Healthy job growth fails to boost wages

The U.S. economy added jobs faster than expected in November, but wage growth continued to be anemic, according to today’s employment data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Job gains of about 321,000 last month and prior upward revisions show an average monthly gain of 278,000 jobs over the previous quarter. In contrast to the increase in employment, wage growth continued to stay well below healthy rates.

While nominal wages (unadjusted for inflation) increased by 9 cents last month, the average nominal wage grew at less than a 1.8 percent annual rate over the last quarter. This rate is about half of what would be considered healthy nominal wage growth. Given the Federal Reserve Board’s target inflation rate of 2.0 percent and productivity growth of 1.5 percent, annual nominal wage growth must consistently exceed 3.5 percent before we will see sustainable real wage growth and signs of a tighter labor market. Nominal wage growth has not reached the 3.5 percent threshold for more than half a decade.

Employment gains were broadly shared across industries, with professional and business services adding 86,000 jobs, health services adding more than 37,000 jobs, and the leisure and hospitality sector growing by 32,000 jobs. Retail employment accelerated somewhat, with 50,000 jobs added last month. Some of this increase in retail employment may be reversed in future months if these stores are simply staffing up earlier than usual for holiday shopping.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ household portion of the survey paints not so bright a picture of employment growth as its establishment survey. The share of the prime-age population (ages 25 to 54) with jobs stayed the same last month at 76.9 percent. Prime-age men saw a slight decrease in employment, but the share of prime-age women with jobs edged up from 70.1 to 70.3 percent.

The overall unemployment rate did not change last month, remaining at 5.8 percent compared to 4.4 percent in 2007 during the peak of the last business cycle, when workers actually experienced some nominal wage growth above the 3.5 percent threshold. When the U.S. unemployment rate fell below 4 percent for five months in 2000 and when unemployment was below 5 percent in the late 1990s was the last period workers experienced sustained and broadly based wage growth.

One positive change reported by the household survey is the changing composition of the part-time workforce. Over the past three months, the number of those working part-time for economic reasons fell by an average of 142,000 per month, but those voluntarily working part-time grew by an average of 159,000 per month. Some of the increase in the voluntary part-time workforce is likely attributable to the Affordable Care Act, which weakened the tie between full-time employment and health insurance access through one’s employer. Compared to 2013, the first year workers could enroll in the new health exchanges to purchase health insurance, there are now 6 percent more workers voluntarily working part-time.

While today’s job gains were welcome and stronger than expected, even at a pace of adding more than 300,000 jobs per month we will not reach the employment rates of the prior business cycle peak until the end of 2016, nine years after the start of the last recession. The prime-age employment share remains below 77 percent, but was above 80 percent during 2007. Until we reach comparable employment rates, wage growth is likely to remain weak, particularly for those at the bottom of the income distribution.

Morning Must-Read: The First Good Monthly Payroll Report of the Recovery, If I Am Not Mistaken…

NewImage
BLS:
Employment Situation Summary: “Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 321,000 in November…

and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.8 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today…. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 2.8 million in November. These individuals accounted for 30.7 percent of the unemployed…. The civilian labor force participation rate held at 62.8 percent in November and has been essentially unchanged since April. The employment-population ratio, at 59.2 percent, was unchanged in November…

Things to Read on the Morning of December 5, 2014

Must- and Shall-Reads:

 

