(What’s Left of) Our Economy: You Bet that Mass Immigration Makes America Less Productive

Tags

amnesty, Bureau of Labor Statistics, construction, demand, Donald Trump, economics, Forward.us, hotels, illegal aliens, immigrants, Immigration, labor productivity, productivity, restaurants, supply, total factor productivity, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

An archetypical Washington, D.C. swamp denizen thought he caught me with my accuracy pants down the other day. Last Sunday’s post restated a point I’ve made repeatedly – that when countries let in too many immigrants, their economies tend to suffer lasting damage because businesses lose their incentives to improve their productivity – the best recipe for raising living standards on a sustainable, and not bubble-ized basis, as well as for boosting employment on net by fostering more business for most existing industries and enabling the creation of entirely new industries.

The reason mass immigration kneecaps productivity growth? Employers never need to respond to rising wages caused by labor shortages by buying labor-saving machinery and technology or otherwise boost their efficiency. Instead, they continue the much easier and cheaper approach of hiring workers whose pay remains meager because immigrants keep swelling the workforce.

It’s a point, as I’ve noted, strongly supported by economic theory and, more important, by evidence. But Todd Schulte, who heads a Washington, D.C.-based lobby group called Forward.us, wasn’t buying it. According to Schulte, whose organization was founded by tech companies like Facebook with strong vested interests in keeping U.S. wages low, “the decade of actual [U.S.] productivity increases came directly after the 1986 legalization AND 1990 legal immigration expansion!”

He continued on Twitter, “giving people legal status and… expanding legal immigration absolutely has not harmed productivity in the last few decades in the US.”

So I decided to dive deeper into the official U.S. data, and what I found was that although there are bigger gaps in the productivity numbers than I’d like to see, there’s (1) no evidence that high immigration levels following the 1986 amnesty granted by Washington to illegal immigrants and the resulting immigration increase mentioned by Schulte improved the national productivity picture over the pre-amnesty period; and (2) there’s lots of evidence that subsequent strong inflows of illegal immigrants (who Schulte and his bosses would like to see amnestied) have dragged big-time on productivity growth.

First, let’s examine the productivity of the pre-1986 amnesty decades, which provides the crucial context that Schulte’s claim overlooks.

According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, during the 1950s, a very low immigration decade (as shown by the chart below), labor productivity grew by an average of 2.63 percent annually. Significantly, this timespan includes two recessions, when productivity normally falls or grows unusually slowly.

Figure 1. Size and Share of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 1850-2019

During the 1960s expansion (i.e., a period with no recessions), when immigration levels were also low, the rate of labor productivity growth sped up to an annual average of 3.26 percent.

The 1970s were another low immigration decade, and average labor productivity growth sank to 1.87 percent. But as I and many other readers are old enough to remember, the 1970s were a terrible economic decade, plagued overall by stagflation. So it’s tough to connect its poor productivity performance with its immigration levels.

Now we come to the 1980s. Its expansion (and as known by RealityChek regulars, comparing economic performance during like periods in a business cycle produces the most valid results), lasted from December, 1982 to July, 1990, and saw average annual labor productivity growth bounce back to 2.24 percent.

As noted by Schulte, immigration policy changed dramatically in 1986, and as the above chart makes clear, the actual immigant population took off.

But did labor productivity growth take off, too? As that used car commercial would put it, “Not exactly.” From the expansion’s start in the first quarter of 1982 to the fourth quarter of 1986 (the amnesty bill became law in November), labor productivity growth totalled 10.96 percent. But from the first quarter of 1987 to the third quarter of 1990 (the expansion’s end), the total labor productivity increase had slowed – to 5.76 percent.

The 1980s are important for two other reasons as well. Nineteen eighty-seven is when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting labor productivity data for many U.S. industries, and when it began tracking productivity according to a broader measure – total factor productivity, which tries to measure efficiency gains resulting from a wide range of inputs other than hours put in by workers.

There’s no labor productivity data kept for construction (an illegal immigrant-heavy sector whose poor productivity performance is admitted by the sector itself). But these figures do exist for another broad sector heavily reliant on illegals: accommodation and food services. And from 1987 to 1990 (only annual results are available), labor productivity in these businesses increased by a total of 3.45 percent – worse than the increase for the economy as a whole.

On the total factor productivity front, between 1987 and 1990 (again, quarterly numbers aren’t available), it rose by 1.23 percent for the entire economy, for the construction industry it fell by 1.37 percent, for the accommodation sector, it fell by 2.30 percent, and for food and drinking places, it increased by 2.26 percent. So only limited evidence here that amnesty and a bigger immigrant labor pool did much for U.S. productivity.

As Schulte pointed out, the 1990s, dominated by a long expansion, were a good productivity decade for the United States, with labor productivity reaching 2.58 percent average annual growth and total factor productivity rising by 10.87 percent overall. But when it comes to labor productivity, the nineties still fell short of the 1950s (even with its two recessions) and by a wider margin of the 1960s.

But did robust immigration help? Certainly not in terms of labor productivity. In accommodation and food services, it advanced by just 0.84 percent per year on average.

Nor as measured by total factor productivity. For construction, it actually dropped overall by 4.94 percent. And although it climbed in two other big illegal immigrant-using industries, the growth was slower than for the economy as a whole (7.17 percent for accommodation and 5.17 percent for restaurants and bars).

Following an eight month recession, the economy engineered another recovery at the end of 2001 that lasted until the end of 2007. This period was marked by such high legal and illegal immigration levels that the latter felt confident enough to stage large protests (which included their supporters in the legal immigrant and immigration activist communities) demanding a series of new rights and a reduction in U.S. immigration deportation and other control policies.

Average annual labor productivity during this expansion grew somewhat faster than during its 1990s predecessor – 2.69 percent. But annual average labor productivity growth for the accommodation and food services sectors slowed to 1.19 percent, overall total factor productivity growth fell to 1.19 percent, and average annual total factor productivity changes in accommodations, restaurants, and construcion dropped as well – to 6.36 percent, 2.67 percent, and -9.08 percent, respectively.

Needless to say, productivity grows or shrinks for many different reasons. But nothing in the data show that immigration has bolstered either form of productivity, especially when.pre- and post-amnesty results are compared. In fact, since the 1990s, the greater the total immigrant population, the more both kinds of productivity growth deteriorated for industries relying heavily on illegals. And all the available figures make clear that these sectors have been serious productivity laggards to begin with.

And don’t forget the abundant indirect evidence linking productivity trends to automation – specifically, all the examples I’ve cited in last Sunday’s post and elsewhere of illegal immigrant-reliant industries automating operations ever faster — and precisely to offset the pace-setting wage increases enjoyed by the lowest income workers at least partly because former President Trump’s restrictive policies curbed immigration inflows so effectively. 

In other words, in the real world, changes in supply and demand profoundly affect prices and productivity levels – whatever hokum on the subject is concocted by special interest mouthpieces who work the Swamp World like Todd Schulte.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Will Inflation and a Hawkish Fed Finally Undermine U.S. Manufacturing?

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft parts, appliances, automotive, capital spending, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, electrical components, electrical equipment, Federal Reserve, furniture, inflation, inflation-adjusted output, machinery, manufacturing, medical devices, medicines, non-metallic mineral products, petroleum and coal products, pharmaceuticals, real growth, semiconductor shortage, semiconductors, wood products, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The new (May) U.S. manufacturing production report from the Federal Reserve doesn’t mainly indicate that industry may be facing a crossroads because the sector’s inflation-adjusted output dropped on month for the first time since January.

