(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing’s Productivity Lag Keeps Worsening

Tags

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

They’re not as exciting as the trade data and the jobs data these days. In fact, they rarely generate any excitement. And this year, they had the misfortune of coming out on the 75^th anniversary of D-Day. All the same, last Thursday’s second set of government figures on labor productivity for the first quarter of this year matters because it strengthened the case for a disturbing trend: Although this measure of efficiency – and indirectly, success in fostering healthy growth and sustainably rising living standards – confirmed the initial encouraging results for the economy as a whole, manufacturing’s laggard status looks worse than ever..

As RealityChek regulars know, the labor productivity measured in last week’s report is the narrower of the two productivity gauges regularly published by the Department of Labor. As opposed to multi-factor productivity, which measures how much in the way of a variety of business inputs is needed to generate a unit of output, labor productivity only tells us how much each hour of work put in by an employee achieves that result. But the labor productivity figures come out on a timelier basis, so they’re understandably watched closely.

The release’s headline figure confirmed the solid labor productivity gain originally reported for the first quarter in the “non-farm business” sector – the Department’s definition of the American economic universe when it comes to productivity. Although the 3.4 percent annualized sequential rate of improvement was a little slower than the first 3.6 percent estimate, it remained the best such result since the 3.7 percent recorded for the third quarter of 2014. Moreover, it still left labor productivity growth accelerating since the third quarter of last year.

For manufacturing, however, the first quarter’s sequential labor productivity increase was revised way down – from a pretty good 1.7 percent to a dismal 0.4 percent.

Even worse, whereas non-farm business productivity improved because both output and hours worked rose (the productivity gain recipe we want to see), the much smaller increase for manufacturing stemmed from hours worked dropping even faster than output (the productivity gain recipe we don’t want to see).

As a result of this poor manufacturing performance, the labor productivity gap between industry and the rest of the economy has been widening – and not in a good way for industry. Here’s an updated table showing the total labor productivity gains for non-farm businesses and for manufacturing during the two previous economic expansions and the current expansion (in order to ensure apples-to-apples comparisons).

                                                               Non-farm business       Manufacturing

1990s expansion (2Q 1991-1Q 2001):     +23.74 percent         +45.86 percent

bubble expansion (4Q 2001-4Q 2007):    +16.59 percent        +30.23 percent

current expansion: (2Q 2009 to present): +12.18 percent          +9.59 percent

It’s worrisome enough that the non-farm business increases have been decelerating since the 1990s expansion. But the extent of the manufacturing slowdown has been nothing less than shocking. Indeed, during the current recovery, manufacturing has clearly lost its labor productivity leadership status – and by a considerable margin.

Alternatively put, even though the 1990s expansion and the current expansion have lasted roughly the same amount of time, the rise in non-farm labor productivity during this recovery has been only about half as fast, and that for manufacturing only about a fifth as fast.

American manufacturing has shown some important signs of revival under President Trump – especially in job creation and output (at least until recently). But whatever the results of Mr. Trump’s trade wars, unless its labor productivity performance improves dramatically, its comeback will remain sorely incomplete.

Advertisements

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Sort of Mixed U.S. Productivity Report

Tags

labor productivity, manufacturing, non-farm business, productivity, {What's Left of) Our Economy

This morning’s government report on labor productivity for the first quarter of this year contained a valuable reminder that this measure of the economy’s efficiency – and indirectly, its success in fostering healthy growth and sustainably rising living standards – can improve for good and not-so-good reasons. And the complicating factor in an otherwise strong set of data came in manufacturing.

Labor productivity, as RealityChek regulars know, is the narrower of the two productivity gauges regularly published by the Department of Labor. As opposed to multi-factor productivity, which measures how much in the way of a variety of business inputs is needed to generate a unit of output, labor productivity only tells us how much each hour of work put in by an employee achieves that result. But the labor productivity figures come out on a timelier basis, so they’re understandably watched closely.

As suggested above, the overall figures were encouraging. For non-farm businesses (the Labor Department’s U.S. economy universe), labor productivity rose by 2.40 percent between the first three months of 2018 and the first three months of this year. That was the best such performance since the third quarter of 2010 (2.70 percent), and especially good news since that previous mark came much earlier in the current business cycle (i.e., much sooner after the end of the last severe recession), when robust productivity gains are generally easier to generate.

Moreover, these labor productivity advances have accelerated sequentially since the third quarter of last year.

In addition, on a quarter-to-quarter basis, the first quarter’s 3.60 percent increase at an annual rate was this metric’s best performance since the 3.70 percent rise in the third quarter of 2014.

Manufacturing’s 1.20 percent productivity improvement over the first quarter of 2018 wasn’t stellar, but pretty much in line with recent readings. The new quarter-to-quarter reading, though, was solid; industry’s labor productivity was up 1.70 percent annualized – the best such performance since the 4.40 percent pop in the fourth quarter of 2017. And the rate of increase here had sped up since the third quarter of last year as well.