  1. Mark Thoma:
    Economist’s View: ‘What’s Causing the Increase in Long-Term Unemployment?’: “Salim Furth, who ‘is senior policy analyst in macroeconomics at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis’: ‘What’s Causing the Increase in Long-Term Unemployment?: Some economic indicators, including the short-term unemployment rate, have recovered to levels associated with ‘normal times.’ But long-term unemployment remains high…. Many economists, myself included, expected that the expiration of long-term unemployment benefits at the end of 2013 would sharply lower the long-term unemployment rate. Instead, the rate has continued its slow, steady decline…. Economists have not yet found convincing explanations…. The problem is worth studying.’ They will have to find another social insurance program to blame… instead of, say, lack of demand (a policy failure) combined with the stigma attached to the long-term unemployed.”
  2. Jonathan Chait:
    4 New Studies: Obamacare Working Incredibly Well:
    “Four major new sources of information have come out this week, all of which have further demonstrated the law’s success. 1. Increasing access to the uninsured…. Conservatives widely denied that the law would even succeed at its basic goal of increasing access to health insurance. Obamacare ‘created more uninsured people than it gave insurance to. And it promises to create even more,’ argued National Review’s Jonah Goldberg. Fox News panelist Charles Krauthammer proclaimed the law would result in ‘essentially the same number of uninsured.’… 2. Reducing overall health-care costs…. 3. Hospital errors…. 4. Insurance competition. Obamacare is based on an old Republican plan, developed by the Heritage Foundation and first tried by Mitt Romney, whose central feature was market competition…. Liberals did not place much faith in this dynamic…. But the dynamic has turned out to work much better than expected…”
  3. David Beckworth:
    Are We Mismeasuring Productivity Growth?:
    “Noah Smith… observed that the Fernald TFP data can be decomposed into TFP in investment production and TFP in consumption production. TFP in investment looks better than the overall…. TFP in consumption… has basically flatlined since the early 1970s and is what is driving the Great Stagnation…. The Great Flattening does not seem reasonable. Has productivity growth in consumption really been flat since the early 1970s?… This suggests there are big measurement problems in consumption production. And I suspect they can be traced to the service sector…”
  4. Mark Thoma:
    Economist’s View: ‘Entrepreneurship, Down-Side Risks, and Social Insurance’:
    “In 2009 I argued: A more extensive social safety net can reduce the risk of attempts at entrepreneurship. If there is an extensive social safety net to fall back upon if things don’t work out, you might be more willing to quit the job you hate (the one with health insurance for the kids) and sink everything you have into a small business that you’ve always wanted to run. But I’m not sure the data above support this interpretation, i.e. that there is an obvious positive association between the strength of social insurance and the prevalence of small business. But it is highly suggestive, and regressions that control for other cross-country differences could help to settle the issue. Nick Bunker discusses a paper that provides supporting evidence: ‘Entrepreneurship, down-side risks, and social insurance…. John Hombert… et al. looks at a reform in the French unemployment insurance system enacted in 2002. The reform allowed unemployed workers who start a new business to keep the right to their unemployment benefits for up to three years…. The rate at which firms were created increased by 25 percent after the 2002 reform…. ‘The evidence points toward these new entrepreneurs being capable businesspeople who just needed a safety net before starting a business. What’s more, these new firms had a positive impact on the overall economy….'””
  5. Ezra Klein (2007):
    No Exit Revisited: “Andrew Sullivan tries to answer my post from yesterday on No Exit, the [Betsy McCaughey] article he published attacking the Clinton health plan. He says that ‘I don’t think it’s fair to expose the internal editing of a piece but there was a struggle and it’s fair to say I didn’t win every skirmish,’ which is interesting, and he says that ‘I was aware of the piece’s flaws but nonetheless was comfortable running it as a provocation to debate.’ What he doesn’t say is that he believes the piece accurately described the Clinton health care plan. Which is what’s at issue. There were reasons to criticize the delivery structure the Clintons sought to implement, but No Exit simply lied…”
  6. Duncan Black:
    So Long, And Thanks For All The Shit):
    “[The New Republic] does publish people I like these days, but there is this weird worship of it as An Institution, as An Important Part Of The Discourse. Yah, thanks for Marty Peretz, Andrew Sullivan, The Bell Curve, Betsy McCaughey, Mickey Kaus, the Iraq War… oh God, I forgot Chuck Lane, who often manages to make Richard Cohen look good…”
  7. Ezra Klein:
    Even the liberal New Republic needs to change: “The eulogy that needs to be written isn’t for The New Republic. It’s for the role once played by Washington’s small fleet of ambitious policy magazines. The internet is now thick with outlets that pride themselves on covering… policymaking apparatus. Vox… The New Republic… Wonkblog, the Upshot, Mother Jones, Storyline, FiveThirtyEight, and Politico, to name just a few. And that doesn’t even include the individual bloggers who are must-reads… Kevin Drum, and Tyler Cowen, and Brad DeLong, and Paul Krugman, and Ross Douthat, and Ramesh Ponnuru, and Jonathan Chait, and Scott Sumner, and Megan McArdle, and Jonathan Bernstein, and, again, the list goes on. This sprawling conversation over Washington policymaking used to be centered in a handful of elite-focused policy magazines, of which The New Republic was perhaps the best known and most ambitious…”

