Browse by Tags

In a thought-provoking piece for the January issue of Vanity Fair , Joseph Stiglitz urges us to consider an important element of the Great Depression that has not received as much attention in the media as monetary policy, a troubled banking system, or political battling. Stiglitz points us to the shift away from agriculture in the late 1920s through the early 1930s as cause of the Depression. If we are to look more closely at that piece of history, then we may be able to extract important lessons for today, as we see so many Americans going through revolutionary changes in their work and in their workplaces. Citing resebarch that he has been doing with Bruce Greenwald , Stiglitz writes: The parallels between the story of the origin of the Great Depression and that of our Long Slump are strong. Back then we were moving from agriculture to manufacturing. Today we are moving from manufacturing to a service economy. The decline in manufacturing jobs has been dramatic—from about a third of the workforce 60 years ago to less than a tenth of it today. The pace has quickened markedly during the past decade. There are two reasons for the decline. One is greater productivity—the same dynamic that revolutionized agriculture and forced a majority of American farmers to look for work elsewhere. The other is globalization, which has sent millions of jobs overseas, to low-wage countries or those that have been investing more in infrastructure or technology. (As Greenwald has pointed out, most of the job loss in the 1990s was related to productivity increases, not to globalization.) Whatever the specific cause, the inevitable result is precisely the same as it was 80 years ago: a decline in income and jobs. The millions of jobless former factory workers once employed in cities such as Youngstown and Birmingham and Gary and Detroit are the modern-day equivalent of the Depression’s doomed farmers. The consequences for consumer spending, and for the fundamental health of the economy—not to mention the appalling human cost—are obvious, though we were able to ignore them for a while. For a time, the bubbles in the housing and lending markets concealed the problem by creating artificial demand, which in turn created jobs in the financial sector and in construction and elsewhere. The bubble even made workers forget that their incomes were declining. They savored the possibility of wealth beyond their dreams, as the value of their houses soared and the value of their pensions, invested in the stock market, seemed to be doing likewise. But the jobs were temporary, fueled on vapor. Mainstream macro-economists argue that the true bogeyman in a downturn is not falling wages but rigid wages—if only wages were more flexible (that is, lower), downturns would correct themselves! But this wasn’t true during the Depression, and it isn’t true now. On the contrary, lower wages and incomes would simply reduce demand, weakening the economy further. Of four major service sectors—finance, real estate, health, and education—the first two were bloated before the current crisis set in. The other two, health and education, have traditionally received heavy government support. But government austerity at every level—that is, the slashing of budgets in the face of recession—has hit education especially hard, just as it has decimated the government sector as a whole. Nearly 700,000 state- and local-government jobs have disappeared during the past four years, mirroring what happened in the Depression. As in 1937, deficit hawks today call for balanced budgets and more and more cutbacks. Instead of pushing forward a structural transition that is inevitable—instead of investing in the right kinds of human capital, technology, and infrastructure, which will eventually pull us where we need to be—the government is holding back. Current strategies can have only one outcome: they will ensure that the Long Slump will be longer and deeper than it ever needed to be. Read The Book of Jobs here .