The fly in the ointment concerns why first quarter manufacturing labor productivity even rose at that solid quarter-to-quarter pace. A big part of the reason was that manufacturing output fell during this period – by one percent at an annual rate. In other words, the sector reduced the number of hours its workers worked, but it also saw production fall – just more slowly. That result is certainly better than output falling just as fast or faster than hours worked. But it doesn’t qualify as “good.”

The latest sequential manufacturing annualized output decrease is the first since the 1.50 percent decline in the third quarter of 2017 (when the sector’s productivity sank by a recessionary 4.40 percent at an annual rate). Industry’s labor productivity rebounded sharply in the following quarter (by 4.20 percent annualized, while output shot up by 5.70 percent). So maybe this latest lousy output number is just another bump in the road.

But it’s that combination that represents the best possible labor productivity outcome: Both output and efficiency rising at the same time.

It’s also important to remember, however, that both the economy overall and the manufacturing sector still aren’t close to returning to their labor productivity performances of the recent past. Here are the updated comparisons between the current recovery, and its two most recent predecessors:

                                                                 Non-farm business     Manufacturing

1990s expansion (2Q 1991-1Q 2001):       +23.74 percent         +45.86 percent

bubble expansion (4Q 2001-4Q 2007):      +16.59 percent        +30.23 percent

current expansion (2Q 2009 to present):    +12.17 percent          +9.96 percent

The newest quarterly figures brighten the picture slightly. But boasting about the U.S. economy should definitely be muted until these productivity numbers start turning around dramatically.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Manufacturing’s Productivity Leaders Continue to Surprise

Tags

aerospace, aluminum, appliances, Bureau of Labor Statistics, durable goods, labor productivity, manufacturing, non-durable goods, pharmaceuticals, productivity, semiconductors, steel, {What's Left of) Our Economy

One of my favorite sets of U.S. government statistics came out this morning – “Productivity and costs by industry: manufacturing and mining industries.” However boring it sounds, it’s useful because it sheds lots of light on which specific sectors within domestic American manufacturing should be seen as winners and losers or “industries of the future” (presumably the productivity stars) versus smokestack and other allegedly outmoded types of activity (the productivity laggards).

In addition (and this will be covered in an upcoming post), these detailed figures on manufacturing labor productivity (the narrowest of the two types of productivity tracked by the feds, but the measure that comes out on the timeliest basis) go far toward showing whether job loss in manufacturing lately has mainly been due to trade and globalization, or to industry’s improved efficiency. This debate of course has long been near or at the heart of the broader, decades-long debate about the effectiveness of American trade policies.

First let’s look at the overall numbers – which are anything but flattering to manufacturing. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (which compiles these data), in 2018, when manufacturing’s labor productivity as a whole rose by 0.80 percent, it fell in absolute terms in 67 out of the 86 sectors examined. That was a worse performance than in 2017. Even though that year, overall manufacturing labor productivity improved by slightly less (0.70 percent), it decreased in 54 of those 86 industries.

Broken down by super-categories, in 2018, in the 51 durable goods industries followed by the Bureau, labor productivity declined in 41. In the non-durables super-sector, labor productivity dropped in 26 of 35 sectors studied. For 2017, the comparable numbers were 34 of 51 and 20 of 35, respectively.

Even more interesting, in my view, are the results for these 86 individual industries. First, the ten best labor productivity performers in 2018 and their annual percentage gains. As you’ll see, the list that isn’t exactly dominated by advanced technology, at least according to the most popular definitions and portrayals. (FYI, “magnetic media” are a fancy name for products like audio tapes and compact disks – which this aging baby boomer is constantly told are hopelessly outdated.)

magnetic media mfg & reproducing:               +9.1 percent

computer & peripherals mfg:                          +7.7 percent

leather/hide tanning & finishing:                    +6.5 percent

grain & oilseed milling:                                  +5.3 percent

miscellaneous textile product mills:               +5.2 percent

turbine & power transmission equip:             +4.6 percent

resin, rubber, & artificial fibers:                    +3.5 percent

cut and sew apparel:                                      +3.2 percent

agricultural chemicals:                                  +2.2 percent

miscellaneous transport equip:                      +2.1 percent

And here’s a list of the 2018’s ten worst labor productivity performers. Most appear to be “lower tech.” But look at aerospace at Number Five! That’s the economy’s biggest trade surplus winner! The huge automotive sector had a terrible labor productivity year, too.

