(What’s Left of) Our Economy: So Much for That Pre-Virus Trump Manufacturing Recession?

Tags

(What's Left of) Our Economy, Barack Obama, election 2020, Federal Reserve, GDP, gross domestic product, gross output, industrial production, Joe Biden, manufacturing, manufacturing recession, real GDP, real value added, tariffs, Trade, Trump, value added

A funny thing happened when the U.S. Commerce Department released its latest report on gross domestic product (GDP) by industry last Wednesday: Most of the evidence that American domestic manufacturing suffered a recession – even a mild one, as widely reported – before the CCP Virus struck disappeared.

The new figures also reveal that President Trump’s manufacturing record before most of the U.S. economy was literally ordered closed due to virus-related fears looks even better than previously thought in comparison with that of the Obama administration – in which the President’s Democratic rival for the White House, Joe Biden, served as vice president.

Focusing on this pre-virus data is anything but grasping at straws – unless you think the CCP Virus and its impact will last forever. For manufacturing’s fortunes have been closely connected to President Trump’s tariff-centric trade policies throughout his time in office because manufacturing is so thoroughly exposed to foreign competition both at home and abroad. And as this article (which featured unusual balance) made clear, recent evidence that industry had slumped last year – even before the virus’ arrival and the deep downturn it caused – was widely viewed as a major sign not only that the “trade war” was failing, and undermining Mr. Trump’s .broader determination to revive the sector.

Yet the new GDP by Industry numbers (which take the story through the second quarter of this year, and incorporate revisions going back to the first quarter of 2015 and which were part of a broader release of four different measures of manufacturing production) generally revised that recession away. So presumably, judgments about the effectiveness and impact of the Trump tariffs and similar trade decisions during normal economic times should turn much more positive.

Understanding that the federal government uses four different measures of manufacturing production is the key to understanding why those manufacturing recession claims now look largely mistaken, and why some uncertainty remains. The four measures are: gross output and inflation-adjusted (real) gross output, and value added and real value added. The latter two measures try to eliminate the double-counting in the gross output numbers that economists generally agree results from including in its results both the parts and components and other manufactured inputs of final products, along with the final products themselves.

As of now, the only one of these gauges that still shows a pre-virus Trump-era manufacturing recession (defined as two straight quarters of declining output) is current dollar (pre-inflation) gross output. According to these data, this downturn began in the second quarter of 2019 and continued through the end of the year – and of course into this year. But a recession doesn’t show up in any of the other measures, and its absence in the new real gross output figures is especially important, since that’s the measure that the Federal Reserve uses to measure manufacturing production in its closely followed monthly industrial production reports.

At the same time, those real gross output figures still leave one manufacturing production uncertainty remaining. For even though the Commerce Department’s tables, and their quarterly numbers, show no pre-virus Trump era recession by this measure, the Fed’s monthly numbers do. Specifically, they report three consecutive quarters of manufacturing production decrease last year – from the first through the third.

Yet the quarterly figures reported by the Commerce Department show that real gross output in manufacturing fell between the first and second quarters of 2019, but rose between the second and third before dropping again between the third and fourth. Even odder: Although these Commerce numbers show a weakening manufacturing output picture for the fourth quarter of last year, the Fed figures show a brighter one.

As for the comparison between administrations, here’s what the new numbers show for the two most comparable pre-virus periods (because they’re closest together in the same business cycle) – the last three years of the Obama administration and the first three years of the Trump administration. And they demonstrate that, whether due to Mr. Trump’s policies or not, industry performed considerably better during his watch. The Trump numbers are all the more impressive since 2019 was marked in part by major production woes at Boeing that greatly undercut the output numbers for the huge U.S. aerospace industry and its vast domestic supply chain.

last 3 Obama years first 3 Trump years

Gross output: -6.50 percent +12.71 percent

Real gross output: +1.40 percent +4.63 percent

Value added: +5.41 percent +11.72 percent

Real value-added: +2.33 percent +9.00 percent

This year, of course, has been terrible for domestic U.S. manufacturing. Between the first and second quarters, in real gross output terms it decreased by 1.03 percent at an annual rate between the fourth quarter of 2019 and the first quarter of 2020, and by 9.47 percent between the first and second quarters.

Interestingly, put together, those are about the same as the declines suffered by the entire U.S. private sector (1.11 percent and 9.14 percent, respectively), even though manufacturing employment during this that period held up notably better than its overall private sector counterpart. During the first and second quarters of this year, the private sector lost 9.92 percent of its jobs, compared with 6.25 percent for manufacturing.

