Im-Politic: An Immigration and Racism Link Deserving Much More Attention

Tags

African Americans, Chicago, CNBC, H-1B visa, Hispanics, Im-Politic, Immigration, inequality, Jim Reynolds, minorities, Norman Matloff, race relations, racism, STEM workers, tech jobs, unemployment

“H-1B” and “racial injustice” probably aren’t terms most people would believe have much to do with each other. That’s why a recent CNBC interview with a leading African American financier deserves your attention even if it is two weeks old. Because he shows not only that they’re intimately connected, but that even someone who is focusing on the link needs to think much more about how exactly it works, and what needs to be done about it.

For those who don’t follow immigration issues closely, “H-1B” is the name of the category of visa that the federal government allots business for foreigners they supposedly need to employ because their “specialty” skills can’t be found in the domestic workforce. The skills cover a wide range, but according to this organization (which loves the program) most of the visas requested by U.S. companies are for science and technology occupations, and indeed their prevalence in these fields is responsible for most of the controversy they’ve generated.

For evidence abounds that, contrary to their claims, the tech companies that seek these foreign workers so ardently aren’t using them because they’re geniuses, but because they’re cheap – and because they need to remain tied to the company that sponsored them if they have any hope of getting permanent legal residence in the United States. (My go-to source on this issue is University of California-Davis computer scientist and immigration authority Norman Matloff, whose work can be found at this terrific blog.)

As a result, H-1B opponents argue that their use undercuts American pay levels in science and technology fields, and severely undercuts the argument that gaining these skills is one of the best guarantees available to young Americans of prospering in the turbulent economy of recent decades. But the program damages the economy in a way less often noted by opponents: It guts the incentives American business might develop to invest in American workers’ skills generally, or to press government to get the country’s education act together so as to make sure that the skills they need are available domestically.

And this is where the racial injustice and related economic inequality issues come into play – along with that CNBC interview. The subject, Jim Reynolds, is an inspiring African American success story who’s long been active in civic affairs in a city with one of the nation’s biggest African American populations – his native Chicago. (See this profile.) CNBC brought him on the air on July 2 to talk about racial diversity on Wall Street.

The conversation proceeded along these lines till it was about two thirds of the way through, when Reynolds made this totally unprompted and stunning pivot. Its worth quoting in full, and came in response to a question on whether he thinks Wall Street is genuinely committed to hiring more minorities in the wake of the George Floyd killing and ensuing tsunami of nationwide calls to end racism and related economic injustices.  (I also need to present it because this point didn’t make it into the CNBC news story accompanying the interview video that’s linked above.)   

“You ask if I think this is real…. I was at an Economics Club dinner a couple of years ago…and one of the top CEOs in the city [Chicago], actually, one of the top CEOS in the country – a Fortune 100 company – spoke to the group, and what he said to the group that one of his most frustrating experiences is working with H-1B programs, and why they won’t let his company recruit more of the talent that they need in the tech space….[H]e said that in the middle of downtown Chicago, where we have African American and Hispanic youth in the city, ten minutes from where he was standing, that have…let’s call it 40, 50, 60 percent unemployment, that go to schools that don’t really…teach them this sort of thing, and I wondered why he didn’t even think about this. Sure, you can go to China, and you can go to India, and recruit that talent. And that talent – and I’ve spent a lot of time in China – that talent started getting developed in middle school When they come here, and they go to the quants on Wall Street and the quants in Silicon Valley – and they do dominate that space – they started studying this stuff like when they were eight years old, nine years old. And I’ve started thinking about and talking about and I’m working with our wonderful Mayor Lori Lightfoot about, let’s get these corporations thinking about – and this time is great – investing in these black and Hispanic schools. Now. Let’s grab our young black and Hispanic kids in middle school. Let’s have a Facebook program in the school, Microsoft program, Alphabet program, Apple program in these schools. I think that’s an opportunity.”

I couldn’t have done a better job of making the H-1B-racial injustice connection. But as I suggested above, Reynold is still missing a piece of the puzzle: The CEO he mentions, and others like him, simply aren’t going to make those investments because they don’t have to. And they don’t have to precisely because they have a cheaper alternative – and one that doesn’t require them to deal with the kinds of workforce training challenges they’ve never faced: the H-1B program.