lime & gypsum products:                             -11.8 percent

textile fabric & finishing mills:                    -11.3 percent

motor vehicle bodies & trailers:                  -10.1 percent

sawmills & wood preservation:                    -9.5 percent

aerospace products & parts:                         -8.1 percent

petroleum & coal products:                         -7.8 percent

motor vehicles:                                            -7.6 percent

sugar & confectionary products:                 -7.1 percent (tie)

apparel knitting mills:                                 -7.1 percent (tie)

audio & video equipment:                           -6.9 percent

beverages:                                                    -6.1 percent

Finally, here are some labor productivity numbers for some manufacturing sectors of special interest. Pharmaceuticals seems a logical choice to kick it off, given the role that healthcare and drug-pricing issues have been playing lately in national policy and political debates. Its 2018 labor productivity fall-off indicates that if the industry improved its efficiency, it wouldn’t need such sky-high prices for many of its products to achieve what it considers adequate profitability. 

pharmaceuticals & medicines:                    -3.4 percent

iron & steel mills & ferroalloys:                 -2.4 percent

alumina & aluminum production:               -2.3 percent

household appliances:                                +1.6 percent

The next three sectors have been prominent in trade policy controversies. The two metals sectors faltered on the labor productivity front last year. (In 2017, both produced considerably better results). But if you look at their labor compensation costs (also provided in today’s productivity release), you’ll see that they’ve at least shared many of the benefits of the protective tariffs they’ve received with their workforces.

Such compensation rose by 7.2 percent for iron and steel-makers, and five percent for the aluminum industry. Both increases handily beat the 1.70 percent average for all manufacturing, and the 1.40 percent for durable goods production.

Household appliances – which include tariff-ed large household laundry machines) – turned in the opposite performance. Labor productivity was up at a relatively strong pace. But labor compensation was off by 2.20 percent. (Even more unusual, its labor productivity fell in 2017, while labor compensation surged.)

Finally, let’s examine the semiconductor sector, since it’s commonly described as a main “building block” of the entire high tech portion of the American economy. In 2018, its labor productivity fell (by 1.20 percent) – and for the third straight year. But here, labor compensation was way up (by 5.60 percent).

Intellectually honest economists will admit that measuring productivity is one of their most challenging tasks. But it’s also inescapable.  And the new detailed manufacturing labor productivity data make clear that identifying the nation’s most and least valuable and promising manufacturing industries remains just as challenging. 

Glad I Didn’t Say That! The IMF’s Muddled Message on Trade and Productivity Growth

Tags

Christine LaGarde, Glad I Didn't Say That!, globalization, IMF, International Monetary Fund, productivity, tariffs, Trade

“[S]ince the mid-1990s….declining tariffs have lifted [worldwide] productivity ….”

–International Monetary Fund, April, 2019

“Over the past decade, there have been sharp slowdowns in [worldwide] measured output per worker and total factor productivity….Even before the global financial crisis, productivity growth was slowing in many advanced economies, such as the United States….”

– International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine LaGarde, April 3, 2017

 

(Sources Chapter 4, “The Drivers of Bilateral Trade and the Spillovers from Tariffs,” p. 103, World Economic Outlook, April, 2019, International Monetary Fund, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2019/03/28/world-economic-outlook-april-2019#Chapter%204 and “Reinvigorating Productivity Growth,” by Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund, American Enterprise Institute, April 3, 2017, https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2017/04/03/sp040317-reinvigorating-productivity-growth )

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Productivity Growth Improves, but Remains Historically Weak

Tags

Bureau of Labor Statistics, labor productivity, multi-factor productivity, productivity, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Throughout the NCAA men’s college basketball tournament that began today, productivity across America is supposed to swoon, as fans in droves periodically shunt aside work to see how their picks in office betting pools are faring. According to the federal government, however, it’s possible that the March Madness effect last year wasn’t major. For the latest data on the broadest measure of productivity tracked by the federal government just revealed the best annual improvement since 2010.

Yesterday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported on the status of multi-factor productivity in the United States – which measures how much of a given unit of output is being created through the use of a wide range of inputs, including labor, capital, energy, materials, and the findings from research and development. As a result, it’s a more comprehensive gauge of efficiency than the labor productivity statistics, which come out on a timelier basis, but simply show how many worker hours are needed to produce a given unit of output.

The one percent improvement in multi-factor productivity achieved between 2017 and 2018 for private non-farm businesses (the headline figure) may sound pretty modest. And it’s certainly been eclipsed frequently since BLS began calculating these figures in 1988. But the 2018 gain was the strongest since the 2.6 percent surge at the start of the decade. And that previous performance needs to be understood in context, since it came near the beginning of the current economic recovery, a stage of the business cycle when productivity growth tends to be strong.