Should Be Aware of:

 

  1. John Kay:
    The capitalists sold the mills and bought all our futures:
    “If you want to measure the capital possessed by a nation, there are two ways of doing it. One is to travel the length and breadth of the country counting the houses, the bridges, the factories, shops and offices, and adding up their total value. The other is to knock on doors and ask people how rich they are…. The totals are not… the same…. The wealth of Carlos Slim, Bill Gates or Warren Buffett is largely outside [physical capital] data because the market value of América Móvil, Microsoft and Berkshire Hathaway far exceeds the tangible assets of these companies…. If ‘capital is back’, as Prof Piketty contends, it is in a very different sense from the 19th-century view, in which the ownership of capital confers authority over the means of production. Messrs Slim, Gates and Buffett… did not acquire control of the means of production by virtue of their ownership of capital; rather they acquired capital from their control of the means of production, which they gained through political influence and success in the market…”
  2. Rhoula Kalaf:
    The German club of Putin understanders:
    “Most German Putin understanders were embarrassed into silence after the July downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, and the separatists’ treatment of the bodies and the crash site. That was when public opinion swung decisively behind Ms Merkel’s tough line against Mr Putin…. Putin critics in Berlin worry that the understanders are rearing their heads again. They expect them to begin agitating for an easing of sanctions against Moscow in response to the Ukraine crisis. The most famous understander is Gerhard Schröder, the former chancellor, who counts Mr Putin among his friends… said Moscow had justifiable fears about being encircled…. celebrate[ed] his 70th birthday with the president in St Petersburg, and was pictured warmly embracing him…. Matthias Platzeck, chairman of the German-Russian business forum and former chief of the Social Democratic party (SPD)… suggest[ed] the west should accept the annexation of Crimea to ease tensions with Moscow…. A measure of understanding of Russian policy inevitably creeps in when you want to do business with Moscow. The Eastern Committee… is critical of Russian actions in Ukraine and supportive of Ms Merkel but strongly opposed to sanctions. A delegation was in Moscow last month and met Sergei Lavrov, Russian foreign minister. The visit was low key. “‘It goes without saying that no one wants to see pictures of anyone hugging Lavrov”, says a committee official.'”
  3. Zandar:
    Even The “Liberal” New Republic » Balloon Juice:
    “Me?  The number of damns I give about TNR as a going concern at this point equals approximately the number of black voices writing for the magazine, which is to say zero, but YMMV.  The thing survived two world wars, the Great Depression, Watergate, the fall of the Soviet Union, 9/11, New Coke, and 74,927 episodes of Law and Order, but couldn’t handle one Silicon Valley douchebag with a giant checkbook…”

Morning-Must-Read: Ezra Klein: Even the Liberal New Republic Needs to Change

Ezra Klein:
Even the liberal New Republic needs to change: “The eulogy that needs to be written isn’t for The New Republic…

…It’s for the role once played by Washington’s small fleet of ambitious policy magazines. The internet is now thick with outlets that pride themselves on covering… policymaking apparatus. Vox… The New Republic… Wonkblog, the Upshot, Mother Jones, Storyline, FiveThirtyEight, and Politico, to name just a few. And that doesn’t even include the individual bloggers who are must-reads… Kevin Drum, and Tyler Cowen, and Brad DeLong, and Paul Krugman, and Ross Douthat, and Ramesh Ponnuru, and Jonathan Chait, and Scott Sumner, and Megan McArdle, and Jonathan Bernstein, and, again, the list goes on. This sprawling conversation over Washington policymaking used to be centered in a handful of elite-focused policy magazines, of which The New Republic was perhaps the best known and most ambitious….