So if Reynolds really wants to expand opportunity for disadvantaged minority youth (and other young Americans) all over the country, he’ll start pressing for the elimination of the H-1B program, and for broader immigration policies that deny businesses in all sectors the easy option of hiring low-cost foreigners – and in the process, creating even more power over workers and thereby intensifying the downward pressure they can keep exerting on their wages and benefits.

Reynolds, moreover, is in a particularly good position to lobby for these changes effectively because, as made clear in the profile linked above, his close friends include a fellow named Barack Obama – who has more than a little influence on the liberals and progressives who have emerged (along with Corporate America) as among the stubbornest opponents of immigration policies that put American workers – including of course minority workers – first.

Im-Politic: Biden’s CCP Virus Fairytales

Tags

Angela Merkel, CCP Virus, contact tracing, coronavirus, COVID 19, election 2020, Germany, Im-Politic, Jobs, Joe Biden, lockdown, reopening, shutdown, testing, unemployment, Wuhan virus

I totally get that Joe Biden would want to throw cold water all over this past Thursday’s U.S. jobs report (for June), whose reported massive gains smashed expectations for the second straight month. He’s virtually certain to be formally named the Democrats’ presidential nominee this year. Therefore, he naturally has a strong interest in portraying the state of the nation, including its economy, in the worst possible terms.

I also totally get that the nation’s media would report Biden’s gloom-mongering. He’s a major political candidate, and what he says is by definition news.

What I totally don’t get is how none of the country’s pundits and other political analysts have caught the glaring weakness and equally glaring internal contradiction in Biden’s core claim that a million more Americans “would still have their job if Donald Trump had done his job.”

The weakness: Biden apparently is charging that the President should have shut down the economy and strongly recommended mask-wearing and social distancing measures (which of course inevitably have their own, independent economy-depressing effects) much earlier than he did (the first such Trump action – a stay-at-home guidance – came on March 16). As a result, he suggests, the U.S. jobs market would be in much better shape. 

But as reported in this Washington Post examination of Biden’s CCP Virus record, nothing of the kind had issued from the former Vice President or his camp by that time. So much, therefore, for any contention that he’s been especially prescient when it comes to the virus’ impact on the economy and on employment in particular.

The contradiction: Let’s say that Biden had indeed recommended a much earlier shutdown – and that the Trump administration had taken his advice immediately. And let’s suppose that the President’s record had been much better in terms of testing and contact-tracing – which Biden has called “the key to restoring enough confidence for businesses to reopen safely and consumers to reengage with the economy” (as opposed to what he has described as the President’s reopening plan: “just open”). Would the massive job losses suffered by the U.S. economy have been avoided, as Biden has suggested? Would even “a million more Americans” be employed – and presumably safely employed (a number whose source I haven’t found, and that represents a small fraction of the 15 million jobs that remain lost since the CCP Virus’ full effects began to be felt)?

Biden and many Americans clearly would like these claims to be true. But good luck finding any supporting evidence. Indeed, everything we know about the anti-virus efforts even of countries that allegedly have dealt much better with the pandemic reveals those expectations to be wholly unrealistic.

Germany is probably the best example – since it’s not a totalitarian dictatorship like China that can lock down massively while truly trampling on the few individual liberties it ever allowed the slightest breathing room. Even so, it’s been widely depicted as the gold standard for anti-virus success.

To summarize, on March 22, Chancellor Angela Merkel imposed on the country one of Europe’s strictest lockdowns. A cautious easing began on May 6. And how have the country’s workers fared? Take a look at the chart below (from Bloomberg.com). That joblessness spike looks an awful lot like America’s. P.S. These figures don’t include millions of German workers not officially counted as unemployed only because of Bonn’s work-sharing programs, which has kept them nominally at work via wage subsidies.

Moreover, practically no sooner did Germany’s reopening begin, than significant virus case flareups began.

In other words, even Germany’s experience makes clear that if you favor maximum anti-virus efforts, like pervasive lockdowns, there’s no avoiding massive unemployment. And given the disease’s transmission rates – which may have worsened, possibly due more to mutation than to any reopenings, even as its never extreme lethality may be weakening – anyone insisting on the contrary deserves to be seen as just another cynical politician peddling fairytales.