Because these multi-factor productivity data are only kept on an annual basis, it’s not possible to compare with pinpoint accuracy how such efficiency improvements in the United States are taking place during the current recovery versus its predecessors. (After all, recessions and expansions usually don’t conveniently start and end in at the beginning or close of calendar years.) Yet a rough sense of the trends can be discerned from the following table, which uses the calendar years marking turns in the business cycle:

1990s expansion (2Q 1991 to 1Q 2001):           +10.61 percent

bubble expansion (4Q 2001 to 4Q 2007):            +7.37 percent

current expansion (2Q 2009 to present):              +5.40 percent

Especially considering that the current expansion has been much longer than its immediate predecessor, and nearly as long as the 1990s expansion, U.S. multi-factor productivity growth has clearly experienced a big slowdown. With productivity growth widely seen as a key to boosting national living standards on a sustainable (as opposed to bubble-ized) basis, that’s troubling. So however encouraging the 2018 increase is, there’s no doubt that the nation has its work cut out in order to make productivity growth great again.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Pssst! Some Good News on Productivity!

Tags

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

Here’s a peculiar new twist in ongoing media coverage and more general establishment commentary on the U.S. economy: The conventional wisdom among both these intertwined crowds holds that the American trade deficit doesn’t matter much economically. Yet the apparently poor trade numbers reported yesterday by the Census Bureau was the talk of these towns.

The conventional wisdom held by the establishmentarians also holds that productivity is incredibly important. Indeed, it’s widely described as a key to future prosperity. But the improving productivity figures released today by the Labor Department were virtually ignored.

Of course, a moment’s reflection reveals why. President Trump has made a very big deal out of the need to reduce the trade deficit, and the newest data indicate he’s failing. (Special note: You’ll be hearing more from me on this score very soon.) But Mr. Trump has said nothing about productivity. (That’s actually typical for politicians.) So even had the statistics been poor, there would have been no opportunity for a mass “Gotcha!” festival.

These latest numbers concern labor productivity which, as known by RealityChek regulars, is the narrowest of two productivity measures tracked by the Labor Department. But they’re also published in a much more timely fashion than the total factor (also called multi-factor) productivity statistics, which as their name implies, require collecting more information in order to calculate.

The improvement is most apparent upon examining recent annual changes in labor productivity (which tells us how many units of output a single person working for a single hour can turn out). The new figures bring the story up to the end of 2018, and show a year-to-year gain in the fourth quarter of 1.90 percent for non-farm businesses – the Labor Department’s American economic universe when it comes to productivity.

That increase may not sound like much, but it’s the biggest such advance since the first quarter of 2015 (1.60 percent), and the second biggest since the third quarter of 2010 (2.70 percent). And the trend has been upward since the second half of 2015.

Manufacturing’s labor productivity performance wasn’t quite so good. For the fourth quarter of 2018, it rose at a 1.00 percent annual rate. That increase represented a slowdown from the third quarter’s 1.50 percent. But even though industry’s productivity has been climbing only sluggishly in general since the beginning of 2016, that’s represented a major and positive change from the end of 2014 through 2015 – when manufacturing labor productivity fell on-year for five straight quarters.

Nonetheless, no one should assume that all’s well with labor productivity in America, either for non-farm businesses or for manufacturers. In fact, as the table below makes clear, the nation remains smack in the middle of a deep long-term labor productivity slump in relative terms. Specifically, over the last three economic expansions (the best way to measure trends over time, since it compares like stages of the business cycle), labor productivity gains for the non-farm business and manufacturing sectors have drifted steadily downward.

Especially discouraging: Although the current economic recovery is now just about as long as its 1990s predecessor, the cumulative non-farm business productivity rise for this expansion is less than half as strong. As for manufacturing, its labor productivity performance has been so weak (increasing by just over a fifth the rate of the 1990s expansion), that it’s lost its long-time productivity improvement lead.

When productivity improves strongly, all sorts of good things follow. In particular, workers’ wages can rise robustly without triggering inflation – which in an economy dominated by consumption, can help set the stage for equally vigorous, non-inflationary growth, and therefore more wealth for everyone to share. Does that sound boring to you? I’m shaking my head “No,” as well, which is why whether they keep getting overlooked or not, I’ll keep following the productivity news closely.

                                                                   Non-farm business          Manufacturing

1990s expansion (2Q 1991-1Q 2001)           +23.74 percent            +45.86 percent

bubble expansion (4Q 2001-4Q 2007)          +16.59 percent            +30.23 percent

current expansion: (2Q 2009 to present):      +11.28 percent              +9.70 percent

Following Up: Lousy U.S. Auto-Making Productivity and Those GM Layoffs

Tags

automotive, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Detroit automakers, General Motors, GM, Jobs, layoffs, motor vehicles, NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, offshoring, productivity, total factor productivity, Trade, Trump, yoFollowing Up

Yesterday, I posted some data – with a special focus on major victim state Ohio and major victim region Youngstown – providing some badly needed perspective on General Motors newly announced manufacturing jobs layoffs in the United States (along with Canada and other unspecified locations). Today I’d like to follow up with some statistics that shed more light on GM’s decision – and the strengths and weaknesses of the American domestic automobile industry.

