.20 percent

June:               -4.97 percent

July:               +8.54 percent

August:           -2.95 percent

September:     -7.12 percent

October:       +10.98 percent

And for a change, revisions didn’t make a big difference in either the recent overall manufacturing or automotive statistics.

Aside from automotive, manufacturing’s biggest growth winners among the big categories tracked by the Fed were petroleum and coal products (up 4.97 percent), chemicals (up 1.93 percent), printing and related support actvities (1.41 percent) and aerospace and miscellaneous transportation (1.36 percent).

The biggest losers? Electrical equipment, appliances and components (down 1.53 percent), machinery (down 1.27 percent), and miscellaneous durable goods (a grouping that includes much pandemic-related medical equipment – down 0.88 percent).

The machinery drop – the biggest since February’s 2.59 percent – was particularly discouraging, as its products are used throughout manufacturing and big non-manufacturing sectors (like agriculture and construction) alike.

As for manufacturing industries that have been prominent in the news during the pandemic, their October performance was decidedly unimpressive.

Aircraft and parts was the best of the lot. Their real output expanded by 1.43 percent on month in October, but September’s initially reported 1.83 percent increase was revised down considerably, to 0.45 percent. In all, price-adjusted aircraft and parts production is now 14.59 percent above its levels in February, 2020 – the U.S. economy’s last full pre-CCP Virus data month.

Moreover, the sector’s giant, Boeing, has had an excellent news week this past week – especially reports that China may end its two-year ban on buying the company’s jets. So even though aircraft and parts output after inflation has already topped February, 2020’s levels by 14.59 percent, even better times may lie ahead.

Pharmaceuticals and medicines, however, have lost significant growth momentum recently. Following August’s strong (but downwardly revised) 2.46 percent sequential real production increase, the sector has now slumped for two straight months. September’s previously reported 0.74 percent decline is now pegged as a 1.04 percent drop, and inflation-adjusted production sank another 0.51 percent in October. As a result, measured in constant dollars, these industries are just 11.86 percent bigger than just before the pandemic struck – and this despite massive vaccine production.

The news was only slightly better in the crucial medical equipment and supplies sector – which includes virus-fighting items like face masks, protective gowns, and ventilators. After-inflation production was off 1.08 percent in October from September levels, and September’s own initially reported 1.53 percent real monthly output growth is now estimated at just 0.73 percent. Since February, 2020, therefore, real output of these products has advanced by just 2.57 percent.

Whereas I was somewhat pessimistic about U.S. manufacturing’s near-term prospects in my post last month on the output data, the picture now looks brighter. As mentioned just above, the aircraft industry may be back after some very difficult years caused by the CCP Virus-caused slump in travel and Boeing’s safety problems. An infrastructure bill has been passed (though its impact is unlikely to be felt in a major way for many months). Strong overall economic growth seems likely for the fourth quarter of this year. And although the pandemic is by no means over, its main growth-depressing effects may well be past.

Moreover, most of the remaining threats to domestic industry – big business tax hikes and stricter environmental and climate-change regulations – seem less likely due to Republican victories in so many of this year’s elections. And manufacturing’s continued growth seems to indicate that, however serious supply chain snags have been, and however much longer they may last, companies are managing their way through them reasonably well.

The biggest cloud hanging over manufacturing – and the entire economy – looms bigger than ever, though: a tightening of monetary policy to try to tame heated inflation that looks less transitory with each passing month, and that also could curb consumers’ so-far-raging appetites all by itself. Don’t be surprised if volatile automotive stays a major key.  

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing Hiring’s Sloughing Off Delta – For Now

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft parts, appliances, automotive, Boeing, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Delta variant, electrical equipment, Employment, fabricated metal products, food products, healthcare goods, Jobs, logistics, machinery, manufacturing, medical equipment, metals, non-farm payrolls, pharmaceuticals, plastics and rubber products, PPE, private sector, semiconductor shortage, supply chains, tariffs, transportation, vaccines, {What's Left of) Our Economy

This morning’s official monthly U.S. jobs report (for August) brought a notable departure from recent trends. Athough the overall results were lousy (as total employment rose by just 235,000 during the month), manufacturing hiring soared by 37,000.

It’s true that nearly two-thirds of these gains (24,100) came from the automotive sector, which has been roiled recently by a shortage of semiconductors that’s wreaked havoc on the output of today’s increasingly electronics-stuffed vehicles. It’s also true that this progress might be snuffed out soon by the still widening spread of the CCP Virus’ highly infectious Delta variant and whatever new curbs on economic activity and consumer behavior it might keep prompting.