 

Making News: New Daily Caller Piece On-Line on the CCP Virus and the Economy

Tags

bankruptcies, CCP Virus, consumers, coronavirus, COVID 19, DailyCaller.com, deflation, economy, exports, Im-Politic, Jobs, manufacturing, public health, real estate, recession, recovery, rent, reopening, restart, restaurants, retail, small business, testing, travel, unemployment, vaccines, Wuhan virus

I’m pleased to announce that my latest freelance article has just been published on the popular DailyCaller.com news site.  The title pretty much says it all:  “Don’t Expect A V-Shaped Recovery From Coronavirus,” and you can read it at this link.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Picking Through the April Jobs Wreckage Details

Tags

Employment, Great Depression, Great Recession, Jobs, Labor Department, manufacturing, NFP, non-farm jobs, non-farm payrolls, private sector, unemployment, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s U.S. jobs report from the Labor Department (for April) is the first that makes fully (so far) clear the historic American employment disaster created by a combination of the CCP Virus and widespread economic shutdown and lockdown orders.

As widely observed already, the 14.9 percent national unemployment rate for the month is the highest suffered since the Great Depression of the 1930s. During this slump, (which, it can never be forgotten, helped pave the way for World War II), the annual jobless rate peaked in 1933 at 24.9 percent. Moreover, as always with these monthly jobs releases, the data only cover mid-month. So the May report will almost surely bring considerably worse new April revisions, just as the April report showed sharp downward revisions for March and even February.

Worse, as the Labor Department employment trackers observed, in April they were able to reach only about 70 percent of the number of households they tried contacting in their standard efforts to calculate that unemployment rate. They pre-virus response rate was 83 percent. And although it’s entirely possible that this weak response rate has overestimated unemployment, it could be producing an underestimate, too.

That big uncertainty aside, the revisions are a good place to start highlighting how the details of today’s numbers underscore what an unprecedented shock the economy is absorbing.

Principally, that March total plunge in non-farm payrolls (NFP, the Labor Department’s U.S. jobs universe) was first reported at 701,000 – a figure that was (sadly) exceeded four times during the Great Recession that followed the 2008-09 financial crisis. Now these March losses are pegged at 870,000 – much higher than the Great Recession peak of 784,000 in January, 2009. April, of course, has blown away such comparisons, as NFP plummeted by 20.50 million. Indeed, that’s the largest monthly decrease in absolute terms in the history of these Labor Department data, which go back to 1939.

As a result, U.S. employment levels are back to where they were in February, 2011 – meaning that more than nine years of jobs gains have just gone up in smoke.

In fact, those 20.500 million net jobs destroyed in April alone (again, this is a preliminary number, which will be re-estimated twice more in the next two months, and then again when Labor issues the next of its standard multi-year revisions) represent more than twice as much employment loss as that experienced during the entire Great Recession (whose jobs dimension lasted from December, 2007 until March, 2010) – 8.698 million.

As for the private sector, the initially reported March jobs collapse of 713,000 was topped five times during the Great Recession. But this morning’s new March jobs wipeout figure of 812,000 now matches that recession’s worst (hit in April, 2009). Tragically, the new April private sector job loss figure of 19.520 million makes even those dreadful numbers look positively quaint.

Oddly, even though its April monthly job loss was 1.33 million, manufacturing has continued to hold up relatively well so far during the CCP Virus crisis. Industry’s March payroll decline was revised down from 18,000 to 34,000. And the April figure was much worse than manufacturing’s worst month during the Great Recession (289,000, recorded for January, 2009). Moreover, the 1.330 million April manufacturing employment nosedive was more than half of the total manufacturing job decrease during the entire Great Recession (2.293 million).

All the same, since February, whereas total U.S. job totals are off by 14.02 percent since February, and private sector employment has fallen by 15.70 percent, manufacturing’s drop has been 11.87 percent.

Once more, this relatively bright picture could change either with next month’s NFP report, or relatively quickly thereafter, as the economy reopens. But it’s also important to keep in mind that the pre-Great Recession total U.S. employment peak of 138.392 million in December, 2007 wasn’t matched again until May, 2014. It took until March, 2014 for the private sector to regain its pre-recession employment peak of 116.060 million. And manufacturing has never regained its pre-recession level of 13.746 million – which itself was far from a peak, because its payrolls had been decreasing for decades. The best it did was to regain 1.413 million (61.62 percent) of the 2.293 million jobs lost during the Great Recession. This level was hit just last December.

And all these recoveries were reasonably “V-shaped” (that is rapid), by historical standards. Unfortunately, “V” seems to be a letter going out of style as economists struggle to figure out what the post-CCP Virus recovery will look like.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: How Bad Will it Get?