There’s no doubt that, as widely noted, many trends and developments are responsible for the new job cuts – which are highly unlikely to be restricted to GM alone. Some of the biggest include changing product mixes (away from smaller vehicles and toward larger vehicles), new technologies (for electric vehicles and self-driving vehicles), and the inevitable waning of the latest “automotive cycle” – that is, a slowdown in auto sales that has been entirely predictable following the sector’s strong recovery from a terrifying downturn during the last recession.

But one industry trend that’s been sorely neglected – and that surely bears heavily on the “Detroit 3” auto companies’ failure to continue producing smaller vehicles profitably at their domestic factories (the plants targeted for closure) – concerns its productivity performance. In a word, it’s been lousy – which supports last week’s post presenting evidence that U.S. metals-using industries like automotive have been using crutches like (foreign government-subsidized and therefore artificially) cheap raw materials, along with massive job and production offshoring, to juice their profits rather than efficiency-enhancing improvements resulting from creating new technologies, investing in new machinery, devising better management techniques, or some combination of these measures.

That post last week featured data showing that the American transportation equipment sector (which of course includes auto manufacturing) has performed relatively well during the current U.S. economic recovery and the previous expansion – though the rate of growth decelerated over that time span. These periods were examined because they were marked by a tremendous increase in American imports of steel over-produced and dumped into the United States by foreign producers, which pushed steel prices way down for reasons having nothing to do with free trade or free markets.

But more detailed statistics make clear that the automotive sector per se lately has fared worse when it comes to total factor productivity – the broadest of two measures of productivity tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the productivity measure I examined last week.

During the 2001-2007 American expansion, total factor productivity in the motor vehicles sector actually grew faster than that for transportation equipment overall – 22.70 percent versus 13.38 percent. But from the 2009 start of the current recovery through 2016 (the latest available data), vehicle makers’ total factor productivity advanced by only 2.53 percent – that is, much more slowly than the 9.67 percent improvement registered by transportation equipment overall.

In fact, since achieving a huge (15 percent) snapback in total factor productivity during the recovery’s first year following a deep (12.29 percent) nosedive during the recession, vehicle-makers’ total factor productivity fell by 10.94 percent through 2016. As a result, its total factor productivity hasn’t improved on net since 1989.

Also interesting: Since the U.S. ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993 created a bright green light for automotive production and job offshoring, total factor productivity in American motor vehicle-making is up by only 9.20 percent. That’s a considerably slower rate of progress than for manufacturing overall (20.13 percent), even though automotive trade has figured so heavily in U.S. trade flows with fellow NAFTA signatories Mexico and Canada so far.

I don’t mean to minimize the challenges all automotive manufacturers face given the multi-dimensional crossroads that seems to be arriving rapidly for the sector. What should be glaringly obvious, though, is that they’re unlikely to be met adequately – including producing smaller vehicles profitably, especially if and when oil prices start rising again – with a productivity performance that barely qualifies as second-rate.    

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Productivity-Challenged U.S. Manufacturers Want Their Cheap Foreign Metals Crutch Back

Tags

aluminum, Canada, China, consumer prices, inflation, manufacturing, metals tariffs, Mexico, overcapacity, producer prices, productivity, quotas, steel, tariffs, total factor productivity, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Anyone genuinely concerned with the long-term health of the American economy and its manufacturing sector in particular should be thankful for the letter sent Monday to the Trump administration by 33 business organizations asking for removal of the tariffs imposed earlier this year on steel and aluminum imports from Mexico and Canada.

For the letter – signed by groups from many sectors of the economy but principally by manufacturing organizations – unwittingly reveals the extent to which American industry has become addicted to supplies of metals whose prices have been artificially cheapened mainly by a global glut still primarily fed by subsidized over-supply from China. As a result, the letter also suggests a reason why American manufacturing productivity growth has been so lousy lately – in the process undermining the economy’s ability to generate lasting, as opposed to bubbly, prosperity.

To begin with, however, the signers’ leading claim is demonstrably, and whoppingly, false. They contend that the metals tariffs have caused significant harm to American manufacturers, consumers and workers. They have raised costs significantly for a wide array of industries….” Yet as I have repeatedly shown, (most recently here) since the levies began to be imposed, at the end of March, nothing in the official data on domestic manufacturing’s performance points to any harm whatever. In fact, in most respects, recent months have actually seen out-performance by metals-using industries – which logically should be where the greatest problems stemming from metals tariffs are concentrated.