But it’s also true that domestic industry’s strong hiring in August came during a month when Delta had already become front-page news – which surely expains much of the much-weaker-than expected rise last month in overall non-farm payrolls (NFP – the U.S. jobs universe of the Labor Department that produces the employment data).

And it’s true as well that the major upward revision revealed to the July manufacturing jobs increase (all the way from 27,000 to 52,000 – the best such performance since last August’s 55,000) entailed much more than the vehicles and parts sectors (where the hiring advance was judged to be 10,500 instead of merely 800).

For example, July’s machinery jobs gains were upgraded from 6,800 to 9,100 (its strongest monthly result since last September’s 12,200); those for electrical equipment and appliances was estimated at 1,500 instead of 200; and employment in the plastics and rubber sectors was pegged at 2,300, not 300.

Despite its last excellent two months, U.S.-based manufacturing remained a job-creation laggard during the pandemic period as of August. But it became less of a laggard. Since the deep CCP Virus- and lockdowns-induced downturn of March and April, 2020, when manufacturers shed 1.385 million jobs, these companies have boosted employment by 1.007 million – erasing 72.71 percent of those losses. That share of regained jobs is up from the 68.74 percent level it reached in July.

That’s faster improvement than registered by the private sector, whose regained job percentage rose from 76.96 to 78.72, and by the total non-farm economy, where the advance rose from 74.50 percent to 76.60 percent.

Moreover, it’s important to remember that during the economy’s spring, 2020 woes, manufacturing employment suffered less than payrolls in the rest of the economy. Its job levels fell by 10.82 percent, compared with 16.46 percent for the private sector and 14.66 for the entire non-farm economy.

As with the July revisions, the list of significant manufacturing employment winners in August was hardly confined to the automotive industry. Among the major industry categories used by the U.S. government, fabricated metal products payrolls increased by 6,600 on month (the highest sequential boost since March’s 10,100); plastics and rubber products by 3,100 (its best such performance since February’s 4,500); and food manufacturing (1.600).

The biggest July jobs losers were electrical equipment and appliances (down 3,100, for its worst hiring month since January, when its payrolls fell by 3,400) and miscellaneous durable goods (a category containing personal protective equipment – PPE – and other medical supplies crucial for fighting the CCP Virus), whose 1,800 jobs lost were the worst such total since the entire economy’s spring, 2020 meltdown.

Also somewhat discouraging – job creation in the machinery sector, whose products are used elsewhere in manufacturing and throughout the rest of the economy, flatlined in August following its big 9,100 July spike.

The most detailed employment data for pandemic-related industries is one month behind those in the broader categories, but their July job-creation performance was decidedly mixed. In surgical appliances and supplies (the sector containing PPE and similar goods), May’s previously reported payroll decline of 900 is now judged to be a drop of 1,900, but June’s 500 jobs increase remained intact and was followed by an identical improvement in July. As a result, employment in this crucial national health security sector is now 9.22 percent above immediate pre-pandemic levels.

The overall pharmaceuticals and medicines industry saw hiring slow down notably in July – from a downwardly revised 2,300 in June to 400. May’s downwardly revised loss of 300 jobs stayed intact. These changes left payrolls in the sector 4.72 percent above February, 2020’s immediate pre-pandemic levels.

The story was little better in the pharmaceuticals subsector containing.vaccines. Its May and June employment gains are still judged to be 1,000 each, and no jobs at all were added in July. But its workforce is still 10.21 percent higher than just before the pandemic.

The July results showed that aircraft industry employment is still on a roller coaster, since Boeing is still struggling to overcome the manufacturing and safety issues it’s faced in recent years, along with the CCP Virus-related slump in business and leisure travel. May’s 5,500 monthly plunge in employment was unrevised in this morning’s figures, June’s 4,500 increase was upgraded to 4,700, but payrolls retreated again in July – by 1,500. Due to all these fluctuations, aircraft employment fell to 8.08 percent below its levels just before the pandemic arrived in force in the United States.

The aircraft engines and parts industries added 200 employees on month in July, but June’s previously reported increase of 500 was downgraded to 400. As a result, payrolls are down fully 14.80 percent since immediate pre-pandemic February, 2020.

It’s still possible that the Delta, or some other, CCP Virus variant will lower the boom on domestic manufacturing employment going forward – both because economic activity and therefore demand for manufactured goods will stagnate or drop not only in the United States, but in industry’s important foreign markets. Supply chain snags are no sure bet to clear up any time soon, either.