Tags

Baby Boom, CCP Virus, Cold War, coronavirus, COVID 19, Edward Harrison, Federal Reserve, Great Depression, Great Recession, health security, military spending, moral hazard, recession, recovery, secular stagnation, small business, start-ups, technology, Trump, uncertainty, unemployment, World War II, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

How bad economically? That’s a CCP Virus-related question everyone’s understandably asking these days. In fact, last night one of my social media friends expressed the super-bear case pretty compellingly:

“I can’t see any way this is not going to destroy us. No one will have any money, so they won’t buy anything, won’t pay their bills, can’t pay rent or mortgages. No spending power means no employment. More layoffs. certainly as soon as stores open there wil be a rush to sell everything, a rush to normal, hoping for the best, but I think this is pretty much The End of life as we know it.”

And an economy-watcher I know with an unusually good feel for finance is awfully pessimistic, too – and has been right so far about the virus’ impact on output, employment, and the markets.

I’m feeling even less confident than usual in my economy crystal ball (that’s a low bar). The main reason of course is that the current U.S. nosedive, as I (and nearly everyone else) have observed, isn’t a standard recession or depression. That is, it hasn’t been caused either by some built-in weakness in the economy that finally becomes too big to ignore or paper over, or similar problems in the financial system that wind up wrecking the “real economy.” We can’t even blame the current crisis on some outside economic shock, like the boost in global oil prices that wreaked such economic havoc in the 1970s.

Even so, here are four somewhat related, extremely tentative thoughts that I hope will help readers form their own judgments about the American economy’s future. Spoiler alert: They’re pretty pessimistic.

First, the fundamentally biological nature of the crisis creates the kind of uncertainty that’s unprecedented in modern times, and that consumers, businesses, and investors will hate even more than usual. For example, what if there’s a second wave? Or a third? How will these three groups of economic actors respond to attempted restarts of economic activity that, however gradual or rolling, turn out to be premature?

Worse, what if the CCP Virus is here to stay for the time being, and treatments can only become good enough to reduce it to the status of a really nasty flu? And what if it mutates into something requiring qualitatively different cures?

Second, because of all these possible biology-rooted uncertainties, I fear that many of the standard arguments for expecting a relatively quick, strong rebound should be thrown out the window. All of them, after all – including President Trump’s – apparently assume that the timeout mandated in most of the economy’s consumption (and that therefore inevitably undermines its business spending) is creating lots of frustrated demand that will burst into actual spending once the crisis passes.

One big historical precedent cited: the aftermath of World War II. At that time, officials inside the federal government feared that growth would fizzle at best for two main reasons. First, the massive boost to growth and employment delivered by wartime military spending would dramatically fade. Second, this pessimism was no doubt greatly reenforced by the nation’s immediate pre-war experience – a lengthy and deep depression that showed no signs of ending until the global fascist threat inspired a pre-Pearl Harbor military buildup.

But after the war, consumption came back with a vengeance – because the main threats on everyone’s mind were decisively defeated; because so many Americans had lots of income to spend; because Washington laid the ground for more income-earning with programs like the G.I. Bill, along with war-time advances in science and technology that boasted phenomenal peacetime uses; and because baby-making boomed along with consumption, juicing demand for more housing in particular.

And let’s not forget the Cold War! The household spending binge did slow in 1947 and 1948. But by 1949, defense spending began rising again, and it really took off from 1951 on, once the Korean War in particular convinced policymakers that a global Communist threat was alive and here to stay.

Today, however, determining when the major threat is finally over is much more difficult. Unemployment is sure to rise much higher than the 5.9 percent pre-Korean War peak (in 1949), meaning that not only will incentives to save remain stronger, but that much more income is being lost. And nothing like a post-World War II Baby Boom was even in sight before the CCP Virus struck. Indeed, the arrows were pointing in the opposite direction. A post-virus repeat seems unimaginable.

The one interesting possible reason for purely economic optimism? A new military spending surge – perhaps spurred by worries about China? And new healthcare products investment might jump as well, possibly boosted by government incentives, to prevent a repeat of current supply shortages.

The third consideration weighing on my mind is the separation factor. Even if post-virus improvement is solid, I wonder how sustainable it will be. The main reason is that, at least during past episodes of major job loss (e.g., the last decade’s Great Recession that followed the global financial crisis), many of the unemployed face big difficulties returning to work in any form, and particular difficulties finding work at previous pay levels. Because the longer unemployment lasts, the harder these obstacles generally become, and because of the likely rate joblessness is likely to hit, this separation factor could become considerable even if unemployment insurance and other income supports do turn out to be generous enough to sustain such economic victims until the nation reaches “the other side.” 