Especially false is the insistence that because “Many manufacturing industries rely on imported inputs to produce goods competitively in the United States,” the tariffs “raise the costs of manufacturing in the U.S. and place our manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage with respect to finished products which are made outside of the U.S. and imported without being affected by the tariffs.  Further, consumers are starting to feel the pinch of higher prices across the board, as evidenced by recent increases in the CPI [Consumer Price Index].”

Indeed, this contention has been borne out neither by the consumer price numbers nor the producer price statistics.

But an examination of steel import figures and productivity performance suggests the real motive of the manufacturing signers in particular: They hope to resume relying on cheap foreign government-subsidized foreign metals for their growth and profits, rather than the kinds of productivity improvements that will do the most to strengthen both their bottom lines and the entire economy’s foundations over any significant time span.

The evidence comes from comparing total U.S. steel imports on the one hand, and total factor productivity (the broadest of the two main measures of efficiency tracked by the Labor Department) for the main metals-using industries on the other, during the previous and current American economic recoveries (the best way to generate apples-to-apples results).

That previous recovery officially lasted from late 2001 to late 2007, and through 2006, measured by quantity, steel imports increased by nearly 28 percent – largely fueled by a purchases from China that jumped more than 260 percent. (As the impact of the housing bubble’s bursting spread throughout the economy, steel imports from China and the rest of the world fell sharply before the recession’s official onset in the fourth quarter of 2007.)

And here are the total factor productivity increases for that 2001-2006 period for the American private sector for a whole, manufacturing overall, the metals industries themselves, and the key metals-using sectors:

private sector:                                      +9.19 percent

manufacturing:                                  +13.55 percent

durable goods manufacturing:          +19.44 percent

primary metals:                                   +5.72 percent

fabricated metals products:                 +6.35 percent

non-electrical machinery:                  +11.01 percent

transportation equipment:                 +13.38 percent

The figures for the current recovery look markedly different. Let’s examine the results from its 2009 start through 2016 (the year for the latest available detailed total factor productivity statistics). During that period, total national steel imports soared by just under 104 percent by quantity. Purchases from China sank like a stone (by more than 63 percent) between 2015 and 2016, because of China-specific anti-dumping tariffs. But clearly many other countries and their subsidized steel sectors picked up the slack, because total U.S. imports dropped off by only 17.31 percent. And continuing Chinese over-production kept exerting downward pressures on prices worldwide.

And how did total factor productivity fare during that big steel import run-up?

private sector:                                      +5.93 percent

manufacturing:                                     -4.48 percent

durable goods manufacturing:            +1.24 percent

primary metals:                                   +5.76 percent

fabricated metals products:                  -7.68 percent

non-electrical machinery:                     -7.08 percent

transportation equipment:                    +9.67 percent

That is, as artificially cheap foreign steel poured into the U.S economy, total factor productivity growth in most of the chief metals-using sectors shifted into reverse – and by startling extents. The only exceptions were transport equipment and durable goods as a whole, with the former clearly holding up the latter. And even in both these cases, total factor productivity growth slowed dramatically.

True, the letter’s signatories claim that they support continued tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from China – the main overcapacity and over-production culprit. They also say they back “negotiation of global arrangements to deal with overcapacity.”

But this position looks phony given their opposition to import quotas for steel from countries where tariffs have been lifted (South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina) because these measures allegedly have “placed severe supply constraints on U.S. manufacturers and created even more business uncertainly than tariffs regarding exports from these countries.” In other words, the signatories are opposed to the very policies that have helped ensure that all other metals-producing countries don’t simply keep transshipping China’s over-production into the U.S. market, or respond to China’s glutting their steel market by ramping up their own exports to the United States.

So the real message being sent by the manufacturers’ metals tariffs letter couldn’t be clearer: “We want to regain access to that artificially cheap foreign steel, regardless of its impact on the entire economy’s future.” Arguably, that’s an appropriate, or at least understandable, priority for companies viewing their prime obligation as maximizing shareholder value at any given moment. But just as understandably, it’s the type of priority that America’s political leaders should emphatically reject.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: What John Oliver Didn’t Tell You About Trade – or About RealityChek

Tags

"Last Week Tonight, BMW, bubble decade, China, consumer prices, domestic content, Financial Crisis, Global Imbalances, Jobs, John Oliver, manufacturing, Peter Navarro, productivity, tariffs, Trade, Trade Deficits, Trump, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

In his segment last night on President Trump’s trade policy, HBO Will Rogers wannabe John Oliver had some good fun at my expense due to a technical glitch here on RealityChek, and I deserved it. In the course of making the case why Mr. Trump’s tariff-centered approach is dangerous economic Know-nothing-ism, the (profanity-philic) comedian argued that the President’s main trade adviser, Peter Navarro, once cited me as one of only two economists that agree with his views on the harm of trade deficits – and then correctly pointed out that I told an inquiring journalist soon after that I don’t hold an economics degree. (I recounted these events in this post.)