Nonetheless, U.S.-based manufacturing is still clearly benefiting from the Trump tariffs continued by President Biden that are pricing huge amounts of metals and Chinese-made goods out of the domestic market. Vast amounts of economic stimulus are still pouring into the American and foreign economies. And there remains tremendous pent-up demand among U.S. consumers and businesses alike, due to the lofty heights that household savings have reached and to clogged logistics systems. (A “hard” infrastructure bill will help U.S.-based manufacturers, too. But despite efforts to speed up the permitting process, regulations that can long delay the launch of new projects still may mean that the much of the new work will take months and even years before they’re “shovel ready.”)

And as I keep pointing out, those with the most skin in this game – domestic manufacturers themselves – keep professing optimism. (See, e.g., here and here.) That last consideration still tilts the balance toward manufacturing bullishness for me.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Winter Smacks February U.S. Manufacturing Output but Forecast Remains Bright

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, American Rescue Plan, automotive, Biden, Boeing, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Covid relief, Donald Trump, facemasks, Federal Reserve, industrial production, inflation-adjusted output, machinery, manufacturing, masks, medical equipment, petroleum refining, pharmaceuticals, plastics, PPE, real growth, resins, semiconductor shortage, semiconductors, stimulus package, tariffs, Texas, Trade, vaccines, winter, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Count me as one awfully surprised blogger when I saw this morning’s Federal Reserve U.S. manufacturing production figures (for February), which reported a 3.12 percent sequential drop in industry’s inflation-adjusted output. That was by far the worst such monthly performance since pandemicky April’s 15.83 percent crashdive, and even though the Fed largely blamed harsh winter weather in much of the country, it still contended that manufacturing would have shrunk by about half a percent even in balmier conditions.

A big reason for my surprise was the apparent contrast between these results and the findings of the monthly manufacturing surveys conducted by various of the Fed’s regional branches. They’re soft data, presenting manufacturers’ perceptions rather than actual changes in output (or jobs, or capital spending, or any other indicator), and I’ve written before that soft data are anything but perfect. But not only were the production reads in these surveys strong. They were strong even in Texas, where the storms were so severe. (And the Dallas Fed’s survey was conducted as they were raging.) Moreover, the same held for the February results from the neighboring Kansas City Fed bank.

Further, other hard data – specifically, on jobs – pointed to a good February for manufacturing, too, as industry expanded its payrolls by 21,000.

But the new Fed production numbers shouldn’t be dismissed entirely, so let’s look at the…lowlights, starting with the revisions, which were moderately negative. January’s previously reported 1.04 percent monthly advance is now pegged at 1.29 percent. December’s already once-downgraded inflation-adjusted output growth was lowered again, from 0.94 percent to 0.84 percent. November’s result, which had been upgraded twice (most recently to 1.10 percent) is now judged to have been 1.05 percent. October’s string of upward revisions was stopped, too, as the new report reveals a downgrade from 1.51 percent to 1.39 percent.

Overall, these readings mean that domestic manufacturing’s after-inflation production has grown by 20.26 percent since its April nadir, and stands 3.83 percent below its last pre-pandemic reading, from February.

As not the case with recent Fed industrial production reports, the output changes were highly concentrated in a few industries. Bearing out the central bank’s observation that “some petroleum refineries, petrochemical facilities, and plastic resin plants suffered damage from the deep freeze and were offline for the rest of the month,” most of these sectors saw outsized price-adjusted month-to-month drops in February. For petroleum and coal products, the fall-off was 4.43 percent, and for the huge chemicals sector, 7.11 percent Interestingly, the chemicals decline was even bigger than that it suffered last April, at the depths of the pandemic and related economic activity curbs (6.08 percent).

And as for those resin plants? Their February real output plummeted by fully 28.12 percent – much more than at any time last spring, during the pandemic’s height, and the worst such performance since the 30.64 percent cratering during Great Recessionary September, 2008. In fact, constant dollar output in the industry sank to its lowest level since equally Great Recessionary March, 2009.

Another February real production decrease that looks temporary (but perhaps longer-lasting): the 8.26 percent plunge in constant dollar automotive production. The main culprit is no doubt a global shortage of semiconductors that could well weigh on the entire domestic manufacturing sector going forward.

As known by RealityChek regulars, the machinery sector is a major barometer of manufacturing’s overall health, because its products are used throughout industry. So given February’s poor results for the entire sector, it’s no surprise that real machinery output was off by 2.33 percent on month. But January’s results were upgraded tremendously – from 0.52 percent after-inflation growth to 2.59 percent. So price-adjusted machinery output is still within 1.17 percent of its final pre-pandemic levels.