The GDP by Industry figures for the third quarter won’t be out until well after the election (December 22), so voters won’t be able to judge the full Trump manufacturing output record during the CCP Virus period. But from what’s known so far, it looks like something the President can point to during the rest of the campaign as a promise kept.

Im-Politic: On the Economy, Obama’s Record Looks Stronger than Trump’s

Tags

Barack Obama, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, election 2020, Employment to Population Ratio, GDP, gross domestic product, Im-Politic, Jobs, Joe Biden, Labor Force Participation Rate, labor productivity, manufacturing, non-farm jobs, private sector, productivity, real GDP, real private sector, real wages, recession, subsidized private sector, Trump, value added, wages, Wuhan virus

Not surprisingly, as this U.S. presidential cycle gets ever more intense, so has the debate over which boasts a better record in helping steer the nation’s economy: the Obama administration in which Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden served as second-in-command, or the incumbent Trump administration. I’ve just looked over some key data, and the verdict on most counts goes to the Obama administration. The margin of victory here isn’t huge, but it’s anything but razor thin, either. Moreover, any Obama edge is surprising given that the economy is President Trump’s major advantage in nearly all the polls.

All the same, here are the data. They compare performance during the last three full years of the Obama presidency and the first three full years of the Trump presidency. In my view, these time-frames deserve priority because they’re the ones closest to each other in the same expansionary business cycle, making apples to apples results much likelier.

The time-frames of course leave out the CCP Virus period, during which all the Trump numbers sank like stones. But if you regard the virus’ economic effects as purely artificial, having nothing to do with the economy’s fundamentals (as I do), then you want to strip them out.

Other methodological notes: Although the jobs-focused data come out from the federal government on a monthly basis, and therefore permit comparisons between completely identical (and virus-adjusted) three-year periods, the economic growth and productivity data don’t, so I show Trump results both through the first quarter of this year (affected by the shutdowns that began in March) and through the last quarter of 2019. In addition, regarding the monthly figures, because of the January 20 inauguration date, I peg the end of the Obama administration as January, 2017 and the beginning of the Trump administration as February, 2017.

And off we go, starting with overall employment, which consists of the Bureau of Labor Department’s U.S. employment universe – “non-farm jobs.”

Obama: +5.55 percent            Trump: +4.56 percent

But of course, non-farm jobs include all government jobs, and their status has much less to do with the economy’s underlying strengths and weaknesses than with politicians’ decision. So here are the numbers for private sector jobs.

Obama: +6.56 percent            Trump: +5.04 percent

So advantage Obama again. As RealityChek regulars know, however, not all private sector jobs are created equal. In fact, many barely deserve the term at all, because their circumstances depend so heavily on government spending. Healthcare is of course the leading example. Therefore, it’s useful to examine the employment results in what I’ve called the “real private sector”.

Obama +6.22 percent             Trump: + 4.63 percent

It’s another Obama out-performance. This string is broken when it comes to manufacturing jobs, however.

Obama: +2.38 percent           Trump: +3.78 percent

But Obama comes out ahead on inflation-adjusted wages for the entire private sector.

Obama +3.69 percent           Trump: +2.99 percent

And the margin is even bigger for real manufacturing wages.

Obama: +3.15 percent          Trump: +0.74 percent

One problem with looking at jobs gains or losses, or even the unemployment rate, is that these numbers don’t tell the whole story about the health of the labor market. To fill in the gaps, economists like to examine two performance measures called the Labor Force Participation Rate, and the Employment to Population Ratio.

The former, according to well regarded left-of-center economics think tank, reveals “the number of people in the labor force—defined as the sum of employed and unemployed persons—as a share of the total working-age population, which is the number of civilian, non-institutionalized people, age 16 and over.”

The latter, the same source explains, shows “the number of people currently employed as a share of the total working-age population, which is the number of civilian, non-institutionalized persons, age 16 and over.”

For what it’s worth, this reliable economics and finance website claims that the Employment to Population Ratio provides the best indication of job shrinkage or growth. So let’s begin there.

Obama: 58.8 percent to 59.9 percent       Trump: 59.9 percent to 61.1 percent

Pretty much a standoff.

As for Labor Force Participation:

Obama: 62.9 percent to 62.6 percent       Trump: 62.8 percent to 63.4 percent

Advantage, Mr. Trump.