Instead, it signals that a significant slowdown may lie ahead for U.S.-based manufacturers because its downbeat results dovetail with the latest humdrum manufacturing jobs report (also for May), with results of some of the latest sentiment surveys conducted by regional branches of the Fed (e.g., here), and with evidence of a rollover in spending on machinery and equipment by the entire economy (which fuels much manufacturing output and typically reflects optimism about future business prospects).

Domestic industry shrank slightly (by 0.07 percent) in real output terms month-to-month in May. On the bright side, the strong results of recent months stayed basically unrevised, and April’s very good advance was upgraded from 0.75 percent to 0.77 percent.

Still, the May results mean that real U.S. manufacturing production is now up 4.94 percent since just before the CCP Virus began roiling and distorting the American economy (February, 2020), rather than the 5.07 percent calculable from last month’s report.

May’s biggest manufacturing growth winners were:

>Petroleum and coal products, where after-inflation jumped by 2.53 percent sequentially in May. The improvement was the fourth straight, and the increase the best since February’s 2.68 percent. As a result, constant dollar production in these sectors is now 1.21 percent higher than in immediately pre-pandemic-y February, 2020;

>Non-metallic mineral products, whose 1.78 percent sequential growth in May followed an April fall-off that was revised way down from -0.67 percent to -1.72 percent. March’s 0.76 percent decrease was downgraded to a 1.29 percent retreat, but February’s sequential pop was revised down just slightly to a still outstanding 4.37 percent surge. All told, the sector has grown by 2.58 percent after inflation since February, 2020 – exactly the same result calculable from last month’s Fed release; and

>Furniture and related products, whose 1.23 percent May inflation-adjusted output rise was its first such increase since February’s, and its best since that month’s 4.96 percent surge. Moreover, the May advance comes off an April performance that was revised up from a -0.60 percent sequential dip to one of -0.12. In all, these results were enough to move real furniture production above its Februay, 2020 level – by 0.08 percent.

May’s biggest manufacturing production losers were:

>wood products, whose 2.56 percent real monthly output decline was its first decrease since January and its worst since February. 2021’s 3.65 percent. Moreover, April’s previously reported 1.13 percent advance is now estimated to have been just 0.97 percent – all of which means that constant dollar production by these companies is now 5.24 percent higher than just before the pandemic arrived, not the 7.85 percent calculable last month;

>machinery, whose May inflation-adjusted output sank by 2.14 percent – the biggest such setback since February, 2021’s 2.59 percent. As known by RealityChek readers, machinery production is one of those aforementioned indicators of capital spending because it’s sold to customers not just in manufacturing but throughout the economy.

It’s true that machinery’s revisions were mixed. April’s after-inflation production increase was upgraded all the way fom 0.85 percent to 1.69 percent – its best such performance since last July’s 2.85 percent. But March’s performance was revised down from 0.36 percent to one percent shrinkage, and February’s increase was revised up again, but only from 1.17 percent to 1.22 percent. Consequently, whereas as of last month, machinery production was 8.31 percent higher in real terms than in February, 2020, this growth is now down to 6.29 percent.

>electrical equipment, appliances and components, where real output sagged for the second consecutive month, and by a 1.83 percent that was its worst such monthly performance since February, 2021’s 2.34 percent decrease. Revisions were modest and mixed, with April’s previously reported 0.60 percent sequential drop upgraded to -0.42 percent, March’s downgraded 0.04 percent dip upgraded to a 0.19 percent gain, and February’s real output revised up again – from 2.03 percent to 2.08 percent. These moves put real growth in the sector post-February, 2020 at 2.19 percent, less than half the 5.55 percent calculable last month.

By contrast, industries that consistently have made headlines during the pandemic delivered solid May performances.

Aircraft- and aircraft parts-makers pushed their real production up 0.33 percent on month in May, achieving their fifth straight month of growth. Moreover, April’s excellent 1.67 percent sequential production increase was upgraded to 2.90 percent (the sector’s best such result since last July’s 3.44 percent), March’s estimate inched up from a hugely downgraded 0.47 percent to 0.50 percent, and the February results were upgraded again – from 1.34 percent to 1.49 percent. This good production news boosted these companies’ real output gain since immediately pre-pandemic-y 16.37 percent to 19.08 percent.

The big pharmaceuticals and medicines industry performed well in May, too, as after-inflation production increased by 0.42 percent. Revisions were overall negative but small. April’s initially reported 0.20 percent real output slip is now judged to be a0.15 percent gain, but March’s upwardly revised 1.23 percent increase is now pegged at only 0.32 percent, and February’s downwardly revised 0.96 percent constant dollar output drop revised up to -0.86 percent. All told, inflation-adjusted growth in the pharmaceuticals and medicines sector is now up 14.78 percent since February, 2020, as opposed to the 14.64 percent increase calculable last month.

Medical equipment and supplies firms fared even better, as their 1.44 percent monthly real output growth in May (their fifth straight advance) was their best such result since February, 2021’s 1.53 percent. Revisions were positive, too. April’s previously recorded 0.06 percent dip is now estimated as a 0.51 percent increase, March’s downgraded 1.28 percent figure was upgraded to 1.41 percent, and February’s 1.46 percent improvement now stands at 1.53 percent. These sectors are now 11.51 percent bigger in terms of constant dollar output than they were just before the CCP Virus arrived in force – a nice improvement from the 8.92 percent figure calculable last month.

May also saw a production bounceback in the shortage-plagued semiconductor industry. Its inflation-adjusted production climbed 0.52 percent on month, but April’s previously reported 1.85 percent drop – its worst such performance since last June’s 1.62 percent – is now judged to be a 2.25 percent decline. At least the March and February results received small upgrades – the former’s improving from a previously downgraded 1.83 percent rise to 1.92 percent, and February’s upgraded growth of 2.91 percent now estimated at 2.96 percent. The post-February, 2020 bottom line: After-inflation semiconductor production is now 23.82 percent higher, not the 23.38 pecent increase calculable last month.

And since the automotive industry’s ups and downs have been so crucial to domestic manufacturing’s ups and downs during the pandemic era, it’s worth noting its 0.70 percent monthly price-adjusted output growth in May.

Revisions overall were negative. April’s previously reported 3.92 percent constant dollar production growth was revised down to 3.34 percent, March’s 8.28 percent burst was upgraded to 8.99 percent (the best such result since last October’s 10.64 percent jump), and February’s previously upgraded 3.86 percent inflation-adjusted production decrease was downgraded to a 4.24 percent plunge.

But given that motor vehicle- and parts-makers are still dealing with the aforementioned semiconductor shortage, these numbers look impressive, and real automotive output is now 1.17 percent greater than in pre-pandemic-y February, 2020, as opposed to the 0.77 percent increase calculable last month.

Domestic manufacturing has overcome so many obstacles since the CCP Virus’ arrival that counting it out in growth terms could still be premature. But an obstacle that it hasn’t faced since the pandemic-induced downturn have s looming again — a major economy-wide slowdown and possible recession that could result from monetary tightening announced by the Federal Reserve to fight torrid inflation.  And with the world economy likely to stay sluggish as well and limit export opportunities (see, e.g., here), the possibility that industry’s winning streak finally ends can’t be dismissed out of hand.  