Because Boeing’s protracted safety-related problems continue to clear up, aircraft and parts production notched another month of growth in real terms in February – an increase of 1.04 percent. Revisions, however, were negative, especially December’s – its previously upgraded production increase (to a strong 3.03 percent) is now judged to be a 0.61 percent decline. Largely as a result, inflation-adjusted output is now just fractionally above its February pre-pandemic level.

The picture was brighter in pharmaceuticals and medicines. This industry, which includes vaccines, saw its after-inflation production climbed by anorther 1.29 percent in February. Moreover, January’s initially reported robust 2.42 percent increase was revised to an even better 2.57 percent. As a result, pharmaceutical and medicines real output is now 5.62 percent higher than just before the pandemic, and should generate even better results in the coming months, as vaccine production will be surging even more strongly.

Unfortunately, the also vital medical equipment and supplies sector – which includes virus-fighting items like face masks, face masks, protective gowns, and ventilators – is still behind the curve. Constant dollar production actually dipped by 0.56 percent on month in February, although in another major revision, January’s performance is now judged to be a 1.08 percent gain rather than a 0.54 percent loss. All the same, real production in this sector (which encompasses many other products as well) is still 1.37 percent less than just before the CCP Virus and the lockdowns arrived in force.

All told, I’m still full of confidence about domestic manufacturing production, due to the Boeing, vaccines, and now the Biden stimulus effects. And don’t forget the administration’s continued reluctance to lift its predecessor’s towering and sweeping tariffs on China, and on metals imports from many countries. Lastly: The weather’s bound to keep getting better!

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Manufacturing Job Growth Kept Slowing Last Month

Tags

737 Max, aerospace, automotive, Boeing, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Department of Labor, Jobs, Joe Biden, machinery, manufacturing, medical equipment, non-farm employment, pharmaceuticals, PPE, private sector, stimulus package, tariffs, trade war, Trump, vaccines, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The manufacturing employment growth slowdown that began in early summer continued in November, according to the latest monthly U.S. jobs report released by the Labor Department this morning. Moreover, industry’s cumulative employment-creation rate of increase during the CCP Virus rebound period fell further behind that of the overall American private sector.

Domestic manufacturers added a net 27,000 workers to their payrolls in November – the weakest rise since August’s 30,000. As recently as June, such industrial jobs jumped by 333,000. Moreover, revisions were slightly negative. September’s monthly 60,000 gain was unchanged, but the October improvement was reduced from 38,000 to 33,000.

In a return to early rebound-period patterns, automotive employment dominated the November picture for manufacturing, as vehicle and parts makers accounted for well over half (15,400) of the sequential payrolls expansion.

Other job-creation winners for November included plastics and rubber products (4,600 of the total 5,000 job gains for the non-durable goods super-sector); furniture (3,100); and miscellaneous durable goods manufacturing (2,500 – this category includes much virus-related medical equipment, more on which below).

Monthly employment losses in manufacturing were small by sector, but widespread. The worst results were turned in by fabricated metals products (2,000), the big chemicals sector (1,900), primary metals (1,700), and apparel (1,500).

Somewhat encouragingly, the large bellwether machinery sector managed to add to its payrolls, but the increase was just 1,900, and the October rise was revised down from 3,900 to 3,000.

As of November, manufacturing had regained 764,000 (56.05 percent) of the 1.363 million jobs lost during the worst of the pandemic-induced downturn in March and April. Its employment drop during those months represented 10.61 percent of its payrolls level in February – the last pre-virus month.

That rate of improvement is still faster than that of the economy overall: Non-farm payrolls (the Labor Department’s U.S. employment universe) have recovered 12.326 million (55.62 percent) of their March and April losses.

But this economy-wide total was held back by the 99,000 public sector jobs lost in November, due overwhelmingly to the federal government’s release of 93,000 workers hired temporarily to help conduct the 2020 Census. At the same time, state and local government employment levels were little changed last month, and they could wind up implementing major job cuts unless Washington approves CCP Virus relief for them. So the cumulative manufacturing numbers may well continue looking better than the overall non-farm payrolls numbers for the next few months at least, but for all the wrong reasons.

And accordingly, as of November, the overall private sector has regained 12.670 million (59.79 percent) of the 21.191 million jobs it shed during the worst pandemic months.

The employment figures for the CCP Virus-related medical manufacturing categories only go through October, but given the scale of the pandemic and the demand for these products, their jobs gains have been surprisingly negligible since the worst of the virus-induced recession.