As previously mentioned, the economic growth figures are only reported quarterly. Keeping that in mind, here’s how the two administrations stack up. The most commonly followed measure of the economy’s size and how it changes is inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP).

Obama: +8.19 percent           Trump: +5.75 percent

These data, though, include shutdown-y March, 2020. Taking the story only through the end of 2019 brings the Trump years’ performance up to 7.11 percent – but he still trails.

Interestingly, even including the first quarter of this CCP Virus-y year, Mr. Trump’s record is slightly better when another metric for economic growth is used – value-added. Its value lies in trying to eliminate the double- and even more overcounting that results when the of the parts and other inputs of a complicated product are counted both when they’re turned out individually, and when they’re contained in that final product.

Obama: +12.09 percent          Trump: +12.24 percent

The Trump presidency’s margin is even bigger in manufacturing value-added, and even including the first quarter:

Obama: +7.09 percent            Trump: +10.58 percent

Importantly, all the above value-added numbers are pre-inflation. After-inflation value-added data are tracked by the federal government, too, but they’re not even measured on a quarterly basis. Only full-year numbers are available. So since these make precise comparisons less possible, I’m skipping them.

Finally, here are numbers that hardly ever make the news, but might be the most important of all – the productivity data. These various measures of efficiency are widely viewed by economists are crucial to determining how healthy and durable economic growth is and will be, and therefore how strongly and for how long living standards can rise.

Results aren’t up-to-date enough for the broadest measure of economic efficiency – multi-factor productivity. But they are for the narrower measure, labor productivity – which gauges how much a single worker can produce in a single hour on the job – starting with the overall economy

Obama: +3.97 percent           Trump: +3.95 percent

And if you want to remove the first quarter of this year, because of the virus effect in March, overall labor productivity during the Trump period was up 4.02 percent

Labor productivity is monitored for manufacturing, too, and here are those statistics including the first quarter of this year:

Obama: -2.57 percent           Trump: +0.29 percent .

Oddly, if the first quarter is removed, the Trump years’ performance worsens a bit – and even falls to an overall dip of 0.09 percent. But however poor, it still tops the record of the Obama years.

So why are the Trump economy poll numbers so good? One possible answer: The final year of the Obama presidency was feeble by nearly all measures. Real gross domestic product advanced by only 1.70 percent. Total employment grew by a mere 1.64 percent, versuss 2.19 percent in 2014. National manufacturing employment actually dipped by 6,000 from 2015 levels. Real wage growth overall slowed from 1.26 percent in 2014 to 0.56 percent in 2016. And inflation-adjusted manufacturing wages performed scarcely better.

Moreover, as the New York Times article linked above makes clear, the public’s evaluations of the Trump economic record are incredibly partisan – often conflicting with a respondent’s actual situation.

It’s also possible and legitimate, as I’ve noted, to point to some important reasons for this Trump under-performance.  The President’s trade policies clearly disrupted national and global supply chains, and the consequent inefficiencies surely dragged on GDP and employment in the short term.  Boeing aircraft’s safety woes have undercut national economic performance lately, too.  But good luck to you if you think these considerations are going to have any effect on voters.  

I’m hardly naive enough to think that these or other economic facts will be enough to determine November’s outcome. And I have no idea how voters will factor in the deep CCP Virus-induced recession into their thinking. But the facts aren’t a throwaway, either, and although the Obama record didn’t exactly thump Mr. Trump’s, it’ll certainly provide Biden with considerable ammunition.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Glass Half-Empty or Half-Full Government Report on Manufacturing?

Tags

China, manufacturing, manufacturing trade deficit, tariffs, Trade, trade war, value added, {What's Left of) Our Economy

A total stunner – that’s the best way to describe the manufacturing and trade results of this morning’s Commerce Department report on economic growth during the first quarter broken down by industry. Unfortunately, they provide causes for both optimism and pessimism about whether President Trump’s tariff-centric trade policies will strengthen or weaken U.S. domestic industry over any analytically respectable period of time. And one big reason may be that manufacturers are still in the process of adjusting their business models to cope with the new policy environment.