Oliver proceeded to go on to suggest that I don’t hold a degree in website design, either (and maybe nothing else?), spotlighting the RealityChek bio section where my portrait hasn’t been rotated correctly. And to that I plead “guilty.” I’m a stubborn techno-phobe and have never managed to figure out how to present the photo rightside up. But first impressions are important, and I should have somehow taken care of it. So my bad.

Oliver deserves credit on two other counts as well. First, he acknowledges that trade policy is complicated, and that unfettered trade can have major downsides. Indeed, he even specifies that for trade’s overall net gains to be realized, it needs to be “done right,” and that valid grounds exist for complaints about China’s trade policies in particular. Second, he asked one of his producers to check whether or not I still lack an economics degree.

But what’s also noteworthy (and not so commendable) about that instance of meticulousness is that, although this producer and I wound up having a fairly lengthy conversation about trade policy, my only “contribution” to the show was strengthening Oliver’s attack on Navarro. And that’s really too bad for anyone seeking genuinely to understand the pros and cons, and ins and outs of trade policy. Because had Oliver and his staff gone beyond my bio page, here’s some of what they would have found:

>Despite Oliver’s claim that tariffs are to be avoided in large part because they make goods for consumers and producers who use the tariff-ed products more expensive, there’s little evidence that, in today’s U.S. economy, many producers have the pricing power to pull this feat off. For that, you can thank a combination of the lingering impact of the last financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession (which resulted in part from American leaders ignoring the huge, trade-centered global imbalances that were building up during the bubble decade). And let’s not forget the longer-lasting wage stagnation that’s afflicted so much of the American labor force (which can also be blamed in part on trade policies that have exposed this workforce to penny-wage foreign competition and/or predatory practices by low- and high-wage foreign competitors alike).

>Although Oliver contends that Trump-like concerns about trade policy’s impact on U.S. domestic manufacturing overlook how much larger American industry is today than in 1984, during the current economic recovery, after-inflation manufacturing output has yet to regain its pre-recession production levels. And perhaps not so coincidentally, all the while, the manufacturing trade deficit has surged to the point where it’s likely to hit $1 trillion this year (in pre-inflation dollars). In other words, that’s a lot of American demand for manufactured products that was supplied from foreign economies rather than from the U.S. economy. 

>Oliver accepts as gospel the view that manufacturing’s recent employment losses are due mainly to the sector’s productivity gains, not to failed U.S. trade policies. But industry’s productivity performance has been so poor for so long that it’s lost its historic role as the country’s labor productivity growth leader. Further, it’s anything but difficult to find highly credentialed economists who finger inadequately dealt-with foreign competition instead.

>Oliver makes much of how Mr. Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum will cost many more jobs than they save or create by observing that they will harm metals-using industries – which employ many more Americans than the metals producers. Yet since the metals tariffs began to be imposed, these sectors have experienced growth and employment gains at least as strong as those of the rest of manufacturing.

>Like so many journalists, Oliver describes BMW as an American manufacturing gem because it builds so many of its vehicles in South Carolina – and an example of how the Trump trade approach simplistically assumes that domestic and foreign companies can be easily distinguished. Like many journalists, however, Oliver ignores readily available U.S. government data making clear that BMW in the United States mainly snaps together foreign-produced parts and components, and therefore adds relatively little value to the American economy.

>According to Oliver, Trump’s metals tariffs are also boneheaded because they are “pissing off the leaders of every other country on earth” and therefore sandbagging any hope of prevailing in trade diplomacy against the world’s main metals trade bad guy, China. Too bad he never mentioned that, as China’s metals glut ballooned, the United States emerged as far and away the world’s metals dumping ground of last resort because other metals-producing countries responded to Chinese pressure on their own industries either by transshipping Chinese metals, or stepping up their own exports to the United States to compensate. I.e., a global problem required a global response. P.S.: The world’s leading economies have been vowing to work on multilateral responses to China’s overcapacity for nearly two years, and have produced exactly nothing in the way of concrete results.

>Most disappointing, I asked Oliver’s fact-checker why her boss puts so much stock in economists’ views when nearly all of them (including those so confident in orthodox trade theories and their policy implications) clearly flunked the biggest test they’d faced in decades: warning that the economy of the previous decade was an immense bubble whose bursting would bring disaster. Or figuring out that anything was fundamentally wrong with the American economy in those years. Her response: Many of them did – which will come as a major surprise to anyone in the mid-2000s who owned a home or a share of stock.