For example, the broad pharmaceuticals and medicines sector added only 100 workers on net in October, and has increased its payrolls by only 0.74 percent since February and 1.01 percent since April. It’s true that its job losses were minimal (0.26 percent in March and April). But the recent increases still look meager given the nation’s months-long health emergency.

Within this category, the sub-sector including vaccines hired 600 net new employees in October, bringing its jobs gains to 1.26 percent since February, and 3.42 percent since April – also reflecting modest job losses suffered in February and March. And of course, due to recent announcements of promising vaccines and the likelihood of huge production ramps, the employment picture here will bear close watching in the months ahead.

The employment performance of the manufacturing category containing PPE goods like face masks, gloves, and medical gowns has been stronger. In October, its payrolls expanded by 400, and they’re up 7.38 percent since February, and actually grew slightly during March and April, too.

Of course, numerous wild cards are likely to impact domestic industry’s job-creation record going forward. But their net effect is difficult to forecast now, for any number of reasons. How much bigger will the virus’ second wave become? Will pandemic relief be approved in Washington, and how big will any package be? Will economic growth continue whether such legislation is passed or not?

That vaccine sector doesn’t look big enough to affect overall manufacturing job totals. But resumed production of Boeing’s safety-troubled 737 Max model and of aerospace manufacturing generally due to an overall national and global recovery would be substantial. And finally, will apparent President-elect Joe Biden lift any of President Trump’s steep, sweeping China tariffs? With this many uncertainties still clouding the picture, it could be many months before a manufacturing New Normal emerges – and with it, the prospect of figuring out exactly how healthy or sickly domestic industry’s fundamentals really are.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Without Supply Chain Transparency, There’s No Supply Chain Security

Tags

Bureau of Economic Analusis, Defense Department, Defense Innovation Unit, defense manufacturing, election 2020, FDI, foreign direct investment, GAO, Government Accountability Office, health security, Joe Biden, medical equipment, national security, offshoring, Pentagon, supply chains, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Earlier this month, I criticized Joe Biden’s new plan to strengthen U.S. domestic manufacturing with a special eye toward boosting the security of key supply chains for holding out as a model the Pentagon’s work on defense-related manufacturing. Just this week, I found even more evidence to support the view that if the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is really serious about achieving this goal (and given his longstanding record on trade and globalization issues, ample doubt is warranted) he’ll need a dramatically new model.

By the way, these findings show that the Trump administration also remains too far from getting its own supply chain act together.  And the main reason is a dangerous – and wholly unnecessary – lack of supply chain transparency.

The evidence comes from a September, 2019 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (an investigative arm of Congress) that summarizes the views of a panel of specialists convened to discuss foreign threats to the U.S. defense manufacturing base, and presents findings on the subject from various U.S. government agency, private sector, and university studies. The threats include the offshoring of the production of key defense-related goods; takeovers by foreign entities of U.S.-based facilities that supply these products, along with important services, or foreign acquisitions of significant stakes in these facilities; and the loss of U.S. competitiveness in these areas for market- and competition-related reasons and the resulting turns to foreign suppliers.

And crucially, the panelists consulted (listed on p. 40 of the report) include no notable supposed globalization alarmists or China hawks. In fact, one panelist was a senior executive of the U.S.-China Business Council, which has been a major pillar of what I call the nation’s Offshoring Lobby.

The report correctly noted that the use of foreign-origin goods and services can benefit U.S. national security interests. Specifically, it can “lower costs and provide better access to foreign workers and markets [which can help the companies in question gain the benefits of economies of scale by winning more customers].” Moreover, “When companies that offshore contract with DOD [the Departent of Defense], they can pass those benefits along. Foreign investment can help U.S. companies grow.”

So as in all areas of public policy, the key is finding the best balance, and reasonable people can always legitimately disagree on where it’s found. But here’s what’s really alarming about the message sent by the GAO report – and collectively by all the specialists and materials consulted: Neither the Defense Department nor any other branch of the U.S. government has the ability needed to achieve this goal partly because they lack the information needed to identify vulnerabilities, and partly because much helpful information is kept confidential at the request of private industry.

Here are the main relevant observations and conclusions presented in the report making emphatically clear that the nation lacks the supply chain transparency vital to improving supply chain security:

>”[T]he absence of a common definition of offshoring makes it difficult to analyze the extent to which offshoring is occurring in general as well as its effect on the defense supplier base. As such, the extent of offshoring and its effects are largely unknown.”

>”[P]ublicly available data do not provide granularity to analyze foreign direct investments in industry subsectors that comprise the defense supplier base.”