The separation factor, moreover, may go beyond workers. I don’t by any means rule out the possibility that significant numbers of small business owners may call it quits, too – either because cratering demand for their products and services will kill off their enterprises, because the the government aid being offered doesn’t cover all their losses for long enough, or because they conclude that applying for the aid just isn’t worth the candle.

Sure, new start-ups will fill part of this gap. But all of it? Not if the abundant pre-crisis evidence of a significant drop-off in such entrepreneurism is any indication.

Fourth, also reenforcing the bear case: Although the roots of the current economic mess are dramatically different from those of the last near-meltdown and recession, the “whatever it takes” response of the federal government and the Federal Reserve are remarkably similar. As pointed out by Edward Harrison, the economy- and finance-watcher I cited above, on the one hand, the authorities probably don’t have a choice. On the other, this thick, pervasive safety net did produce an epidemic of “moral hazard” – financial decisions in particular that turn out to be bad but that initially look smart because confidence in some form of bailout reduces the perceived risks and costs of mistakes.

As I explained previously, the last outbreak of moral hazard took a painful pre-virus economic toll, as the resulting inefficient use of capital helped produce  one of the weakest economic recoveries American history. In fact, it’s produced a theory that I personally find as convincing as it is depressing (personally): secular stagnation. It holds that the economy has become so fundamentally unproductive and inefficient that the only way it’s been able to generate even adequate (not especially strong) levels of growth has been for government to inflate bubbles of various kinds (with all its moral hazard-creating spending and guarantees) that, of course, eventually burst. So it doesn’t seem at all unreasonable to believe that the upcoming recovery will be similarly feeble.

Even worse, according to Harrison, even the current official backstopping might not suffice to prevent defaults by the financially weakest businesses – which would generate their own harmful spillover effects.

I’m not saying that there’s no case for optimism – at least cautious optimism. The overall long-term historical momentum for improvement in living conditions the world over is very impressive. As a result, doom-saying has a lousy record in the post-World War II period in particular. Technological advance isn’t going to stop, and may not even slow much. Maybe most important, at least in the medium-term, the human desire to acquire and consume shows no signs of having vanished.

So maybe the safest conclusion to come to (however unsatisfyingly timid): This time won’t be completely different. But don’t bet on a simple, and particularly a quick, return to pre-virus times.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The (Dangerously) False Choice Between the Virus and a Restart

Tags

Angus Deaton, Ann Case, Big Business, CCP Virus, coronavirus, Deaths of Despair, growth, Jobs, lockdown, public health, shutdown, small business, stress, The New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman, Trump, unemployment, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

And here I thought that Americans were starting to understand that defeating the CCP Virus and thus protecting public health on the one hand, and restarting economic activity as soon as possible on the other, are not sharply conflicting imperatives. They’re mutually reinforcing – including for public health reasons. Silly me.

One sign was this column by The New York Times‘ Thomas L. Friedman – not someone who’s career-defining predictions and analysis (like the always beneficial and inevitable expansion of economic globalization) have stood up real well. All the same, as one expert quoted by Friedman observed:

“Income is one of the stronger predictors of health outcomes — and of how long we live. Lost wages and job layoffs are leaving many workers without health insurance and forcing many families to forego health care and medications to pay for food, housing, and other basic needs. People of color and the poor, who have suffered for generations with higher death rates, will be hurt the most and probably helped the least. They are the housekeepers in the closed hotels and the families without options when public transit closes. Low-income workers who manage to save the money for groceries and reach the store may find empty shelves, left behind by panic shoppers with the resources for hoarding.’’

P.S. – This expert is a noted public health authority, not an economist callously focused on money and output.

If you still doubt how worsening economic fortunes can literally be a large-scale killer, check out the work of the husband-wife team of Angus Deaton and Ann Case. Yes, they’re economists. But since 2015, these Princeton University scholars have been documenting how deteriorating well-being has helped fuel an historic rise in mortality among middle aged, working class whites. This year, they’ve published the results of their research in a book (appropriately) titled Deaths of Despair. Serious health problems with economic roots have been identified among African Americans as well.