There’s more, but let’s close with this irony: Even though Oliver made much of China’s decision to impose some retaliatory tariff on U.S. goods, in contrast to a Navarro prediction, a team of high level Chinese negotiators will arrive in Washington, D.C. in a few days to try and end a trade confrontation that has hammered their country’s stock markets and currency, and that, according to numerous reports, has President Xi Jinping worried that he’s overplayed China’s economic hand. Any chance that any of this upcoming highlight of this week’s news will be reported on the next edition of “Last Week Tonight”?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Productivity Growth Slowdown Keeps a Cloud Over U.S. Manufacturing

Tags

Labor Department, labor productivity, manufacturing, non-farm business, productivity, Trump, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As made clear once again yesterday by two releases of significant statistics, American manufacturing under the Trump administration remains a puzzling good news/bad news story.

Yesterday, as reported here, the Federal Reserve came out with industrial production data for July showing that domestic industry’s real output growth has sped up during the Trump Era, and remains strong even in those metals-using industries supposedly suffering because of the President’s metals tariffs. These findings are also consistent with figures showing that manufacturing employment under this administration has growing faster than overall employment – increasing its share of the latter from 8.49 percent in February, 2017 to 8.55 percent last month.

But yesterday also saw the issuance of new labor productivity data, and it contained new evidence that manufacturing has changed from a leader in U.S. labor productivity growth to a serious laggard. And that’s entirely consistent with the dismal performance being turned in by manufacturing wages lately.

The latest labor productivity figures (the narrower of the two measures of efficiency tracked by the Labor Department, but the one for which results are published on by far the timeliest basis) provide the preliminary results for the second quarter of this year. They’re the first indication of serious troubles for manufacturing. Quarter-to-quarter, industry’s labor productivity improved by 0.9 percent on an annualized basis, and that was its best such performance since the whopping 4.4 percent jump registered for the fourth quarter of last year (and which, for reasons to be discussed below, seems to have been a major outlier).

But labor productivity for all non-farm businesses (the Labor Department’s U.S. economy’s productivity universe) rose by 2.9 percent sequentially at an annual rate – its best such performance since the first quarter of 2015 (3.1 percent).

Manufacturing’s laggard status showed up in the first quarter revisions, too. Here it’s important to observe that, as of today, these numbers have been revised twice since the initial statistics were released in early May. As is normally the case, the following month, new estimates for that time period came out. But yesterday, as it not normally the case, the Labor Department’s first report on the second quarter includes sweeping revisions of the Labor Department data that go back all the way to 1947! And these include yet another set of figures for the first quarter.

So here’s how the estimates of sequential annualized labor productivity growth have changed since May:

                                             Non-farm business   Manufacturing (both annualized)

1Q 2018 preliminary                    +0.7 percent                     +0.5 percent

1Q 2018 1^st revision                     +0.4 percent                      -1.2 percent

1Q 2018 final (for now!)             +0.3 percent                       -1.0 percent

2Q 2018 preliminary                   +2.9 percent                       +0.9 percent

Any way you cut it, manufacturing’s recent labor productivity growth has trailed that of all non-farm businesses. And since manufacturing is a part of that non-farm business category, non-manufacturing non-farm businesses exceeded manufacturing’s labor productivity growth by an even wider margin.

Now let’s perform the same exercise looking at labor productivity growth for the last three economic recoveries (including the current, ongoing expansion). As known by RealityChek regulars, comparing similar stages of the economic cycle is the best way to get the most reliable long-term insights.

                                                                      Non-farm business     Manufacturing

1990s expansion (2Q 1991-1Q 2001) last pre-big revision estimate:

                                                                        +23.25 percent           +45.86 percent

1990s expansion latest:                                  +23.77 percent                    same

bubble expansion (4Q 2001-4Q 2007) last pre-big revision estimate:

                                                                      +16.03 percent            +30.23 percent

bubble expansion latest:                                +16.60 percent                     same

current expansion: (2Q 2009 to present): (as of preliminary 1^st quarter estimate)

                                                                         +9.70 percent            +9.69 percent

as of first 1^st quarter revision:                          +9.62 percent            +8.28 percent

latest (as of big revision 1^st quarter estimate)  +9.43 percent            +8.36 percent

2d quarter preliminary estimate:                    +10.21 percent            +8.61 percent

The bottom line here: The latest big revision confirms earlier findings that during the current recovery, manufacturing has lost its labor productivity lead, mainly because its labor productivity growth has slowed down compared with that of previous recoveries much more dramatically than the labor productivity growth in non-farm businesses.

As of the first quarter, this relative manufacturing slowdown was not quite as significant as previously thought. But the preliminary second quarter figures show that it’s regained major “momentum.”

Measuring productivity growth if of course still one of the most controversial exercises in economics. But it’s also still the case that the profession hasn’t come up with an alternative that’s attracted widespread support. So the safest assumptions continue to be that American manufacturing’s productivity slump is dragging on, and that until it’s reversed, American manufacturing wages will keep disappointing.