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Will Americans Need “That Seventies Show” to Tame Inflation?

Tags

consumer price index, consumers, CPI, demand, economics, elasticity, energy, Federal Reserve, food, inflation, interest rates, Jerome Powell, monetary policy, Paul A. Volcker, recession, retail sales, supply, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I haven’t commented much in detail on dccisions by the Federal Reserve to fight inflation, mainly because they’re so thooughly covered in the press. But yesterday’s announcement by the central bank that it would raise the short-term interest rate it controls by an amount not matched in nearly thirty years could loom especially large over the nation’s economic future, and some of its ramifications deserve more attention than they’ve received.

First, as widely noted, the Fed could be tightening monetary policy – in an effort to slow and eventually reverse price increases by slowing economic activity – even though a recession sooner rather than later looks likely. In fact, the timing of yesterday’s interest rate hike and seemingly solid assurances that increases will continue for the foreseeable future may be even stranger, because the recession may already be here.

Some important signs:  Yesterday also saw the release of a Census Bureau report indicating that U.S. retail sales dipped on a monthly basis in May.  If this result holds (and we’ll find out on July 15), that would mark the first such decrease since December, and the news would be ominous given the dominant role played by personal spending in the American economy. 

In addition, on top of the economy’s shrinkage during the first quarter of this year, a well regarded source of forecasts on the path of the gross domestic product (GDP – economist’s main measure of the economy’s size and how it changes) is predicting no growth whatever in the second quarter. That result would enable the nation to skirt a recession according to one popular definition of the term holding that such slumps only occur when GDP adjusted for inflation falls for two consecutive quarters.

At the same time, a flat-line real GDP for the second quarter would mean that, on a cumulative basis, the economy has contracted over a two-quarter stretch. That sounds like a pretty good approximation of a recession to me. In fact, this cumulative shrinkage could still take place even if after-inflation GDP eaks out a small gain between April and June. (We’ll get the first official read on the subject on July 28.)

And maybe more important, when it comes to the lives of most Americans, what’s the difference between a recession (especially if it’s modest) and very slow growth? Indeed, for the record, the Fed itself yesterday lowered its own projection for real U.S. growth for this entire year from 2.8 percent to 1.7 percent.

Second, examining the Fed’s inflation-fighting record during the late-1970s – which it’s also been widely noted bears some strong resemblances to the present – raises immense questions regarding the central bank’s chances of making major inflation progress without triggering a recession that would be anything but modest.

In case you’re not old enough to remember that historical episode, inflation was actually higher during the late-1970s, and also stemmed partly a combination of oil price shocks generated by overseas events plus a development that’s too often ignored nowadays – a substantial deterioration in the nation’s international financial position. Though this current account deficit back then was tiny by today’s standards, it had just become a noteworthy shortfall as a share of GDP after years of small surplus or balance, and was broadly interpreted as a sign that Americans’s spending was spinning out of control (You’ll find a great account of this period here.)

As current Fed Chair Jerome Powell is fond of recalling, that towering late-1970s inflation was broken mainly by the steadfastness of that period’s Chair, Paul A. Volcker – who raised interest rates to levels that were as astronomical as they were wholly unprecedented. But although Volcker took the helm of the Fed when inflation (as measured by the headline Consumer Price Index, or CPI) wasn’t that much higher than today’s rates, it took a near-doubling of these rates from levels that also were much higher than today’s to bring price increases down to acceptable levels, and even this effort took three and a half years and dragged the economy into not just one, but two recessions – and severe ones at that. (My sources for the interest rate infomation is here. For the inflation and growth data, I’ve relied on the official government data tables I always use.)

Specifically, on Volcker’s first day as Fed Chair (in August, 1979), the federal funds rate it controls stood at 11 percent – versus the 1.75 percent ceiling to which the Powell Fed just approved. The annual inflation rate was 11.84 percent – versus the 8.52 percent recorded last month. And the economy was growing by three percent annually – versus the current rate of probably one percent at best.

Volcker engineered rate hikes to the 20 percent neighborhood – three times! (as depicted in the chart below) – and recessions that produced real GDP nosedives of eight and 6.1 percent (in the second quarter of 1980 and the first quarter of 1982), but the CPI didn’t retreat back into the single digits until May, 1981, and it took until the end of 1982 for a read of 3.8 percent to be recorded.

 

That history doesn’t seem to warrant much optimism that the Powell Fed can cut headline inflation to 5.2 percent by year end while increasing rates only to 3.4 percent (as it’s now expecting).

Third, at his press conference following the rate hike announcement, Powell echoed the conventional wisdom: that although the Fed can cut excessive levels of economic demand enough to tame inflation, it can’t address inflation by affecting economy’s ability to create enough supply to meet that demand, and thereby restore a satisfactory inflationary balance between the two.

But supply and demand are actuallly very closely connected. As I’ve discussed when posting about possible tariff cuts on imports from China, when consumer demand is strong enough, companies can pass along increases in their prices because their customers literally are willing to pay. When consumers are cautious, however, such price hikes become much more difficult.

To be sure, these rules don’t always hold. The big exceptions are products on which consumers will cut spending only as a last resort – like food and energy. They’re (rightly) seen as so important that demand for them is called “inelastic” by economists.

Since food and energy prices have been so central to today’s inflation, it’s easy to see why the conventional wisdom on the Fed and the economy’s supply side is generally accepted. But it’s also true that if consumers become stressed enough (for example, by interest rate increases high enough to slash growth, employment, and income levels), they’ll cut their overall spending even if they keep paying higher prices for those staples. Further, they can in principle reduce their purchases on non-staples enough to bring demand down substantially, and with it, inflationary pressures.

No one could reasonably relish this kind of outcome. But if the 1970s experience teaches any lessons for today, it’s that serious hardship for much of the population can’t be avoided if the inflation war is to be won. In my view, Powell has rightly stated that this victory is essential for America’s long-term prosperity. And President Biden deserves credit for endorsing such priorities. But will the Fed Chair actually take the Volcker-like steps needed to beat down inflation? Will a U.S. President still declaring he wants to be reelected remain a fan if he does? Because I can’t yet bring myself to believe either proposition, I can’t yet bring myself to be optimistic that inflation will drop significantly any time soon.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: More Consumer Price Pain Signalled by Hot New U.S. Wholesale Inflation Numbers

Tags

baseline effect, consumer price index, core inflation, cost of living, CPI, inflation, PPI, Producer Price Index, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s official government report on U.S. wholesale prices (for May) is a perfect example of why it’s impossible to understand inflation without taking into account the baseline effect – the distortions that can result especially in year-on-year figures from wildly different points of comparison.

Specifically, if one set of annual results for any data series is abnormal (either unusually high or unusually low) that deviation is bound to influence the rate of change for the following year, and produce readings that are easy to misinterpret.

That’s why it’s not particularly important that, on an annual basis, the rate of overall (“headine”) wholesale inflation (as measured by the Producer Price Index, or PPI) has actually slowed slightly since March, or that such slowing has been seen since last November in the core PPI rate. (As with the core Consumer Price Index, or CPI, the core PPI strips out food and energy prices – along with trade services – because they’re volatile for reasons supposedly unrelated to the economy’s underlying inflation “prone-ness”). 