The case for optimism rests on the quarterly growth (albeit a measly 0.03 percent) registered by American-located manufacturing despite a steep (20.25 percent) plunge in the sector’s huge and longstanding trade deficit. That kind of nosedive in the shortfall hasn’t been seen since the depths of the Great Recession – when manufacturing production was plummeting, too. (In this case, growth is measured by current-dollar “value-added,” which eliminates much of the double-counting that can result when economists calculate the production increases of final products without stripping out the previous output of the parts, components, and materials comprising them.)

The new data also contrasts with the last time of comparably meager quarterly manufacturing growth – 2016. During that final year of the Obama administration, industry grew sequentially by 0.63 percent in the second quarter, flat-lined in the third quarter, and 0.02 percent in the fourth quarter. The manufacturing trade deficit changes back then? In the second quarter, it grew by 8.96 percent, in the third quarter it increased by 7.52 percent, and in the fourth quarter is shrank – but by a bare 0.52 percent.

In fact, the last time a double-digit sequential decline in the manufacturing trade deficit took place (during the first quarter of 2016, when it sank by 10.17 percent), manufacturing production actually dropped – by 1.42 percent.

Manufacturing’s performance looks better when examined on an annual basis. Between the first quarter of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019, manufacturing value-added grew by 4.99 percent, while the manufacturing trade gap widened by only 1.55 percent. That’s greatly improved over last year’s yearly statistics by quarter.

Between the second quarter of 2017 (the first full data quarter under President Trump), and the second quarter of 2018, manufacturing production rose by 8.08 percent, while the trade deficit widened by 7.83 percent. The third quarter numbers: 7.23 percent and 12.45 percent. The fourth quarter numbers: 6.21 percent and 17.80 percent.

The second and third quarter results were clearly distorted by “tariff front-running” – businesses’ decisions to procure as much in the way of imports from China before major duties were imposed. That’s evident from the dramatic slowdown in the manufacturing trade gap’s first quarter annualized increase.

But for both sets of data, there’s a rub that should be obvious: Both between the fourth quarter of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019, and over the past year, the drop-off in the manufacturing trade deficit was accompanied by a drop-off in manufacturing’s growth rate itself. And that first quarter sequential 0.03 percent production increase was the worst such result since the fourth quarter, 2016’s 0.02 percent.

Optimists can take heart from industry’s ability to eak out growth despite continuing and even greater supply chain disruptions, and despite unusual inventory buildups triggered by tariffs and especially by their anticipation.  Also arguably encouraging manufacturing growth that’s ever less reliant on foreign inputs. Pessimists can observe out that the minimal growth indicates that adequate rates of manufacturing expansion still depend on robust net imports.

Both vantage points should recognize that domestic manufacturing remains in a state of uncertainty (as the current narrative holds) and sometimes outright confusion and turmoil – and that the threat of much more widespread China tariffs and increases on current China tariffs will greatly limit clarity going forward. Which means that both should agree that a valid verdict on the President’s trade policies won’t be possible for many months into the future.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Evidence that Tariffs Front-Running has Stalled Trump Trade Progress

Tags

aluminum, China, Commerce Department, imports, manufacturing, manufacturing output, manufacturing trade deficit, steel, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Trump, value added, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Yesterday’s post on the morning’s slew of manufacturing data released by the federal government could have included one more report: the Commerce Department’s latest sounding on gross domestic product by industry. And although this read on how different major sectors of the economy have been growing (or not) isn’t a market mover, it’s useful for analyzing the trade policy debate – for it enables calculations on how changes in the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit (a major concern of President Trump’s) compare with changes in manufacturing output.

Because this perspective provides the kind of context lacking when trade deficit increases or decreases are examined in isolation, it represents a much better way to judge whether the president’s trade policies are succeeding or failing according to one of his own main yardsticks.

And the verdict stemming from this new Commerce report? Progress that had been taking place during Mr. Trump’s tenure in boosting domestic manufacturers’ trade-related fortunes has come to a halt – probably because of what’s been called tariff front-running. That is, the President’s actual trade curbs and, doubtless much more important, his threats of additional curbs, have led overseas producers and their U.S. customers to boost greatly shipments to the American market in order to avoid paying as many of the levies as possible.

Consequently, as of the third quarter of last year (the latest data made available by Commerce), the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit resumed its long-term pattern of growing faster than domestic manufacturing production.

Specifically, between the third quarter of 2017 and the third quarter of 2018, U.S.-based industry increased its output by 7.23 percent according to a measure of growth called value-added (before inflation). During the same period, however, the manufacturing trade deficit jumped by 12.45 percent.