Retailers in the US are relying on consumers spending and spending for the holidays, but the consumers that truly matter in the global economy are in China. The Chinese government has set consumption as a priority. This will require that Chinese consumers have more money and are confident in their family's economic situation. According to McKinsey's 2011 Annual Chinese Consumer Study , these conditions have been met. Take a look at the rise in confidence among Chinese consumers: The authors point out that spending will almost certainly rise along with that confidence. But sustained growth in consumption will depend more and more on Chinese consumers buying goods to replace products that they have bought in the past. This is behavior that we take for granted among consumers in developed economies like the US and Japan. But it is new ground in a lot of product sectors in China: A few categories, in particular big-ticket items such as cars, have significant growth potential through first-time buying. For example, China is the world’s largest auto market, with 11.7 million passenger cars sold in 2010 compared with 9.8 million in the United States. But the total number of cars sold per capita is 13 times smaller than in the United States, and most car buyers in China are still first-time buyers. Personal computers constitute another category still ripe for strong growth from first-time buyers. Ownership has risen sharply from 25 percent of urban households in 2006 to 44 percent today with much room for additional growth from new users. In poorer rural areas, only ten personal computers are shared among 100 households. As incomes continue to rise in China, and as the government’s consumption-boosting measures kick in, more and more people will be able to afford such items. For many categories that have been in China for more than ten years, however, and are widely affordable albeit at different price points, the headroom for growth from first-time buyers is limited. With the exception of very big-ticket and luxury items, as well as products that are relatively new to the Chinese such as breakfast cereals, many of the largest categories such as white goods, personal care, food and beverages, and apparel have now reached penetration levels of well over 50 percent of the urban population. This means that some categories may see falling growth rates. National sales of mobile handsets, for example, grew at around 7 percent a year between 2006 and 2010, compared with 21 percent during the previous five years, a reflection of the fact that 97 percent of urban households now own a mobile phone. In such cases, an essential component of capturing rising spending power will be to persuade consumers to buy more of the same thing—either by making more frequent purchases or buying in greater quantities—or to trade up to more expensive products in the same category. Refrigerators and washing machines serve as an example. Although over 90 percent of urban dwellers now own these items, the survey shows that the average time they keep either item before replacing it has dropped in the past two years from around seven years to six. In addition, the average amount spent has risen by 9 percent for refrigerators and 15 percent for washing machines. The survey again highlights how the importance of these other drivers of category growth differs both by category and region. Read the full report here .

William Dudley , President of the Federal Bank of New York , spoke earlier today at New York University's Stern School of Business, and he gave a measured, somewhat positive prognosis of the US economy. While he said that there are mixed signals coming from the employment data, there is some good news in the data on consumer spending, productivity, and consumer and business confidence. On the activity side, a wide range of indicators show a broadening and strengthening of demand and production. For example, on the demand side, real personal consumption expenditures rose at a 4.1 percent annual rate during the fourth quarter. This compares with only a 2.2 percent annual rate during the first three quarters of 2010. Orders and production are following suit. For example, the Institute of Supply Management index of new orders for manufacturers climbed to 67.8 in January, the highest level since January of 2004. The revival in activity, in turn, has been accompanied by improving consumer and business confidence. For example, the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index rose to 77.5 in February, up from 68.9 six months earlier. Indeed, the 2.8 percent annualized growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) in the fourth quarter may understate the economy's forward momentum. That is because real GDP growth in the quarter was held back by a sharp slowing in the pace of inventory accumulation. The revival in demand, production and confidence strongly suggests that we may be much closer to establishing a virtuous circle in which rising demand generates more rapid income and employment growth, which in turn bolsters confidence and leads to further increases in spending. The only major missing piece of the puzzle is the absence of strong payroll employment growth. We will need to see sustained strong employment growth in order to be certain that this virtuous circle has become firmly established. So, there's the good news. But Dudley was careful to caution against premature optimism. And he while he outlined the dangers of low-interest rates, and the chance they might "foster a buildup of financial excesses or bubbles that might pose a medium-term risk to both full employment and price stability," he also explained that the Fed does have tools to avert crisis: To summarize the main points, we have a considerable amount of slack, little evidence of discontinuous speed limit effects, and little inflation pass-through from commodities into core inflation when inflation expectations are well-anchored, which is currently the case. This suggests that the biggest risk in terms of higher underlying inflation over the next year or two is that inflation expectations could become unanchored. This might occur, for example, if there were a loss of confidence in the ability and/or willingness of the Federal Reserve to tighten monetary policy in a timely way in order to keep inflation in check. In this regard, the proof of the pudding will be in our actions—talk is cheap. What is key—that the appropriate policy steps are taken in a timely manner. Read Dudley's Prospects for the Economy and Monetary Policy here .

Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke 's appearance before Congress yesterday seems to have had an effect on markets in the US and abroad . With the US economy as it now stands, Bernanke spoke in measured terms about recovery, with jobs and consumer spending as leading reasons for the üncertain"future": An important drag on household spending is the slow recovery in the labor market and the attendant uncertainty about job prospects. After two years of job losses, private payrolls expanded at an average of about 100,000 per month during the first half of this year, a pace insufficient to reduce the unemployment rate materially. In all likelihood, a significant amount of time will be required to restore the nearly 8-1/2 million jobs that were lost over 2008 and 2009. Moreover, nearly half of the unemployed have been out of work for longer than six months. Long-term unemployment not only imposes exceptional near-term hardships on workers and their families, it also erodes skills and may have long-lasting effects on workers' employment and earnings prospects. In the business sector, investment in equipment and software appears to have increased rapidly in the first half of the year, in part reflecting capital outlays that had been deferred during the downturn and the need of many businesses to replace aging equipment. In contrast, spending on nonresidential structures--weighed down by high vacancy rates and tight credit--has continued to contract, though some indicators suggest that the rate of decline may be slowing. Both U.S. exports and U.S. imports have been expanding, reflecting growth in the global economy and the recovery of world trade. Stronger exports have in turn helped foster growth in the U.S. manufacturing sector. Inflation has remained low. The price index for personal consumption expenditures appears to have risen at an annual rate of less than 1 percent in the first half of the year. Although overall inflation has fluctuated, partly reflecting changes in energy prices, by a number of measures underlying inflation has trended down over the past two years. The slack in labor and product markets has damped wage and price pressures, and rapid increases in productivity have further reduced producers' unit labor costs. Read the full speech here .

Bundle has a new spending analysis available online. This time they are looking specifically at the average annual spending on gas and car expenses by city and state. And the data reveals some interesting trends. First, gas and car spending is considerably higher west of the Mississippi. Apart from the Research Triangle area in North Carolina, all the top ten cities in spending are west of the great river. And Arizona residents spend a lot on driving--with four of the top spending cities in the states. On average, Americans spend $5,477 on gas and car expenses per year, Bundle found. Read the article here . And get detailed regional from this infographic. ( Click here to download) (h/t Barry Ritholtz and Flowing Data )

In the latest Financial Page column at The New Yorker , James Surowiecki takes a look at consumption in China. The worlds's most populous nation has developed a reputation for thrift to the extreme. He estimates that Chinese households and institutions sock away $2.5 trillion a year. And consumption is just 35% of GDP--"significantly lower than for most Asian countries and only half the rate in the United States," Surowiecki writes. But it hasn't always been this way in China: One common explanation for this thrift is that it’s the product of “Confucian values.” Yet China has not always been so thrifty—in the eighties, consumption was more than fifty per cent of G.D.P.—and today other “Confucian” countries consume far more than China does. The real source of China’s underconsumption is the way it manages its economy. Credit isn’t always that easy to come by. China’s policy of holding down the value of its currency means that consumer prices are higher than they would otherwise be, which obviously discourages spending. And, as a recent McKinsey Global Institute study points out, once you move beyond China’s biggest cities, there’s often a dearth of retail outlets and products for sale. Potential spenders are also held back by systemic issues. Paradoxically, in this still putatively Communist society, families for the most part have to fend for themselves. Health insurance is limited in what it covers and far from universal, so getting sick can be a costly proposition. Only a fraction of the workforce receives unemployment benefits, while pensions are underfunded and haphazardly administered. A scarcity of student loans and subsidies for higher education, meanwhile, means that paying for college requires hefty savings. The inadequacy of the social safety net forces the Chinese to engage in “precautionary savings,” buffering themselves against disaster. A recent Brookings Institution study attributes much of the increase in household savings to the rising cost of health care, together with that of housing and education. Read The Frugal Republic here .

The majority of small business owners are not expecting conditions to improve over the next six months, according to the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Economic Trends survey. The survey shows an Optimism Index reading of 86.5. That's down 1.3 from last month, but still up from its lowpoint of 81.0 in March: The report's authors, William Dunkelberg and Holly Wade , point to a general feeling of recession fatigue by consumers and business owners: Optimism faded a bit for consumers and business owners over the past few months, primarily due to weaker expectations about economic growth. This is a bit unexpected in light of the increasing frequency of reported good signs about the economy and the stock market. Assuming the recession started in January 2008, we have been in recession 19 months, far longer than the post-war average of nine months and the end is still illusively in the future. For consumers and business owners, “emergency” reserves are depleted, jobs have not returned, and the stimulus seems to have failed on the ground (even if observers agree its effects are yet to come, expectations were set for a quick rescue). The recession is wearing Main Street folks down. Read the full report here .