In fact, given the baseline effect plus the fact that both PPIs are seen as strong indications of consumer inflation rates to come — because they measure how much businesses charge each other for the goods and services they turn into final products offered to households and individuals — today’s report almost certainly means that the cost of living will keep soaring for the foreseeable future. For the baseline effect, which for much of last year could be used as an excuse for the robust consumer and producer inflation already being seen then, has been gone for months.

After all, the latest months’ worth of annual wholesale price increases represent comparisons with their results for a stretch in 2021 when these PPIs were already growing worrisomely fast. The increases in preceding months were coming off a comparison period during which these prices were still rising unsually slowly. They were still experiencing the hangover from the brief but sharp 2020 recession induced by the CCP Virus and related lockdowns and voluntary behavior curbs. In other words, a catch-up effect had been at work.

The tables below should make these points clear, starting with the headline annual PPI results by month starting with January, 2021. The right-hand column represents the baseline figure for the left – in other words, the results that month for the previous year. So, for example, the baseline for January, 2021’s 1.60 percent headline annual PPI increase was the 1.97 percent wholesale inflation recorded between January, 2019 and January, 2020. And the baseline figures for the 2021-22 results are the corresponding figures for 2020-21.

Jan 2021: 1.59 percent                  1.97 percent

Feb 2021: 2.95 percent                 1.11 percent

March 2021: 4.06 percent             0.34 percent

April 2021: 6.43 percent              -1.44 percent

May 2021: 6.91 percent               -1.01 percent

June 2021: 7.56 percent               -0.59 percent

July 2021: 7.96 percent                -0.17 percent

Aug 2021: 8.65 percent               -0.17 percent

Sept 2021: 8.78 percent                0.34 percent

Oct 2021: 8.87 percent                 0.59 percent

Nov 2021: 9.88 percent                0.76 percent

Dec 2021: 10.18 percent              0.76 percent

Jan 2022: 10.18 percent               1.59 percent

Feb 2022: 10.52 percent              2.95 percent

March 2022: 11.55 percent          4.06 percent

April, 2022: 10.89 percent           6.43 percent

May, 2022 10.66 percent             6.91 percent

As should be clear, although the annual pace of last month’s PPI inflation (10.66 percent) was a little lower than either April’s 10.89 percent or March’s 11.55 percent, the baseline figure during that period has jumped from 4.06 percent (which historically speaking was already lofty) to 6.91 percent. So there’s obviously explaining the latest figures with the catch up effect. Indeed, using historical standards, the catch up effect ended in February.

The core PPI inflation figures shown in the table below are lower in absolute terms, but the story they tell is otherwise almost identical. As with the first table, the figure in the right-hand column represents the previous year’s comparison point for the figure in the left-hand column.

Jan 2021: 1.79 percent                  1.64 percent

Feb 2021: 2.33 percent                 1.36 percent

March 2021: 3.15 percent             1.00 percent

April 2021: 4.81 percent              -0.09 percent

May 2021: 5.25 percent               -0.18 percent

June 2021: 5.60 percent                0.09 percent

July 2021: 6.01 percent                 0.27 percent

Aug 2021: 6.19 percent                0.36 percent

Sept 2021: 6.14 percent                0.72 percent

Oct 2021: 6.26 percent                 0.90 percent

Nov 2021: 7.04 percent                0.99 percent

Dec 2021: 7.09 percent                1.17 percent

Jan 2022: 6.90 percent                 1.79 percent

Feb 2022: 6.76 percent                2.33 percent

March 2022: 7.14 percent           3.15 percent

April, 2022: 6.78 percent            4.81 percent

May, 2022: 6.74 percent             5.25 percent 

So sure, May’s 6.74 percent annual core wholesale price rises were the best such results since last October’s 6.26 percent. But that latter number came after a baseline year when there was practically no wholesale inflation (0.90 percent) at all. By contrast, the baseline number for May’s PPI increase was more than five times higher (5.25 percent).

At some point, the business cost pressures shown in the PPI will ease to acceptable rates, and consumer cost pressures will follow. But the longer elevated inflation of both kinds lasts, the likelier that beating back these price surges will require policy moves that depress consumer demand enough to produce a recession — possibly a deep one. And today’s PPI report is the latest sign that there’s still lots of momentum behind current U.S. inflation.   

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Everything You Wanted to Know About Immigration & the Economy — & Less

Tags

economics, immigrants, Immigration, innovation, labor shortages, Open Borders, productivity, The Washington Post, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Leave it to the zealously pro-Open Borders Washington Post. It chose as the reviewer of a book by two economic historians apparently unaware of the relationship in U.S. history between immigration levels and productivity improvement a business professor seemingly just slightly less clueless about this crucial link either historically and going forward.

Doubt that? Then take a look at this morning’s rave by Harvard business professor Michael Luca about a new study by Ran Abramitzky and Leah Boustan of Stanford and Princeton Universities, respectively, titled Streets of Gold: America’s Untold Story of Immigrant Success.

According to Luca, Streets of Gold “reflects an ongoing renaissance in the field of economic history fueled by technological advances — an increase in digitized records, new techniques to analyze them and the launch of platforms such as Ancestry — that are breathing new life into a range of long-standing questions about immigration. Abramitzky and Boustan are masters of this craft, and they creatively leverage the evolving data landscape to deepen our understanding of the past and present.”

And their overall conclusion (which rightly takes into account the non-economic contributions of immigrants to American life) is that (in Abamitzky’s and Boustan’s words): “Immigration contributes to a flourishing American society” – especially if you take “the long view.”

But there’s no indication in Luca’s review that the authors weigh in on a key (especially in the long view) impact of immigration on the U.S. economy – how it’s affected the progress made by the nation in boosting productivity: its best guarantee for raising living standards on a sustainable basis.

As I’ve written repeatedly, mainstream economic theory holds that one major spur to satisfactory productivity growth is the natural tendency of businesses to replace workers with various types of machinery and new technologies when those workers become too expensive. Most economists would add that although jobs may be lost on net in the short-term, they increase further down the road once these productivity advances create new companies, entire industries, and therefore employment opportunities.

By contrast, when businesses know that wages will stay low – for example, because large immigration inflows will keep pumping up the national labor supply much faster than the demand for workers rises – these companies will feel little need to buy new machinery or otherwise incorporate new technologies simply because they won’t have to.

And more important than what the theory says, abundant evidence indicates that businesses have behaved precisely this way in the past (when scarce and thus increasingly expensive labor prompted acquisitions of labor-saving devices that helped turn the United States into an economic and technology powerhouse), into the present (as industries heavily dependent on penny-wage and often illegal immigrant labor have tended to be major productivity laggards).  

Reviewer Luca demonstrates some awareness that this issue matters in the here and now and going forward, writing that “Compared with the rest of the country, businesses in high-immigration areas have access to more workers and hence less incentive to invest in further automation.”

He also points out that “This has implications for today’s immigration debates.”

But his treatment of the current situation is confused at best and perverse at worst (at least if you buy the economic conventional wisdom and evidence concerning the productivity-immigration relationship).

Principally, he claims that “the United States is expected to face a dramatic labor market shortage as baby boomers retire and lower birthrates over time result in fewer young people to replace them.” Let’s assume that’s true – despite all the evidence that more and more employers are filling all the job openings they’ve been claiming by automating. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.)

Why, though , does Luca simply conclude that “Increased immigration is one approach to avoiding the crunch. Notably, the other way to avert this crisis is through further automation, enabled by rapid advances in artificial intelligence. Immigration policy will help shape the extent to which the economy relies on people vs. machines in the decades to come.”