As made clear by my previous post on the subject, these results both contrast with the second quarter findings – when manufacturing production grew by 8.02 percent while the trade deficit widened by just 7.23 percent – and reversed a trend that began pretty much when the Trump administration did.

Just as clear – the first major Trump tariffs (on steel and aluminum imports) were slapped on in late March. So their arrival, along with China levies that began in early July and the much more sweeping duties imposed in late September and strongly hinted at in June, surely super-charged America’s import system.

Even with this step backward, it’s still evident that, so far during the the Trump years, domestic manufacturing is much less dependent on imports than before.  During the last year of former President Obama’s administration, for example, American manufacturing imports rose by 7.31 percent, while output expanded by only 4.53 percent – a pattern in place for most of the last twenty years.

But the real test of the Trump tariffs – at least concerning the manufacturing trade deficit – will come if and when U.S. trade flows settle into a new, post-tariff, normal, or one that follows the conclusion of the new, improved trade deals the President has promised. In that vein, the next chance to check these data will be April 19, when Commerce is scheduled to publish its fourth quarter and full-year, 2018 figures. Stay tuned!

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Early Signs of Manufacturing Trade Progress Under Trump

Tags

manufacturing, manufacturing production, manufacturing trade deficit, Trade, Trade Deficits, Trump, value added, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Since President Trump has focused so much of his trade policy on reducing America’s enormous and chronic deficits, it’s not surprising that the press has noted that, under his presidency so far, the trade gap has widened.

And oddly, in one respect, they just got some data showing that in the one area where the President had been able to claim progress (but hasn’t to my knowledge) – slowing growth in the deficit despite accelerating growth in the economy as a whole. As of the last monthly U.S. trade figures, the trend has once again gone south, though the economy’s still strong growth plus a stronger dollar – which makes American-origin goods and services more expensive than their foreign counterparts – are no doubt overwhelmingly responsible.

But a closer examination of the statistics reveals an important new front on which Mr. Trump’s efforts appear to be succeeding – manufacturing trade, which still dominates overall U.S. trade flows. Specifically, signs have emerged that, under his administration, domestic manufacturing is regaining the ability to boost output without relying more and more on inputs from foreign factories (which of course boost the trade shortfall) In fact, during the Trump administration’s first full data year, American manufacturing’s production has grown faster than its trade deficit – indicating that domestic goods have been replacing imports. And this progress has been made despite a speed-up in manufacturing production growth, and that stronger dollar.

Continuation of this trend would be great news for the nation’s economy. Further, it would represent a major departure from the record of the previous administration, during which the growth of the manufacturing trade deficit vastly exceeded industry’s own growth.

Actually, manufacturing trade deficit has been greatly outgrowing the sector’s output for nearly twenty years. In 2000, the trade gap represented 25.54 percent of total domestic manufacturing production (according to an output measure called value added). As of the second quarter of this year (the latest available data), that figure stood at 42.02 percent. In absolute terms, the trade gap increased by a factor of 2 and a half, while manufacturing production grew by a little over 50 percent. (All figures are stated in pre-inflation dollars.)

But this manufacturing trade deficit’s “out-performance” really took off during the Obama years. Let’s give the former President’s trade record a break by throwing out the data for the first year of the economic recovery (and his first year in office). After all, the global trade contraction during the last recession was so dramatic that the trade “snapback” effect once the recovery began was unusually strong, and couldn’t last.

From 2010 through 2016, however, while American manufacturing output advanced by 16.04 percent, the manufacturing trade deficit jumped by 52.47 percent. That’s more than three times faster. In fact, between 2015 and 2016, the manufacturing trade deficit increased by 3.23 percent even though manufacturing output actually fell by 1.78 percent.

Between 2016 and 2017 (the Trump administration’s first year), the manufacturing trade deficit rose less than twice as fast (7.31 percent) as industry’s output (4.53 percent). And I don’t think it’s coincidence that this manufacturing growth rate represented the best annual performance since that first recovery year of 2009-2010 (5.58 percent), which was surely strengthened by the aforementioned snapback effect.

We only have partial 2018 figures, of course, but they show even more improvement along these lines. Between the second quarter of last year and the second quarter of this year, manufacturing output was up a sizzling 8.08 percent. But the manufacturing trade deficit grew more slowly – by 7.83 percent. That combination hasn’t been seen since 2012-2013, when industry’s output improved by 3.36 percent while the trade gap widened by only 0.77 percent.