The policy magazines had two dimensions. The first was what they covered–which was, for the most part, politics through the lens of policy…. The second was the angle and tone…. The New Republic oscillated from editor to editor, but tended towards a hawkish, contrarian neoliberalism (hence the ‘Even the liberal New Republic’ meme)…. To the wonk in the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s, these magazines were the thrumming center of the policy conversation in Washington…. But they’re no longer the center….

A deeper tension in digital journalism: the pressure for convergence is strong. We feel it at Vox, and sometimes give into it. It’s easy to see which stories are resonating with readers. It’s obvious that John Oliver videos do big numbers. And that’s fine. Right now, almost all successful digital publications are partially built on internet best practices and partially built on that publication’s particular obsessions, ideas, and attitude. Digital publications need to be smart about their mix….

But what made the New Republic and its peer policy magazines so great was how restlessly, relentlessly idiosyncratic they were–that’s how they drove new ideologies and new ideas to the fore. They were worse at covering policy than their digital successors, but probably better at thinking…. I’m less pessimistic about TNR’s future than many… and, as someone who really loathed a number of TNR’s previous eras (see the Bell Curve, or No Exit, or A Fighting Faith, for examples)… a bit less nostalgic for its past. But something is being lost in the transition from policy magazines to policy web sites…

The Washington Monthly and The American Prospect at their peak and in their prime may have been better at thinking than today’s digital successors. But I am wracking my brains trying to think of examples in which the Martin Peretz-era New Republic was better at thinking.

The Martin Peretz-Michael Kinsley New Republic was world-class at snarking, but thinking–I think of Mickey Kaus, Jacob Weisber, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Morton Kondracke and a magazine known best for the phrase “even the liberal New Republic“, and I say “no”. Hertzberg, IIRC, dialed down the snark and dialed up the policy substance, but still… And I don’t see how anybody would claim that the post-Hertzberg TNR was good at “thinking”

Morning Must-Read: Duncan Black: So Long, and Thanks For All The S—

Duncan Black:
So Long, And Thanks For All The Shit):
“[The New Republic] does publish people I like these days, but there is this weird worship of it as An Institution, as An Important Part Of The Discourse. Yah, thanks for Marty Peretz, Andrew Sullivan, The Bell Curve, Betsy McCaughey, Mickey Kaus, the Iraq War… oh God, I forgot Chuck Lane, who often manages to make Richard Cohen look good…”

Morning Must-Read: Ezra Klein (2007): No Exit Revisited

Ezra Klein (2007):
No Exit Revisited: “Andrew Sullivan tries to answer my post from yesterday…

…on No Exit, the [Betsy McCaughey] article he published attacking the Clinton health plan. He says that ‘I don’t think it’s fair to expose the internal editing of a piece but there was a struggle and it’s fair to say I didn’t win every skirmish,’ which is interesting, and he says that ‘I was aware of the piece’s flaws but nonetheless was comfortable running it as a provocation to debate.’ What he doesn’t say is that he believes the piece accurately described the Clinton health care plan. Which is what’s at issue. There were reasons to criticize the delivery structure the Clintons sought to implement, but No Exit simply lied…

The rise and fall of financial deleveraging

Household deleveraging, or the paying down of debts, was one of the major economic stories of the recovery from the Great Recession. In the run up to the 2007-2009 recession, household debt doubled between 2001 to 2007 as the housing bubble inflated. The bubble eventually popped and millions of households were left with debt loads they couldn’t handle. Households have been digging out from under this damage in the years since. But according to the data, the period of deleveraging is over. Households now are taking on more debt. And they aren’t alone.

Last month, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released new data on household debt. The authors say the data show “households have begun to use credit to supplement their cash flow again.” J.W. Mason, a professor at John Jay College, using an accounting approach to household debt finds that the increase in debt-to-income ratio is from new borrowing, opposed to changes in interest rates or inflation.

But households are late to the new borrowing cycle compared to businesses, which have been borrowing considerably for several years now. A new report from the Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Research highlights the increase in corporate leverage.