Nonetheless, President Trump’s statement yesterday setting a target date of Easter (April 12) for restarting economic activity was greeted by a howl of protests accusing him of ignoring public health experts’ pleas, and placing his reelection hopes (which, the argument goes, depend almost exclusively on his economic policy record) over the lives of [FILL IN YOUR FAVORITE NUMBER] of Americans. Could anything be eviller?

There’s a counter-argument of course, at least in theory: Cash payments to workers could keep their incomes up and address these economy-related health threats even as most of the economy remains closed. The problem, though, is that without support for business (especially smaller companies, which are big employers collectively but often lack big cash cushions or access to affordable credit even in the best of times), massive payments could (which would be needed as long as workers have regular bills to pay) last a lot longer than the current health emergency because many such companies are likely to close for good, and leave their workers in the lurch, if they don’t start regaining customers fast.

Moreover, these small business vulnerabilities don’t exist in isolation because so many make much of their money selling to big businesses. So when the latter run into trouble because of a weak economy, the little guys – and their workers – inevitably will suffer, too.

So unless you’re a diehard Never Trump-er, and/or know absolutely nothing about the economy or Americans’ health and are unwilling to learn, you’ll recognize that the supposed choice between reopening the economy before too long (if not necessarily by Easter) and saving American lives is a false one. American policy, in other words, will have to learn how to walk and chew gum at the same time. The good news is that, as The Times‘ Friedman and others have noted, any number of approaches are available to achieve the best of both worlds that the nation urgently needs.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: An Historically Uneven, as Well as Sluggish, Recovery

Tags

cities, inequality, Jobs, Labor Department, recovery, unemployment, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As the late, great comedian Rodney Dangerfield might have said, this current U.S. economic recovery “don’t get no respect,” and dissing it seems to grow ever more popular. Long derided as historically slow, and marked by marginal wage increases and lousy productivity, it’s now coming under fire for being shockingly uneven as well, confined to a handful of (admittedly huge) urban islands of prosperity like New York City and Washington, D.C., and the San Francisco Bay Area.

This morning came worse news – the gap between haves and have-nots is getting wider, at least when it comes to unemployment rates. This depressing conclusion – after nearly nine years of economic expansion – stems from the latest Labor Department data (for April) on joblessness and how it’s changed in 387 American urban areas.

But let’s start at the beginning (of the recovery). In June, 2009, unemployment rates rose year-on-year in all 372 of the metro areas then measured. So there was literally no place to go but up. But by February, 2010 – when the number of total American job-holders bottomed in absolute terms – unemployment rates were still increasing on an annual basis in 347 of these areas and falling in only 21.

This April, the situation was greatly improved. Unemployment rates dropped in 269 metropolitan areas and were up in only 94. (By now, the number of urban areas tracked has risen to 387.) But here’s the rub. The previous April, jobless rates were down in 344 areas and up in 36. In April, 2014, the numbers looked even better – down in 357, up in a mere 12. (In some areas, the rates haven’t changed.)

An optimist (or an Obama-phile) could argue that progress in cutting unemployment is slowing because the rate has already come down so dramatically during the recovery. And indeed it has – from the most recent peak of ten percent in October, 2009 to five percent in April. So clearly, there isn’t much more to go until any reasonable definition of full employment (which BTW, isn’t hard and fast).

At the same time, as RealityChek has reported so often, other measures of the employment scene, like wage and broader pay growth, still look pretty shaky. And heading into its eighth year, the recovery is looking pretty long in the tooth. The economy has so far displayed the ability to generate more impressive employment than growth results (hence, in a nutshell, the crummy productivity improvement), so it’s entirely possible that even when the recovery peters out, the number of jobs can keep increasing.  Therefore,however unsatisfactory the geography of prosperity these days, it may not get significantly worse for the time being.

But that’s likely a best case. If today’s growth shifts into reverse to any meaningful degree, America’s islands of prosperity could become even harder to find on a map.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Fed’s Dangerous Can-Kick

Tags

China, debt, Federal Open Market Committee, Federal Reserve, Financial Crisis, Great Recession, inflation, interest rates, Janet Yellen, Jobs, leverage, monetary policy, recovery, unemployment, yield, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Reverberations continue from the Federal Reserve’s decision last Thursday to keep the short-term interest rate directly controlled by the central bank at the so-called zero bound – after strong hints most of the spring and well into the summer that the financial crisis-born policy of super easy money would finally start coming to an end. Most of the commentary has focused on the incredibly convoluted rationale for delay presented by Fed Chair Janet Yellen at a press conference held following the “stand pat” announcement. That’s entirely understandable, as I’ll explain below. What worries me even more, though, is how the kinds of financial stability threats that triggered the 2007-08 crisis have apparently dropped off the Fed’s screen completely.