>”Pentagon “industrial policy officials told us that BEA’s [the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis] publicly available data are not complete enough to assess foreign investments in U.S. defense industrial subsectors. We also found that BEA does not disclose certain data for industry subsectors if the data would disclose the identity of individual companies, as these data are considered confidential. For example, BEA data on new foreign direct investment from China in the U.S. industry subsector “electrical equipment, appliances and component manufacturing” are not publicly available for 3 of the 5 years we reviewed.”

>”[A]ccording to BEA, new foreign direct investment data do not capture foreign investment transactions that involve less than 10 percent voting ownership in a U.S. enterprise. This may include data on venture capital investments in U.S. start-ups. According to a report by the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) within DOD, there are an increasing number of investments in U.S. venture-backed startups from China-based investors that are not tracked by the U.S. government. This limits full visibility into foreign investors and the technologies they are investing in, as well as any increase or decrease in investment flows.”

>The DIU “echoed concerns about the limitations of U.S. government data and stated that the U.S. government does not comprehensively track all available data on investments, including those from private sources to assemble a complete picture of the level of foreign investment in U.S. companies.”

One big takeaway from the above is that the Defense Department is far from the only culprit here. Much more important, though, nothing could be clearer from this list of information gaps than that the Pentagon that Biden would rely on hasn’t made much of an effort to close them. And although the Trump administration has rhetorically prioritized reshoring manufacturing back to the United States in part for national security-related reasons, and can boast noteworthy progress in changing the U.S. trade policies that have encouraged so much defense-related offshoring, it’s clearly made little progress in making sure that it has the most fundamental information it needs to make sound decisions.

Also critical to recognize: It’s not that this information doesn’t exist. As I’ve previously noted, the companies that produce these goods and provide these services know exactly they, and most of their own contractors and subcontractors, are doing. Fully understanding and optimizing their own operations, after all, is one of the main ways they make money.

And the best way to extract what the government needs is to require legally what I’ve described as “Truth in Globalization” – and require it fast. Otherwise, no matter who wins the Presidency in November, the U.S. government will needlessly keep flying blind on supply chain security.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New Fed Manufacturing Figures Show No Burst So Far in Anti-CCP Virus Goods Output

Tags

(What' Left of) Our Economy, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, facemasks, Fed, Federal Reserve, healthcare goods, industrial production, inflation-adjusted growth, manufacturing, manufacturing output, medical devices, medical equipment, PPE, protective gear, ventilators, Wuhan virus

No one should have been surprised by this morning’s manufacturing output report from the Federal Reserve, which judged that industry’s inflation-adjusted production tumbled by 6.27 percent in March from February’s levels – which was revised downward slightly from a 0.12 percent gain from a 0.02 percent dip. In other words, “Thanks, China!” for the CCP Virus that’s caused an unprecedented shutdown of huge sections of the U.S. economy.

Lately, however, some manufacturing sectors of special concern have emerged – the healthcare goods sectors. And the results are below.

Unfortunately, the statistics in the relevant sectors aren’t very granular. In particular, they don’t enable us to distinguish between, say, masks and ventilators, or between final pharmaceutical products and vaccines, or between CAT-scan and MRI machines and non-medical high tech instruments. Still, the following sequential results must have some significance, given the overall skid in after-inflation manufacturing production. And for February-March, they are:

soaps, cleaning compound, & toilet preparation:      +1.85 percent

pharmaceuticals & medicines:                                  +0.50 percent

  (includes vaccines)

medical equipment & supplies:                                 -1.55 percent

  (includes everything from ventilators to facemasks)

Less helpful is learning that constant dollar output in a category called “navigational, measuring, electromedical and control instruments” decreased by 2.39 percent on month.

Keep in mind that since these data were compiled, all manner of manufacturing companies have volunteered, or been officially pressured, either to ramp up their existing healthcare goods production greatly, or to enter the field. So next month’s Fed industrial production report – for April – should be more revealing. For now, however, the March numbers don’t show much in the way of surge production.

Nor should anyone expect the Fed’s figures on manufacturing capacity and capacity utilization to shed much light on healthcare-related surge performance and surge capacity. The categories simply aren’t this detailed.

Maybe one of the CCP Virus-induced changes in government will be involve tracking healthcare-related manufacturing data in more detailed? Stay tuned. And send all such suggestions to

Jerome Powell, Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th St. and Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, D.C.  20551

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Private Sector Employment Increasingly Depends on Public Spending

Tags

defense manufacturing, healthcare, innovation, Jobs, medical equipment, non-farm jobs, pharmaceuticals, private sector, productivity, subsidized private sector, {What's Left of) Our Economy

If you’re a real data geek, you’re giddy over the prospect of a new year not just (or even mainly!) because great parties or possibly new beginnings are on the way. You’re (maybe mainly!) giddy because you’ll soon be getting full-year economic statistics!