Now this increase in corporate debt isn’t necessarily a problem. Companies simply could be taking advantage of low-interest rates to borrow and increase their productivity. And for a while, that is what they appeared to be doing, according to the OFR report. But as the authors note that more recently, companies are using the borrowed money for other things.

Instead of growing their businesses, corporations are using borrowed money to buy back stocks, pay out dividends to stockowners, and buy other companies. This means a substantial portion of this borrowed money isn’t used for investment but rather it seems to be used to get profits out of the corporation and into the hands of shareholders. This process might be responsible for the apparent disconnect between corporate profits and investment in recent years.

Furthermore, the OFR report notes the debt issued by corporations is of lower quality that in the past. So called “high-yield” debt has comprised 24 percent of all corporate debt since 2008, compared to 14 percent in previous economic expansions.

Regardless of the reason for borrowing, we should remember that corporations are leveraging up in a period of extraordinarily low interest rates. The Federal Reserve seems ready to raise interest rates in the middle of next year, so the era of zero-interest rates will eventually come to an end. If corporations can adequately handle their debt loads, everything should be fine. But if corporate finances are built on a foundation of sand, requiring future refinancing at higher costs, then we should all be concerned.

Morning Must-Read: Jonathan Chait: 4 New Studies: Obamacare Working Incredibly Well

Jonathan Chait:
4 New Studies: Obamacare Working Incredibly Well:
“Four major new sources of information have come out this week…

…all of which have further demonstrated the law’s success. 1. Increasing access to the uninsured…. Conservatives widely denied that the law would even succeed at its basic goal of increasing access to health insurance. Obamacare ‘created more uninsured people than it gave insurance to. And it promises to create even more,’ argued National Review’s Jonah Goldberg. Fox News panelist Charles Krauthammer proclaimed the law would result in ‘essentially the same number of uninsured.’… 2. Reducing overall health-care costs…. 3. Hospital errors…. 4. Insurance competition. Obamacare is based on an old Republican plan, developed by the Heritage Foundation and first tried by Mitt Romney, whose central feature was market competition…. Liberals did not place much faith in this dynamic…. But the dynamic has turned out to work much better than expected…

Cato Institute Economic Growth Conference: Panel I: The Pace of Recent Economic Growth

B7e jpg 460×333 pixels
Cato Institute:
The Future of U.S. Economic Growth: Panel 1: Forecasting the Long-Term Growth Outlook

  • Dale Jorgenson, Harvard University
  • John Fernald, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
  • Martin Baily, Brookings Institution

If David Beckworth is here, I want him to ask his question–itself triggered by an observation from Noah Smith at Stonybrook. If he isn’t here, or is shy…

David Beckworth:
Are We Mismeasuring Productivity Growth?:
“Noah Smith… observed that the Fernald TFP data…

…can be decomposed into TFP in investment production and TFP in consumption production. TFP in investment looks better than the overall…. TFP in consumption… has basically flatlined since the early 1970s and is what is driving the Great Stagnation…. The Great Flattening does not seem reasonable. Has productivity growth in consumption really been flat since the early 1970s?… This suggests there are big measurement problems in consumption production. And I suspect they can be traced to the service sector…”

Here are the figures:

NewImage NewImage

And the question is obvious: if this is mismeasurement of technological progress in consumption focused since 1973 on quality, choice, and information goods, how should we understand the past generation and a half? If this isn’t mismeasurement, what explains the end of technological progress in the production of consumer output?

Morning Must-Read: David Beckworth: Are We Mismeasuring Productivity Growth?

David Beckworth:
Are We Mismeasuring Productivity Growth?:
“Noah Smith… observed that the Fernald TFP data…

…can be decomposed into TFP in investment production and TFP in consumption production. TFP in investment looks better than the overall…. TFP in consumption… has basically flatlined since the early 1970s and is what is driving the Great Stagnation…. The Great Flattening does not seem reasonable. Has productivity growth in consumption really been flat since the early 1970s?… This suggests there are big measurement problems in consumption production. And I suspect they can be traced to the service sector…

NewImageNewImage