It’s not necessary to believe that the U.S. economy is performing well to be puzzled by the Fed decision – which was nearly unanimous. That’s because the Fed majority itself clearly believes it’s performing well. Here’s how Yellen described the recovery from the Great Recession:

“The recovery from the Great Recession has advanced sufficiently far, and domestic spending appears sufficiently robust, that an argument can be made for a rise in interest rates at this time. We discussed this possibility at our meeting.” A little later, Yellen emphasized, “You know, I want to emphasize domestic developments have been strong.”

The Chair did spotlight areas of continued economic weakness, including sluggish wage growth that was contributing to overall inflation rates remaining well below the levels characteristic of a truly healthy economy; the stubbornly high number of Americans who remained out of the workforce, which takes much of the sheen off of the major reduction seen in the headline unemployment rate; and weakening economies in China and elsewhere abroad, which roiled stock markets in the United States and overseas in August.

But she persisted in describing weak prices as mainly due to “transitory” factors, like the depressed global energy picture and the strong dollar (which makes imported goods bought by Americans cheaper). More important, Yellen repeatedly emphasized points like “I do not want to overplay the implications of these [and other] recent developments, which have not fundamentally altered our outlook. The economy has been performing well, and we expect it to continue to do so.” 

Moreover, and most important, the record makes clear that most of the voting members of the Fed’s leadership – the Open Market Committee – “continue to expect that economic conditions will make it appropriate” to raise interest rates “later this year.” All of which inevitably and justifiably has raised the question of why, if most Fed policymakers remain confident that the U.S. and even world economies will remain on a course encouraging enough to warrant slightly tighter monetary policy by year end (i.e., in three months), all except one decided that the conditions of these economies are too fragile now to withstand rates even the slightest bit higher than their current emergency, mid-crisis levels.

Nor is this question answered adequately by Yellen’s claim that it’s crucial not to raise rates too early because such actions could snuff out the recovery’s momentum. Indeed, the Chair herself stated that she buys one of the most compelling reasons to hike sooner rather than later – because the delay between the approval of a monetary policy decision like a rate hike and the appearance of its effects on the economy means that inflation could overheat if the Fed waits too long to step on the brakes.

As a result of these contradictory messages, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion either that the Fed is genuinely confused about the real state of the economy and how it can strengthen it; or that despite its expressed confidence, it still believes that even the kind of minimal rate hike it’s been telegraphing – which Yellen further has intimated will still leave monetary policy “highly accommodative for quite some time” – could bring the recovery to its knees. No wonder investors are confused, too – and increasingly nervous.

And this is only the set of problems on which the economic and financial chattering classes are concentrating. The problem they’ve overlooked for now is even more disconcerting: The Fed’s latest statements about the future of its super-easy money policies contain no mention of the big reason to be genuinely scared of super-easy money policies: They’ve shown a strong tendency to encourage reckless financial practices that tend to end in oceans of tears.

The reason should be pretty obvious, especially since it played out just a few short years ago and nearly blew up the American and global economies. When money is for all intents and purposes free and in glut conditions, incentives to use it responsibly vanish. After all, by definition, it’s no longer precious: If you lose some in a bad investment, you feel confident that more will be easy to get.

At very best, then, nothing like market forces exist to discipline lending and investing, and thereby increase the odds that credit will be used in productive ways that bring the greatest, most durable benefits to the entire economy and society. In fact, too many investors will view the strongest incentives as those fostering a thirst for yield – which drives them into ever riskier assets simply because safer choices offer so little return. At worst, borrowers take on amounts of debt that become ruinous whenever interest rates do finally rise – and threaten the entire financial system and economy.

The Fed’s reluctance to raise rates may in fact stem in part from fears about that latter scenario. It’s true that the economy is less leveraged these days than it was during the previous bubble decade. But that doesn’t mean there’s not a lot of bad, vulnerable debt out there – including that wracked up by the federal government. Worse, precisely because the longer the Fed waits, the more dubious debt will accumulate, the more painful any rate hikes are bound to be.

What’s genuinely sobering about can-kicking by the Fed is that the central bank is structured to be insulated from politics and its obsession with short-run gratification. If the Fed is so reluctant to bite this bullet, and impose some near-term costs on the economy to place it on a sounder footing, where will America’s adult supervision come from?