Is he really implying that a low-productivity — and therefore low-innovation — future would be a perfectly fine one for immigration (and other) policymakers to be seeking?

Just as important, although Luca clearly recognizes that these questions have at least some importance nowadays, he provides no indication of where the book’s authors stand.

So let the reader beware. Luca clearly believes, as Post headline writers claim, that Streets of Gold makes clear “What the research really says about American immigration.”  What his review makes clear is that this claim isn’t even close.

   

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: America’s Now Definitely Inflation-Nation

Tags

baseline effect, Biden administration, consumer price index, core inflation, CPI, energy, Federal Reserve, food, inflation, prices, recession, stimulus, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s official U.S. report on consumer inflation was so bad that even what ‘s being pitched (for example, to a limited extent by President Biden) as kind of goods news isn’t anything close. As has so often been the case in the last year, one big key is looking at the so-called baseline effect. But the new (May) results for the Consumer Price Index (CPI) also highlight a reality that I and many others have been noting – the less-than-meets-the-eye difference between the headline and “core” CPI numbers.

The bad news about inflation is clear enough from the rise in the headline number – which tracks price increases throughout the entire economy. The 0.97 percent monthly increase wasn’t as scary as the 1.24 percent jump between February and March t(he highest since July, 1980’s 1.33 percent), but it was still the biggest since June, 1982’s 1.15 percent price surge.

Similarly, on an annual basis, May’s 8.52 percent overall CPI increase was lower than March’s 8.56 percent. But for all intents and purposes, both months’ results were the worst since December, 1981’s 8.91 percent disaster.

The (modest) ray of light that supposedly shone from the new inflation report came in the core figure – which strips out food and energy prices because they’re supposedly volatile for reasons having nothing to do with the economy’s alleged fundamental vulnerability to inflation.

To be sure, the monthly numbers shouldn’t have been the source of any encouragement. The May 0.63 percent sequential increase in core inflation was the hottest number since last June’s 0.80 percent, and represented the third straight month of acceleration.

Instead, glass-half-full types were pointing to the latest annual core increase. At 6.01 percent, May’s was the lowest since December’s 5.48 percent, and represented the third straight month of deceleration.

But here’s where the glass-half-empty types gain the upper hand. First, as I and – again – many others have observed, although food and energy prices do often move (down as well as up) for reasons largely unrelated to how overheated or not the economy may be. But energy prices in particular profoundly affect the cost of everything Americans make, sell, and buy that needs to be transported. And that means pretty much everything, including services, which typically rely on goods to get to customers. So there’s often an incontrovertible link between headline and core inflation.

Second, both energy and food prices are also often closely related to the economy’s overall levels of demand. And nowadays, they’re bound to keep rising as long as producers can pass them on to their customers. This in turn is the case because the latter can afford to pay more thanks to the unprecedented stimulus funds they received even after the economy was recovering strongly from the 2020 CCP Virus-induced crash,.

Third, there’s that baseline effect. Especially if its monthly rate is slowing, annual core inflation in the six percent neighborhood could be reasonably applauded if the previous year’s rate (the baseline) had been unusually low, or even negative (as it was for most of 2020). But the baseline figure for the latest May annual core inflation rate was May, 2021’s 3.81 percent (according to the latest government figures). That’s nearly twice the rate considered desirable by the nation’s chief official designated inflation-fighter, the Federal Reserve.

None of the ways to reduce this inflation rate way down reasonably quickly is a mystery to anyone influencing U.S. economic policies. Raising interest rates can get rid of a lot of the bloated consumer demand that’s contributed so much to recent price rises. For those emphasizing the Ukraine war’s major role in boosting food and energy prices, there’s the option of pressing for an end to the war sooner rather than later – even if it produces a morally ugly compromise.

But dramatically reducing consumer and business spending power enough to matter inflation-wise could bring on a recession – which the Federal Reserve still apparently believes can be avoided, at least judging from the modest monetary tightening it’s approved so far. And the Biden administration seems wed to letting the shots on ending the conflict to be called by Ukraine — which is so far rejecting the idea of making territorial or any other kinds of significant concessions.

So unless these situations change, the most reasonable conclusion is that inflation will keep raging until soaring prices finally tap consumers out by themselves. As an old adage goes, the likeliest cure for high prices may simply be high prices.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Is the New (April) U.S. Trade Report a False Dawn?

Tags

Advanced Technology Products, Biden, Census Bureau, China, Donald Trump, exports, goods trade, imports, Made in Washington trade deficit, manufacturing, non-oil goods trade deficit, services trade, South Korea, stimulus, supply chains, Switzerland, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, Zero Covid, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although today’s new official figures showed a major dropoff in the U.S. trade deficit between March and April, and the results came from a normally encouraging combination of more exports and fewer imports, the Census data also show that big caveats and questions are hanging over these results and how enduring they might be.

First and foremost, the improvement in the combined goods and services deficits, and all virtually all the trade balances comprising it, could be resulting from a dramatic slowdown in U.S. economic growth. Second, the latest decline in the chronic and huge U.S. goods trade gap with China surely stems from Beijing’s recent over-the-top (but surely temporary) Zero Covid policies, which have further snagged already tangled up supply chains. And third, large revisions in some of the numbers (especially for services trade) inevitably cast some doubt as to their reliability lately.

In fact, these features of the report – along with the still-near historic levels of many of these trade deficits and other usually typical gap-widening developments like a strong U.S. dollar and still-astronomical levels of economic stimulus from Washington – are telling me that my prediction last month of higher deficits to come will age pretty well.

Not that the narrowing of the trade gap in April was bupkis. The combined goods and services deficit fell 19.11 percent from March’s all-time high of $107.65 billion (which itself was revised down a hefty 1.96 percent) to $87.08 billion. This level was the lowest since December’s $78.87 billion and the nosedive the biggest since December, 2012’s 19.85 percent.

And as just mentioned, the improvement came from the right combination of reasons. Total exports hit their third straight monthly record, rising 3.49 percent from an upwardly revised (by 0.99 percent) $244.11 billion to $252.62 billion

Overall imports, meanwhile, tumbled 3.43 percent from their record $351.79 billion to $339.70 billion. The total was the second biggest ever, but the decrease was the greatest since the 13.16 shrinkage during pandemic-y and recession-y April, 2020.

The trade shortfall in goods was down 15.04 percent from a downwardly revised (by 1.04 percent) $126.81 billion in March to $107.74 percent in April. This level, too, was the lowest since December’s $100.52 billion, and the 15.04 percent sequential tumble the biggest since April, 2015’s 15.09 percent.

Goods exports rose sequentially by 3.57 percent in April, from 170.04 billion to a third consecutive record of $176.11 billion. And U.S. purchases of foreign goods sank by 4.38 percent on month in April, from a downwardly revised (by 0.65 percent) record $296.85 billion to $283.84 billion (as with total imports, the second highest result of all time). The decrease was the biggest since the 12.79 percent drop in that pandemic-y April, 2020.

But even the above sizable revisions paled before those made for services trade. The March surplus was upgraded fully 4.48 percent, from $18.34 billion to $19.16 billion, and the April figure grew by another 7.83 percent to $20.66 billion – the highest level since December’s $21.66 billion.

Services exports (apparently) deserve much of the credit. They reached an all-time high of $76.52 billion. This total bested May, 2019’s previous record of $75.41 billion by only 1.46 percent, but the milestone is significant given the outsized hit suffered by the service sector worldwide during the pandemic period.