The following year, though, manufacturing’s trade shortfall soared more than four times faster than its production. For all I know, this coming year could be a repeat of that depressing precedent. For now, however, it’s definitely evidence that the Trump trade and manufacturing policies are winning.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: America’s Third World Trade Pattern with China

Tags

China, raw materials, third world, Trade, Trump, value added, {What's Left of) Our Economy

On Tuesday, I presented the latest data showing that its trade performance makes the United States look like a third world country, with raw materials sectors representing most of its biggest trade winners – and increasingly so.

Today, let’s look at America’s trade with China, which is a country with major first and third world characteristics, and see if U.S. producers perform any better. The answer? Only a little.

Here’s the list of the nation’s top ten export winners in China trade last year – the sectors of the economy that racked up the biggest trade surpluses with China:

1. Soybeans: $12.35 billion

2. Autos & light trucks: $8.24 billion

3. Waste and scrap: $5.49 billion

4. Crude oil & natural gas: $4.43 billion

5. Plastics materials & resins: $2.42 billion

6. Liquid natural gas: $2.42 billion

7. Pulp mill products: $1.69 billion

8. Sawmill products: $1.62 billion

9. Non-poultry meat products: $1.41 billion

10. Timber & logs: $0.97 billion

Four of these are considered commodities in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), the U.S. government’s main scheme for slicing and dicing the economy. Waste and scrap might as well be, and (processed) non-poultry meats seem pretty close. Further, the NAICS definition of sawmill products makes clear they add little value to the wood they work with.

As with the global list, the China list excludes aerospace products, since Washington has acceded to Boeing’s insistence that it not release information that distinguishes between final products on the one hand,, and their parts and components on the other.

Still, arguably, this China list is even less impressive than the list for the world at large in terms of containing items that have historically led to big productivity gains, rapid technological progress, and lofty living standards.

Now here’s the China list for 2007 (which can include disaggregated aerospace numbers):

1. Aircraft: $6.35 billion

2. Waste and scrap: $7.26 billion

3. Semiconductors: $4.37 billion

4. Soybeans: $4.10 billion

5. Plastics materials & resins: $2.28 billion

6. Cotton: $1.46 billion

7. Non-poultry meat products: $0.88 billion

8. Autos & light trucks: $0.63 billion

9. Pulp mill products: $0.59 billion

10. Prepared or preserved poultry: $0.57 billion

The NAICS system considers two of these export categories as raw materials. In terms of value creation, I’d add the separate meat and poultry sectors, along with waste and scrap. That actually produces fewer low-value sectors (six) than the 2017 list (seven).

It’s also compelling evidence that as the Trump administration continues its efforts to try to fix America’s trade problems with China, it should focus at least as much on the composition of this trade as well as the size of the bilateral deficits.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: America Keeps Getting More Manufacturing-Lite

Tags

Commerce Department, finance, GDP, Great Recession, gross domestic product, healthcare, manufacturing, real value-added, recovery, subsidized private sector, value added, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The Commerce Department’s “GDP [Gross Domestic Product] by Industry” reports aren’t considered market movers by those in the know in economics, business, and finance. Still, I find them well worth following because they provide the most authoritative evidence available on whether numerous claims about the economy’s strengths and weaknesses meet the reality test.

The big takeaway here? For all the post-financial crisis talk from politicians across the political spectrum about the need to reindustrialize the U.S. economy, manufacturing remains a major growth laggard. Indeed, by two key measures, it still hasn’t recovered fully from the Great Recession.

Commerce’s latest report takes the story up to the second quarter of this year, and revises the previously published results back to 2014. For some reason, the new 2014 numbers won’t come out till next month, but we do have the 2015, 2016, and first quarter 2017 revisions. Here’s what they say.

From 2015 through the first quarter of this year, manufacturing’s inflation adjusted growth rate – according to a gauge called “real value added,” which aims at eliminating unintentional double-counting – has been a few ticks lower than originally judged. The 2015 performance was revised down by 0.6 percentage points, the 2016 growth was upgraded by a full percentage point, and the first quarter 2017 result was downgraded by 0.8 percentage points. As for the latest, second quarter 2017 number, it’s a healthy four percent at an annual rate.