This morning, as reported in this morning’s post, we got a big batch – from the Labor Department in the form of its release on the American employment scene for December. The numbers will be revised at least twice more, but they’re a decent marker, and certainly didn’t disappoint in terms of at least one important development I’ve been following – the burgeoning importance of job-creation in parts of the economy that are commonly defined as “private sector,” but that depend heavily on government spending.

As I’ve written repeatedly, drawing this distinction isn’t important because government spending is either good or bad. It’s important because in terms of generating sustainable prosperity, innovation and productivity growth are crucial. The lion’s share of both still comes from the private sector, and ultimately from the market forces that in turn overwhelmingly shape it. If ever more hiring is taking place in parts of the economy (notably healthcare services) reliant on the budgetary decisions of relatively un-innovative, un-productive politicians, America’s economic prospects could be dimmer than widely thought. And that’s precisely one of the main messages being sent by the new jobs report and the January-December figures.

For the record, Labor Department preliminarily estimated that 59,000 net new jobs were created in this subsidized private sector in December. That’s a little over a fifth of all the hiring gains on month attributed to the entire non-farm sector (Labor’s American employment universe), and a slightly larger percentage of increased employment in the private sector as conventionally defined.

But much more revealing are the full-year 2015 numbers and how they compare with those of other recent years. From last January through December, non-farm jobs on net rose by 2.650 million, and employment in the conventional private sector rose by 2.551 million. (Government hiring accounted for the rest.) The subsidized private sector gained 655,000 net new jobs – 24.72 percent of the total new jobs and 25.68 percent of the conventional private sector jobs.

It’s clear that something special is going on in the subsidized private sector just from looking at its share of employment on a stand-still basis. As of December, it accounted for 15.62 percent of all non-farm jobs and 18.45 percent of all conventional private sector jobs – considerably lower than its share of employment gains.

And indeed, the subsidized private sector’s role in total hiring has grown dramatically. In 2014, it generated 15.66 percent of the increase in non-farm employment and 16.04 percent of the improvement in conventionally defined private sector employment. In 2013, those figures were just 13.57 percent and 13.21 percent, respectively. In other words, in terms of total employment advances, the subsidized private sector’s role has jumped by 82.17 percent, and in terms of conventional private sector job-creation, it’s up by 94.40 percent – a near doubling.

As a result, job-creation in that part of the private sector that doesn’t benefit from major government largesse hasn’t been firing on nearly as many cylinders are often portrayed. Rather than creating 96.26 percent of all of 2015’s net new jobs, it was only responsible for 71.55 percent. Moreover, the gap has been widening. In 2014, the “real” private sector accounted for 81.96 percent of overall employment, not the 97.63 percent indicated by the standard classification. In 2013, the Labor Department actually reported that private sector job creation exceeded total job creation because government employment shrank. But more accurately defined, the private sector’s share of new jobs was just 89.11 percent.

And the farther back you go, the more impressive the subsidized private sector’s employment performance looks and the less impressive its market-driven counterpart appears. Since the recovery technically began, in mid-2009, the total non-farm economy has created 12.298 million jobs. If the private sector is conventionally defined, it’s accounted for even more net new jobs: 12.873 million. But strip out the 2.836 million private sector jobs in subsidized industries, and that number falls to 10.037 million – or 81.61 percent of total hiring.

Another way to look at the situation: During the recovery, total non-farm employment is up by 9.39 percent and private sector jobs conventionally defined have grown by 11.88 percent. But without the subsidized private sector’s jobs boom, the private sector increase falls to 11.30 percent. The growth rate of subsidized private sector jobs? Much faster, at 14.52 percent.

And here’s how all these new subsidized private sector jobs have changed the U.S. employment landscape. At the start of the last recession, in December, 2007, this portion of the economy accounted for 13.63 percent of all American non-farm jobs. By the time the recovery began, in June, 2009, its employment share was up to 14.92 percent. And last month, it hit that aforementioned 15.62 percent level.

Conversely, the real private sector stood at 70.19 percent of the non-farm workforce when the recession struck. It share fell to 67.84 percent by the time the recovery began eighteen months later, and at the end of last year, had recovered to only 69.02 percent – below pre-recession levels.