April services exports, moreover, rose 3.30 percent from March’s $74.07 billion – a total that itself was revised up by 4.23 percent.

Services imports set their third consecutive monthly record in April, rising 1.73 percent, to $55.86 billion, from March’s upwardly revised (by 4.19 percent) $54.19 billion.

A big April fall-off also came in the non-oil goods trade deficit – known to RealityChek regulars as the Made in Washington trade deficit, because by stripping out figures for oil (which trade diplomacy usually ignores) and services (where liberalization efforts have barely begun), it stems from those U.S. trade flows that have been heavily influenced by trade policy decisions.

This shortfall decreased by 14.72 percent in April, to $108.68 billion, from March’s downwardly revised record $127.42 billion. The drop was the biggest since March, 2013’s 16.74 percent.

The enormous and persistent manufacturing trade deficit retreated in April from record levels, too. But even though the month’s $124.41 billion shortfall was 12.71 percent lower than March’s all-time high $142.22 billion, and even though the monthly decline of 12.71 percent was the biggest since pandemic-y February, 2020’s 23.09 percent, this deficit was still the second biggest ever.

April’s manufactures exports of $109.36 billion were 4.03 percent lower than March’s record $113.96 billion, but were still the second best total on record. Ditto for the month’s manufactures imports, which tumbled 8.85 percent from their March record of $256.18 billion to $233.50 billion.

Another April fall-off from a record monthly deficit came in advanced technology products (ATP). After ballooning by 73.65 percent sequentially in March, to $23.31 billion, the recently volatile gap narrowed in April by 21.50 percent, to $18.30 billion.

Both the better manufactuing and ATP trade figures surely stemmed at least in part from the Zero Covid policies that interfered with so much industrial production from China. The U.S. goods deficit with the People’s Repubic, however, narrowed by just 10.02 percent on month in April, from $34 billion to $30.57 billion. Even so, the level was the lowest since last July’s $28.56 billion.

U.S. goods exports to China were down on month in April by 16.25 percent (their biggest drop since February, 2021’s 278.85 percent), from $13.38 billion to $11.20b. This total is the lowest since last September’s $11.03 billion.

The much greater amount of U.S. goods imports from China plummeted 11.82 percent n month in April, from $47.37 billion to $41.77 billion – the lowest level since last July’s $40.32 billion.

Also notable – breaking a pattern going back several years — the 10.02 percent April monthly drop in the U.S. goods deficit with China was smaller than the month’s sequential decline in the non-oil goods deficit (14.72 percent). And on a yar-to-date basis, the China deficit is up only slightly less (27.59 percent) than the non-oil deficit (28.95 percent). So the next few months’ worth of data may shed some light on whether the Trump (now Biden) tariffs on China are losing their effectiveness, or whether the last few months’ numbers are anomalies.

Other significant April results for individual U.S. trade partners: The goods deficit with South Korea set a new record of $4.09 billion – 23.79 percent higher than March’s total of $3.30 billion and 21.70 percent greater than the old record of $3.36 billion set last September.

And the goods deficit with Switzerland cratered in April by 67.63 percent, to $2.89 billion, from March’s $8.93 billion level. The percentage shrinkage of this bilateral trade gap was the biggest since September, 2018, when a $1.22 billion U.S. deficit turned into a $149 million surplus.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why U.S. Manufacturing’s Record Trade Deficits Aren’t Biting — Yet

Tags

Biden administration, CCP Virus, China, consumers, coronavirus, COVID 19, Covid relief, exports, Federal Reserve, imports, inflation, manufacturing, manufacturing jobs, manufacturing production, stimulus, tariffs, Trade, Trade Deficits, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Perceptive RealityChek readers (no doubt the great majority!) have surely noticed something odd about my treatment of trade-related developments and the American domestic manufacturing base. For most of the CCP Virus period, I’ve been writing both that U.S.-based industry has been performing well according to practically every major measure, and that the manufacturing trade deficit has been setting new record highs.

It’s not that I’ve ignored a situation that would normally strike me as being utterly paradoxical and even inconceivable over any serious time span. I’ve mainly attributed it to the pandemic’s main economic damage being inflicted on services industries, and to the Trump tariffs on Chinese imports, which have shielded domestic manufacturers from hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of competition that has nothing to do with free trade or free markets.

But the longer manufacturing has excelled as the trade gap has skyrocketed, the more convinced I’ve been that something else was at work, too. What finally illuminated this influence has been the recent controversy these last few weeks over President Biden’s suggestion that he might cut some of those Trump China tariffs in order to curb inflation.

As I’ve written previously (see, e.g., here), there’s no shortage of economic-related reasons to dismiss the claims that levies that began being imposed in mid-2018 bear any responsibilityfor inflation that only became worrisome three years later, and that reducing the tariffs would ease this inflation meaningfully. Even the Biden administration keeps admitting the latter point.

But the increasingly striking contrast between manufacturing’s strong output, job creation, and capital equipment spending on the one hand, and its historically awful trade deficits on the other points to the paramount importance of another explanation I’ve mentioned for doubting that tariffs have fueled inflation. It’s the role played by the economy’s overall level of demand.

I’ve written that trade levies will contribute to higher prices or boost prices all by themselves overwhelmingly when consumers are spending freely – and consequently when businesses understandably believe they have scope to charge more for tariff-ed goods. That is, companies are confident that the higher costs stemming from tariffs can be passed along to customers who simply aren’t very price sensitive.

Strong enough demand, however, has another crucial effect on manufacturing – and on other traded goods: It creates a market growing fast enough to enable domestic companies to prosper even when their foreign competitors are out-performing them and taking share of that market. In other words, even though all entrants aren’t benefitting equally, all can still benefit.

Conversely, when demand for manufactures is expanding sluggishly, or not at all, this kind of win-win situation disappears. Then U.S.-based and foreign industry are competing for a stagnant group of customers, and one’s gain of market share becomes the other’s loss. In this situation, increasing trade deficits mean that American demand is being met by imports to eliminate any incentive for domestic manufacturers to boost production or employment. Indeed, they become hard-pressed even to maintain output and payrolls.

Of course, even if trade deficits keep surging during periods of slow domestic demand, U.S.-based manufacturers can still in principle keep turning out ever more products and hiring ever more workers if they can achieve one goal: super-charging their export sales. But the persistently mammoth scale of the American manufacturing trade shortfall indicates either that foreign demand for U.S.-made goods almost never improves enough to compensate for reduced or stagnant domestic sales, or that foreign economies prevent such growth by keeping many American goods out, or some combination of the two.

Super-strong demand for manufactured goods is precisely what’s characterized the economy since the CCP Virus arrived in force. As a result, the pie has gotten so much bigger that domestic industry as a whole has had no problem finding enough new customers to support healthy production and hiring levels even though imports’ sales have been lapping them.

Specifically, between the first quarter of 2020 and the fourth quarter of last year (the last quarter for which current-dollar (or pre-inflation) U.S. manufacturing production data are available, the U.S. market for manufactures increased by 22.83 percent – or $1.518 trillion. Revealingly, this demand would have been strong enough to enable domestic industry to pass tariff hikes on to customers, and enable these levies to fuel inflation on at least a one-time basis. But tariffs of course have not been raised during this stretch.