Manufacturing real value added’s contributions to growth have been a little more modest, too – which means that it’s been growing more slowly than the rest of the economy. That trend comes through more clearly from the Commerce data showing industry’s actual share of GDP. The main numbers are presented in current dollar terms, meaning that they don’t factor in inflation. But they make clear that manufacturing value added has declined from representing 12.1 percent of total American economic output in 2015 to accounting for just 11.5 percent in the second quarter of 2017.

To make the point even more emphatically, when the Great Recession broke out, in the fourth quarter of 2007, manufacturing value added represented 12.4 percent of gross domestic product.

Of course, there’s a case to be made (not that I accept it) that as long as manufacturing is growing, it doesn’t matter whether it’s becoming a bigger or smaller share of American economic output. But even by these standards, U.S. manufacturing is faltering. The new Commerce numbers show that, since the recession began, manufacturing real value-added is down. It’s not down by much – 0.18 percent in toto. But we’re talking about absolute shrinkage over a period of nearly ten years.

As RealityChek regulars know, the Federal Reserve’s industrial production reports (which also adjust for inflation), peg manufacturing’s shrinkage since the end of 2007 at an even greater 4.26 percent. Only if you take price increases out of the picture does manufacturing show a real recovery. In current dollar value added terms, it’s grown by 18.26 percent during this period.

But even by these terms, manufacturing’s laggard status stands out. In fact, since the fourth quarter of 2007, it’s share of the economy’s value-added has fallen by 10.16 percent. That’s the greatest such drop in the whole economy after mining (26.09 percent) and construction (10.42 percent).

The leaders, by these criteria? The subsidized private sector (industries, notably healthcare services, whose size is determined largely by government largesse) is number one, increasing its share of value added by 16.22 percent. Next is a supersector comprising arts, recreation, accommodation, and food services (up 13.89 percent). And remember all the concern that the pre-recession, bubble-ized economy of the previous decade was too Wall Street heavy? Since it brought the entire world to the brink of economic disaster, the finance super-sector has boosted its share of value added by a healthy 5.05 percent.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: So U.S. Manufacturing’s Never Produced More, Huh?

Tags

Commerce Department, Federal Reserve, gross output, industrial production, inflation-adjusted output, manufacturing, real gross output, real value-added, recession, recovery, value added, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Even though (thankfully) few claims have been heard lately that American domestic manufacturing is either enjoying a renaissance or on the verge of one, it’s still commonplace to insist that the sector’s output is at an all-time high. Invariably, the purpose is to argue that U.S. industry is in perfectly acceptable shape, and that anyone believing the contrary is mistakenly obsessing about the industry’s long years of job losses – which are attributed to its ever faster adoption of labor-saving technologies that are encouragingly boosting productivity.

Let’s (charitably) leave aside the reality that manufacturing’s productivity performance lately has been historically feeble. Instead, let’s express thanks to the Commerce Department, which has just published its latest reminder of how complicated – and uninspiring – manufacturing output has been lately.

As known by RealityChek regulars, the Federal Reserve’s monthly industrial production numbers have made sadly clear that, when adjusted for inflation, American manufacturing output is anything but at an all-time high. Indeed, its peak came at the very end of 2007, just as the Great Recession was beginning according to the quasi-official scorekeepers at the National Bureau of Economic Research. Since then, real manufacturing production has shrunk by 4.43 percent.

But as the Commerce Department’s new quarterly report on gross domestic product (GDP) by industry once again describe in detail, the U.S. government measures manufacturing output in several different ways. Unfortunately, however, none of them tell a story especially flattering to the sector.

Commerce gives pride of place to a gauge called real value-added – which tries to eliminate the double-counting that often marks the simpler production numbers mentioned above. In other words, real value-added (along with value-added that’s not adjusted for inflation) tries to ensure that the government isn’t counting an auto part once when it comes out of a parts factory and again when it comes out of a vehicle factory as one piece of a finished good.

The real value-added data certainly make manufacturing’s recent production growth look better than the real output figures. But that’s not to say they make this performance look good, for they show that from its 2007 peak through the end of last year, domestic manufacturing has shrunk by 0.81 percent.

It’s only when you don’t adjust for inflation that you start getting genuinely encouraging manufacturing output numbers. According to the pre-inflation value-added data, American manufacturing production was indeed at an all-time high as of the end of 2016. In fact, it’s 17.31 percent higher than the 2007 level.