In fact, however, the subsidized private sector’s share of the American employment is surely greater than indicated above. For shouldn’t we include all the employees of the pharmaceutical and medical equipment industries? Along with defense manufacturers? Data for the former aren’t hard to track down but figures for the latter can be pretty elusive – and aren’t officially kept by Washington.

For all the problems associated with a public sector-dominated employment scene, it’s surely better for Americans who can work to hold some kind of job than none. But just as subsidized economic growth is no substitute for the real thing, subsidized employment looks like a poor candidate for delivering the living standards and healthy economy the nation still so urgently needs.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Expect Imports to Keep Preventing Lift-Off

Tags

consumer spending, consumers, demographics, Employment Cost Index, health care, imports, manufacturing, medical equipment, National Institutes of Health, personal income, pharmaceuticals, recovery, retirement, savings, subsidies, Trade, Trade Deficits, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Three new government reports have put the spotlight back on American consumers, and especially on whether they can quicken a U.S. recovery that continues to disappoint the conventional wisdom (though not me!). I’m no expert on consumer trends. But I do feel confident that whatever new vigor American shoppers start showing will provide only a limited growth boost – because so much of what they buy will continue to come from abroad.  As a result, this spending will generate more production and job creation overseas than at home.

The three reports I’m talking about were:

(a) yesterday’s preliminary reading on first quarter gross domestic product, which showed the economy slogging along at a pathetic 0.25 percent real annual rate;

(b) today’s reading on first quarter employment costs, which showed a decent (at least by recent standards) gain in wages and salaries (numbers that aren’t adjusted for inflation); and

(c) today’s report on March consumer spending and incomes, which showed the former up and the latter flat month-to-month. That made for the first monthly fall in the personal savings rate since November.

These results all reinforce a picture of the economy that’s gained traction in recent months – of workers doing somewhat better after years of stagnant, at best, incomes, and in fact getting a nice filip from falling energy prices but remaining cautious shoppers nonetheless. As a result, most analysts foresee a solid increase in spending and therefore growth for the rest of the year, as Americans open their wallets wide again.

As ever, though, and especially in recent years, the fly in the lift-off ointment is imports, whose scale and robust growth has greatly weakened the longstanding relationship between what Americans consume and how fast the economy grows. For despite the endless talk of the United States being a “consumer-driven economy,” it’s production that fuels GDP growth, not shopping.

As I wrote yesterday, the trade shortfall has grown fast enough to take a big bite out of growth since the last recession ended, in the middle of 2009. But yet another news item today helps illustrate how the process works. It’s a Fiscal Times piece claiming that fully 20 percent of U.S. household spending now goes to health care services and medicines – up from six percent in 1960. According to another calculation, that works out to more than $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country.

Since most health care spending winds up on the services side, that’s actually good news as far as growth itself is concerned, since nearly all of these services are supplied domestically. Yet when it comes to health care products, it’s another story entirely – as can be demonstrated by looking at trade balances in these sectors.

In a phrase, they’ve worsened greatly since 2000. In fact, a $9.71 billion deficit more than quadrupled to $46.78 billion by the end of last year. Some health care-related products have excelled – e.g., surgical and medical equipment and laboratory instruments, which improved on smallish surpluses. But others, often thought to be among the nation’s technological and industrial crown jewels, have fallen flat on their faces – notably electro-medical equipment. At the beginning of the millennium, America ran a $1.21 billion trade surplus in devices like CAT-scan and MRI machines. But by 2014, this trade had turned into a $2.03 billion deficit. And the 800-pound gorilla in the health care manufacturing category is the pharmaceutical sector, which saw a $955 million trade shortfall balloon to $31.52 million during this period.

Even worse, demand for all these health care products is heavily subsidized by government. And the nation wouldn’t even boast a world-class pharmaceutical industry without the research and development performed by the federal government’s National Institutes of Health. So increasingly, Americans’ tax dollars are being used to create and expand markets for products supplied by foreign factories and workers, and in many cases to create products themselves whose manufacture is offshored by U.S.-owned firms.

To add insult to this injury, thanks to a combination of those government subsidies and an aging population (in many foreign countries, too), health care is among the most promising future manufacturing growth markets. If the vast majority of these products were made in America, the employment, wages, and output would stay in the United States, and fuel more growth that’s healthy. On top of a recovery that’s faster and more sustainable, the resulting health care manufacturing boom could take some of the expected economic and financial sting out of the nation’s looming demographic crisis.

But because of Washington’s indifference to where goods are produced, and widespread ignorance over what really fuels prosperity, much of this golden opportunity will be squandered, and health care will be yet another sector where America’s spending bucks keep generating less and less vital growth bang.