Meanwhile, the manufacturing trade deficit soared by 64.31 percent ($566 billion). And the import share of the U.S. market rose from 29.50 percent to 32.47 percent.

But domestic industry was able to boost its production (according to a measure called current-dollar gross output) by 16.55 percent, or just under $954 billion. ,

Contrast these results with the pre-CCP Virus expansion. During those 10.5 years (from the second quarter of 2009 through the fourth quarter of 2019), the U.S. market for manufactured goods increased by just 45.37 percent, or $2.154 trillion. That is, even though it was more than five times longer than the above pandemic period, that market grew by only about twice as much.

The manufacturing trade deficit actually also grew at a slower rate than during the much shorter pandemic period (169.2 percent). But because the pie was expanding more slowly, too, the import share of this domestic manufacturing market climbed from 23.12 percent to 31.10 percent.  These home market share losses combined with inadequate exports were enough to limit the growth of U.S. manufacturing output to 34.64 percent, or $1.512 trillion. Again, though this 2009-2019 growth took place over a time-span more than five times longer than the pandemic period, it was only about twice as great. That is, the pace was much more sluggish.

And not so coincidentally, because pre-CCP Virus demand for manufactures was so sluggish, too, businesses concluded they had little or no scope to raise prices when significant tariffs began to be imposed in 2018. Further, the levies generated no notable inflation over any significant period even on a one-time basis. Companies all along the relevant supply chains (including in China) had to respond with some combination of finding alternative markets, becoming more efficient, or simply eating the higher costs.

The good news is that as long as the U.S. market for manufactures keeps ballooning, domestic industry can keep boosting production and employment even if the manufacturing trade deficit keeps worsening or simply stays astronomical, and even if domestic industry keeps losing market share.

The bad news is that the rocket fuel that ignited this growth spurt is running out. Massive pandemic relief programs that put trillions of dollars into consumers’ pockets aren’t being renewed, and Americans are starting to dig into the savings they were able to pile up in order to finance their expenses (although, as noted here, these savings remain gargantuan). Credit is being made more expensive by the Federal Reserve’s decision both to raise interest rates and to reduce its immense and highly stimulative bond holdings. And some evidence shows that U.S. consumer spending is shifting from goods like manufactures to services (although some other evidence says “Don’t be so sure.”)

Worse, when the stimulus tide finally recedes, domestic industry will likely find itself in a shakier competitive position than before. For without considerably above-trend demand growth, and with the foreign competition controlling more of the remaining market than before the pandemic, it will find itself more dependent than ever on maintaining production and employment (let alone increasing them) by winning back customers it has already lost. And changing purchasing patterns in place will be much more challenging than selling to customers whose patterns haven’t yet been set.

U.S. based manufacturing is variegated enough – including in terms of specific sectors’ strengths and weaknesses – that the above generalizations don’t and won’t hold for every single industry. But the macro numbers make clear that domestic manufacturing as a whole has experienced unusually fat years lately, and generally has been competitive enough to take some advantage of these favorable conditions. But industry’s continuing and indeed widening trade shortfall and market share losses in its own back yard should also be warning both manufacturers overall and Washington that many of domestic industry’s pre-pandemic troubles could come roaring back once leaner years return.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing’s Hiring Takes a (Slight) Breather

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft parts, automotive, CCP Virus, chemicals, computer and electronics products, coronavirus, COVID 19, fabricated metals products, Federal Reserve, fiscal policy, food products, inflation, Jobs, Labor Department, machinery, manufacturing, medical devices, medicines, monetary policy, non-farm jobs, non-farm payrolls, personal protective equipment, pharmaceuticals, PPE, semiconductor shortages, semiconductors, stimulus, transportation equipment, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, vaccines, wood products, {What's Left of) Our Economy

U.S.-based manufacturing’s employment performance has been so strong lately that the 18,000 net gain for May reported in today’s official U.S. jobs report was the worst such performance in more than a year – specifically, since April, 2021’s 28,000 employment loss. And even that dismal result stemmed mainly from automotive factories that were shut down due to semiconductor shortages – not from any underlying weakness in domestic industry.

Moreover, revisions of the last several months’ of sizable hiring increases were revised higher. April’s initially reported 55,000 increase is now pegged at 61,000, and March’s headcount boost was upgraded again, this time all the way from 43,000 to 58,000.

Indeed, taken together, this payroll surge has enabled U.S.-based manufacturing to increase its share of American jobs again. As of May, industry’s employment as a share of the U.S. total (called “non-farm payrolls” by the Labor Department that releases the data) rose sequentially from the 8.41 percent calculable last month to 8.42 percent. And the manufacturing share of total private sector jobs climbed from the 9.86 percent calculable last month to 9.87 percent..

The improvement since February, 2020 – the last full data month before the CCP Virus’ arrival began roiling and distorting the entire U.S. economy – has been even greater. Then, manufacturing jobs represented just 8.38 percent of all non-farm jobs and 9.83 percent of all private sector employment.

Domestic industry still slightly lags the private sector in terms of regaining jobs lost during the worst of the pandemic-induced recession of March and April, 2020. The latter has recovered 99.01 percent of the 21.016 million jobs it shed, compared with manufacturing’s 98.75 percent of its 1.345 million lost jobs.

But the main reason is that industry’s jobs losses during those months were smaller proportionately than those of the private sector overall.

Viewed from another vantage point, the May figures mean that manufacturing employment is just 0.13 percent smaller than just before the pandemic struck.

May’s biggest manufacturing jobs winners among the broadest individual industry categories tracked by the Labor Department were:

>fabricated metals products, which boosted employment on month by 7,100 – the sector’s biggest rise since since February’s 9,300. Its recent hiring spree has brought fabricated metals products makers’ payrolls to within 2.24 percent of their immediate pre-CCP Virus (February, 2020) levels;

>food products,where payrolls grew by 6,100 sequentially in May. Employment in this enormous sector is now 2.53 percent higher than in February, 2020;

>the huge computer and electronics products sector, whose headcount improved by 4,400 over April’s levels. As a result, its workforce is now just 0.19 percent smaller than in immediate pre-pandemic-y February, 2020;

>wood products, which added 3,800 employees in May over its April levels. Along with April’s identical gain, these results were these businesses’ best since May, 2020’s 13,800 jump, during the strong initial recovery from the virus-induced downturn. Wood products now employs 6.85 percent more workers than in February, 2020; and

>chemicals, a very big industry whose workforce was up in May by 3,700 over the April total. The result was the best since January’s 5,500 sequential jobs growth, and pushed employment in this industry 4.76 percent higher than in February. 2020.

The biggest May job losers among those broad manufacturing groupings were:

>transportation equipment, another enormous category where employment fell by 7,900 month-to-month in May. That drop was the biggest since February’s 19,900 nosedive. But it followed an April monthly increase that was revised up from 13,700 to 19.500. All this volatility – heavily influenced by the aforementioned semiconductor shortage that has plagued the automotive industry – has left transportation equipment payrolls 2.57 percent smaller than just before the pandemic’s arrival in February, 2020;

>machinery, whose 7,900 sequential job decline in May was its worst such result and first monthly decrease since November’s 7,000. Moreover, April’s initially reported 7,400 payroll increase in machinery is now judged to be only 5,900. These developments are discouraging because machinery’s products are used so widely throughout the entire economy, and prolonged hiring doldrums could reflect a slowdown in demand that could presage weakness in other sectors. Machinery payrolls are now down 2.12 percent since February, 2020; andent since February 2020; and

>miscellaneous nondurable goods, where employment shrank in May by 2,900 on month. But here again, a very good April increase first reported at 3,300 is now judged to have been 4,400, and thanks to recent robust hiring in this catch-all category, too, its employment levels are 8.12 percent higher than in February. 2020.