Don’t get too excited by this number, however. If we switch time-frames and just look at the current economic recovery, we see that from the time the economy resumed growing in 2009 (and unfortunately, this data set doesn’t contain quarterly figures, so we have to use full years) through the end of 2016, current dollar manufacturing value-added advanced by 25.97 percent. That’s only a little faster than manufacturing’s 25.42 percent value-added growth during the previous (2001-2007) expansion – which was a year shorter. Moreover, no one ever considered those years a manufacturing golden age – or even close.

Yet another version of the manufacturing story is told by the gross output numbers compiled by the Commerce Department. They show that manufacturing production rose after the last recession began – by 12.94 percent. But that growth ended in 2014. Over the next two years, it dropped back – by 4.41 percent. So record manufacturing output came – and then went.

Adjusting gross output for inflation serves up a less volatile picture of manufacturing production, but it’s not much of an improvement. According to this measure, output peaked in 2007, and since then has dipped by 0.27 percent. That’s not much. But it doesn’t mark 2016 as an all-time high, either.

To me, a reasonable bottom line is this: The U.S. government uses five different measures of manufacturing output. Both its timeliest (the Fed industrial production figures) and arguably the one it likes best (real value-added) show that real manufacturing production is off its recent records. So do two other measures. The only data set that tells a reasonably good story is one that’s doesn’t take inflation into account. That’s a pretty flimsy reed on which to base claims that domestic manufacturing output has never been stronger.

Those Stubborn Facts: Lowering the Bar for Booms

Tags

Bureau of Economic Analysis, CNN Money, Department of Commerce, Federal Reserve, inflation-adjusted growth, manufacturing, Those Stubborn Facts, value added

“The nation’s manufacturing sector is actually booming, even if many people don’t realize it.”

– CNN Money, October 20, 2016

U.S. real manufacturing production since 2007 pre-recession peak: -4.29%

U.S. real manufacturing value-added since 2007 pre-recession peak: -1.12%

(Sources: “The manufacturing boom that Donald Trump ignores,” by Chris Isidore and John Ostrower, CNN Money, October 20, 2016; “Industrial Production, Seasonally Adjusted, Data from January 1986 to September 2016, Industrial Production: Market, Industry Groups, and Individual Series, Historical Data: Tables 1,2, and 10, Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization, Statistical Releases and Historical Data, Economic Research and Data, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/ipdisk/ip_sa.txt; “Real Value-Added by Industry, [Billions of chained 2009 dollars], Seasonally adjusted at annual rates,” GDP-by-industry, Industry Data, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=51&step=1#reqid=51&step=51&isuri=1&5101=1&5114=q&5113=31gva&5112=1&5111=2007&5102=10)

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Most Encouraging Manufacturing Data are Lagging Indicators

Tags

Commerce Department, Federal Reserve, GDP-by-industry, inflation-adjusted growth, manufacturing, value added, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Let’s close the work week with a surprisingly good piece of news about the manufacturing sector. The Commerce Department released figures yesterday indicating that, by one key measure, it had a knock-out third quarter of last year – at least by recent standards. Unfortunately, there’s a catch.  These figures describe developments that may already be out of date.

The new figures were contained in Commerce’s GDP (gross domestic product)-by-industry report, which isn’t all that closely watched by investors in particular because it comes out with a substantial time lag. That’s why yesterday’s report only took the story up to last September.

At the same time, the manufacturing results were impressive. The most important looked at a gauge called “real value-added” – which as I’ve explained before, tries to eliminate the kind of double-counting that takes place when, for example, an auto part is recorded as output when it gets shipped from the factory, and then gets recorded again as a piece of the finished vehicle.

The findings: From last June through last September, domestic manufacturing grew by an inflation-adjusted 2.6 percent at an annual rate. That’s the best such performance by far since the second quarter of 2014. And even though the actual quarterly growth rate of 0.65 percent in real terms sounds much less impressive (2.6 divided by four), progress is progress.

As RealityChek readers know, there’s another government measure of manufacturing output that’s widely followed – the Federal Reserve’s real production figures – and they’re issued with just a one month lag. These more recent figures are subject to the double-counting problem, but they roughly track the value-added numbers. And their fourth quarter real growth of 0.2 percent represented a significant slowing from the third quarter’s 0.8 percent rate. In fact, unless production doesn’t pick up in January, manufacturing will have stumbled into a technical recession (net shrinkage over two straight quarters).

The Fed figures will be revised of course, but if form holds, value-added growth looks set to decelerate, too. That is, as with wage inflation, if you’re looking for a rebound in manufacturing production, you may already have missed it.