 

Those Stubborn Facts: Multi-Decade Lows for Jobless Claims – & Multi-Decade Stagnation for Wages

Tags

inflation-adjusted wages, jobless claims, Jobs, Those Stubborn Facts, unemployment, wages

Latest U.S. weekly jobless claims: 255,000

Last time these claims were this low: November, 1973

Latest U.S. figure for real non-supervisory wage: $9.01 per hour

First time this wage hit that level: December, 1971

(Sources: “U.S. jobless claims drop to 41-1.2 year low,” by Lucia Mutikani, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/23/us-jobless-idUSKCN0PX1EO20150723 and calculated from “Average Hourly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees, 1982-84 Dollars,” Series Id: CES0500000032, Seasonally Adjusted, Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National), Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject, Data Tools, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet)

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Vital but Missing Voice on Urban Poverty

Tags

African Americans, Baltimore, crime, education, Ferguson, infrastructure, inner cities, Jobs, manufacturing, poverty, skills, Trade, unemployment, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Quick – does the name William Julius Wilson mean anything to you? It sure as heck should, especially if you’re concerned about the inner-city black neighborhood woes that have burst into the headlines since Ferguson, Mo. police officer Darren Wilson shot unarmed African-American teenager Michael Brown last August.

Wilson is a Harvard University sociologist who wrote a landmark 1996 book that shed crucial light on modern urban poverty and its origins. The title said it all: When Work Disappears. It was widely praised and pretty widely discussed when it first came out, but gradually faded into the background, where it seems to have stayed despite the front page news seemingly continually generated these days from places like Ferguson and West Baltimore. I myself had forgotten about it till I saw the paperback at a book sale last weekend.

I haven’t gotten very far into When Work Disappears but its main theme should be powerfully shaping the U.S. public debate over fixing what’s wrong with huge swathes of black urban America. According to Wilson (writing before the two recessions that have struck so far in the twenty-first century, not to mention the financial crisis):

“For the first time in the twentieth century most adults in many inner-city neighborhoods are not working in a typical week. The disappearance of work has adversely affected not only individuals, families, and neighborhoods, but the social life of the city at large as well. Inner-city joblessness is a severe problem that is often overlooked or obscured when the focus is placed mainly on poverty and its consequences. Despite increases in the concentration of poverty since 1970, inner cities have always featured high levels of poverty, but the current levels of joblessness in some neighborhoods are unprecedented.

“The consequences of high neighborhood joblessness are more devastating than those of high neighborhood poverty. A neighborhood in which people are poor but employed is different from a neighborhood in which people are poor and jobless. Many of today’s problems in the inner-city ghetto neighborhoods – crime, family dissolution, welfare, low levels of social organization, and so on – are fundamentally a consequence of the disappearance of work.”

Further, Wilson cited “the increased internationalization” of the U.S. economy as one engine of this joblessness, and to underscore this point, noted that “Of the changes in the economy that have adversely affected low-skilled African-American workers, perhaps the most significant have been those in the manufacturing sector.” Of course, manufacturing is the economy’s most trade-intensive sector.

To be sure, Wilson doesn’t seem to have recommended any trade policy changes to fix these problems, preferring to focus instead on a raft of domestic policy responses like better job training, more family-friendly benefits for workers, a greater Earned Income Tax Credit, and more infrastructure programs (an idea that I’ve endorsed). In these respects, the 1996-vintage Wilson sounds a lot like President Obama during his years in the White House. Indeed, in a conference on poverty held two weeks ago in the wake of the Baltimore riots, Mr. Obama mentioned Wilson and touted the potential of these programs to heal inner cities.

Yet Wilson was writing when the current era of U.S. trade policy, launched with the negotiations to create the North American Free Trade Agreement, was just beginning. So he couldn’t have known that such purely domestic policy fixes have failed. President Obama, however, keeps pushing more of the same on the trade side despite the devastating impact on the inner city as well as on the economy as a whole – and insists that there’s no contradiction.  According to the president, what he has re-labeled “21st century trade agreements” are “as important to helping the middle class get ahead in this new economy as things like job training, and higher education, and affordable health care. They’re all part of a package.” What’s his excuse?

Just as important, however, where has William Julius Wilson been over the last year as Americans have struggled with these issues?  His insights are needed now more than ever.