As always, the most detailed employment data for pandemic-related industries are one month behind those in the broader categories, and their April job creation overall looked somewhat better than that for domestic manufacturing as a whole.

Semiconductors are still too scarce nationally and globally, but the semiconductor and related devices sector grew employment by 900 on month in April – its biggest addition since last October’s 1,000. March’s initially reported 700 jobs gain was revised down to 400, and February’s upgraded hiring increase of 100 stayed unrevised. Consequently, payrolls in this industry are up 1.66 percent since just before the pandemic arrived in full force, and it must be kept in mind that even during the deep spring, 2020 economy-wide downturn, it actually boosted employment.

The news was worse in surgical appliances and supplies – a category containing personal protective equipment (think “facemasks”) and similar medical goods. April’s sequential jobs dip of 200 was the worst such performance since October’s 300 fall-off, but at least March’s initially reported 1,100 increase remained intact (as did February’s downwardly revised – frm 800 – “no change.” Employment in surgical appliances and supplies, however, is still 3.88 percent greater than in immediate pre-pandemic-y February, 2020.

In the very big pharmaceuticals and medicines industry, this year’s recent strong hiring continued in April, as the sector added 1,400 new workers sequentially – its biggest gains since last June’s 2,600. In addition, March’s initially reported increase of 900 was revised up to 1,200, and February’s slightly downgraded 1,000 rise remained unchanged. Not surprisingly, therefore, this sector’s workforce is up by 9.78 percent during the CCP Virus era.

Job creation was excellent as well in the medicines subsector containing vaccines. April’s 1,100 monthly headcount growth was the greatest since last December’s 2,000. March’s initially reported payroll rise of 400 was upgraded to 600, and February’s results stayed at a slightly downgraded 500. In all, vaccine manufacturing-related jobs has now increased by fully 24.47 percent since February, 2020.

Aircraft manufacturers added just only 200 employees on month in April, but March’s jobs gain was revised up from 1,100 to 1,200 (the best such result since last June’s 4,000), and February’s upwardly revised 600 advance remained unchanged. Aircraft employment is still off by 10.96 percent since the pandemic’s arrival in force.

Aircraft engines and engine parts makers were in a hiring mood in April, too. Their employment grew by 900 sequentially, March’s 500 increase was revised up to 600, and February’s unrevised monthly increase of 900 stayed unrevised. Payrolls in this sector have now climbed to within 11.56 percent of their level just before the CCP Virus hit.

As for the non-engine aircraft parts and equipment sector, it made continued modest employment progress in April, with the monthly headcount addition of 300 following unrevised gains of 700 in March and 200 in February. But these companies’ workforces are still 15.48 percent smaller than their immediate pre-pandemic totals.

The U.S. economy is clearly in a period of growth much slower than last year’s, and since there’s no shortage of actual and potential headwinds (e.g., the course of the Ukraine War, the Fed’s monetary tightening campaign, persistent lofty inflation, the likely absence of further fiscal stimulus), no one can reasonably rule out a recession that drags down manufacturing’s hiring with it. But until domestic industry’s job creation and production growth starts deteriorating dramatically and remains weak, today’s so-so employment figures look like a breather at worst – and not much of one at that.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Curb Your Enthusiasm About Those New U.S. Inflation Figures

Tags

Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank, consumer price index, core inflation, CPI, economic growth, GDP, gross domestic product, inflation, PCE, personal consumption expenditures index, stagflation, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Don’t get me wrong – any signs that U.S. inflation is cooling are welcome, and some can be found in today’s official report containing data on the Federal Reserve’s preferred gauge of consumer price increases. At the same time, for two main reasons, I’d recommend at least curbing enthusiasm about the inflation outlook.

The first concerns the baseline effect I’ve been writing about since prices began surging early last year. The second has to do with the likely relationship between the new (April) results for the price indexes for personal consumption expenditures (PCE) and the sagging rate of American economic growth.

But let’s first examine the reasons for inflation optimism contained in the new Commerce Department numbers (which are one of two data sets on consumer price trends produced by the federal government, the other being the Labor Department’s Consumer Price Index, or CPI).

The biggest is the steep drop in the monthly overall PCE inflation rate in April. It fell last month to 0.2 percent from 0.9 percent in March. That was the weakest such figure since the 0.1 percent increase in November, 2020 – when the CCP Virus’ first winter rebound was gathering steam, and the torrid economic recovery from the pandemic’s initial arrival earlier that year was slowing dramatically.

Even more impressive, the fall-off between March and April overall PCE inflation (0.7 percentage points) was the steepest since December, 2011 and January, 2012 (0.8 percentage points).

Oddly, though, no change was recorded in the monthly rate of core PCE inflation (which, like its CPI counterpart, strips out food and energy prices because they’re supposedly volatile for reasons unrelated to the economy’s fundamental inflation prone-ness). April’s sequential rise was the same as March’s – 0.3 percent. Still, it’s down from the 0.5 percent neighborhood in which core PCE stayed from October, 2021 and this past January.

The year-on-year PCE inflation rates weren’t devoid of good news, either, but it was less impressive than the latest monthly overall PCE result precisely because of that baseline effect and because of the overall economy’s dreary recent performance.

As known by RealityChek regulars, the annual figures are followed more closely than the monthlies because they show trends over a longer period of time, and therefore are less likely to be thrown off by random short-term fluctuations. As also known by the regulars, the high annual inflation figures of all kinds for much of last year were somewhat misleading because their point of comparison – i.e., their baseline – was the set of annual figures for pandemic-depressed 2020. And these were so unusually low. For many months, therefore, even a simple return to normal price increases was bound to show up as a major jump.

But the baseline for this year’s annual figures is no longer 2020 – when inflation was practically gone and even turned into deflation for a stretch – but 2021, and its artificially high (but still high) inflation rates.

So the slowdown in last month’s annual overall PCE inflation (from 6.6 percent to 6.3 percent) shouldn’t be overlooked. But it’s crucial to keep in mind that it’s coming off an April, 2020-2021 overall PCE increase of an already elevated 3.6 percent. Moreover, that April, 2020-21 rate was not only lofty, but accelerating. It’s March counterpart was only 2.5 percent.

Ditto for the slowdown in annual core PCE inflation from 5.2 percent in May to 4.9 percent in April. It’s certainly better than a speed up! But its baseline figure is last April’s warm-ish 3.1 percent, and that figure was much warmer than March’s two percent even – a pace the Fed views as ideal.

Now for the second reason for caution in cheering the new PCE results: They’re surely coming down because the economy’s growth rate has downshifted significantly. In the fourth quarter of last year, it shot up by 6.9 percent at annual rates after inflation. In the first quarter of this year, the gross domestic product (GDP) actually shrank – by 1.5 percent annualized in real terms. And the pretty reliable forecasters of the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank believe growth in the second quarter will rebound only to 1.9 percent by the same measure.

Students of the economy call the combination of sluggish growth and strong inflation “stagflation.” Unfortunately, I think that’s the likeliest outcome for America’s foreseeable future being signaled by the new PCE results.