It's the Economy, Stupid
The Labor Department today reported that business productivity surged to a revised 4.3 percent annual rate in the second quarter of the year. That's impressive. It's nearly double the 2.2 gain previously reported. It's also well ahead of forecasts. So why did stocks tumble and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fall more than 300 points?
Because it's finally dawning on investors that Americans don't have the purchasing power to keep the economy going. A separate report today from the Department shows a steadily weakening labor market. The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits jumped by 15,000 last week, to a seasonally-adjusted 444,000. That's much higher than anticipated. We'll know tomorrow whether employers continued to shed jobs in August, as they've done in the prior seven months.
Remember, productivity measures hourly output per worker. When firms lay off their workers or cut the number of hours they work, the firms often get more output per hour from them. This is often because employees are pushed harder to generate more output in fewer hours -- understanding that if they don't, they'll be the next ones on the chopping block. Or because each who remains is overseeing more machinery than before. (This may result in lower-quality products and services, but the productivity figures don't measure quality of output.)
Higher productivity keeps inflation in check. When companies can produce more stuff with fewer workers, their unit costs drop. And they face even less pressure to raise wages -- even in the face of rising costs of living -- because average employees have virtually no bargaining power. This also helps boost corporate profits.
But this also means less purchasing power by consumers whose paychecks are getting even smaller and jobs even less stable, and who have reached the end of their lines of credit because the housing bubble has burst. The result? Employers can't sell as much as before, so they reduce their payrolls by cutting hours and laying off more workers.
Retailers are the canaries in this mine. Their sales are sharply down. (Today Nordstrom and other retailers posted big disappointments for August sales.)
Unless or until America's broad middle class has more money in its pockets -- because we get a more progressive tax system, because unions become more powerful and push prevailing wages upward, because employers finally understand what Henry Ford understood a century ago (unless workers have enough money to buy the products they're making, the products won't sell) -- this downturn is likely to last a long time.
Because it's finally dawning on investors that Americans don't have the purchasing power to keep the economy going. A separate report today from the Department shows a steadily weakening labor market. The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits jumped by 15,000 last week, to a seasonally-adjusted 444,000. That's much higher than anticipated. We'll know tomorrow whether employers continued to shed jobs in August, as they've done in the prior seven months.
Remember, productivity measures hourly output per worker. When firms lay off their workers or cut the number of hours they work, the firms often get more output per hour from them. This is often because employees are pushed harder to generate more output in fewer hours -- understanding that if they don't, they'll be the next ones on the chopping block. Or because each who remains is overseeing more machinery than before. (This may result in lower-quality products and services, but the productivity figures don't measure quality of output.)
Higher productivity keeps inflation in check. When companies can produce more stuff with fewer workers, their unit costs drop. And they face even less pressure to raise wages -- even in the face of rising costs of living -- because average employees have virtually no bargaining power. This also helps boost corporate profits.
But this also means less purchasing power by consumers whose paychecks are getting even smaller and jobs even less stable, and who have reached the end of their lines of credit because the housing bubble has burst. The result? Employers can't sell as much as before, so they reduce their payrolls by cutting hours and laying off more workers.
Retailers are the canaries in this mine. Their sales are sharply down. (Today Nordstrom and other retailers posted big disappointments for August sales.)
Unless or until America's broad middle class has more money in its pockets -- because we get a more progressive tax system, because unions become more powerful and push prevailing wages upward, because employers finally understand what Henry Ford understood a century ago (unless workers have enough money to buy the products they're making, the products won't sell) -- this downturn is likely to last a long time.

44 Comments:
Doc:
Ok. The question I have is where did the premise that increased productivity will result in rising wages come from?
No doubt it is a failing in my economics education, just one of many, but it never made logical sense to me. Certainly in the time of strong labor unions it would have been true but the premise seems to predate labor unions.
If as an employer I can make more profits by turning out more units with the same labor or the same amount of units with less labor, that benefit inures to the shareholders. That is after the execs take their share.
I have also long wondered just how good our data collection is on productivity. Gracious I'm such a skeptic.
Dr. Reich: I am as sympathetic to pinched employees as the next guy, but I disagree with your (& other liberals) continual attack on corporate profits. You all act as though profits are a bad thing, and the reason for all labor strife. In the short term, you are correct that higher productivity through layoffs & shorter hours hurts the less productive laborer in the short term. In the longer term, this profit motive, which you continue to denigrate, forces everyone into more productive & prosperous endeavors. Also, I wonder who you liberals envision financing our bloated government (via tax revenue & purchase of treasuries) if you liberals achieve your goal of increasing penalties on profitability.
Can we really trust government published reports? I'm sure the Bush-nut bunch has pressured various agencies to make the Repub-libunkin administration look good during an election year.
Even if the numbers were accurate, they would be touted out of context with Repub-libunkin spin.
With globalization, corporations don't care about an employee base or wages, since they sell internationally to foreign consumers.
anonymous:
God there are a lot of anonymi.
What is the proper balance of spreading increased profits between laborers and shareholders? If laborers are working harder to deliver greater profits are they not entitled to benefit from their extra efforts? Or is the fact that they continue to be employed reward enough?
In the longer term, this profit motive, which you continue to denigrate, forces everyone into more productive & prosperous endeavors.
This is just a rewording of "trickle down" which we can see hasn't worked. There is nothing wrong with the profit motive. When greater profits occur only to benefit shareholders the fairness of the paradigm falls apart.
Also, I wonder who you liberals envision financing our bloated government (via tax revenue & purchase of treasuries) if you liberals achieve your goal of increasing penalties on profitability.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on the percentage of tax revenues derived from corporations versus that from individual taxpayers. Add to that an estimate of just how much in Treasury's is held on the balance sheets of American companies.
In my experience as a small business owner, I'd say increased productivity will result in a better wage...for a time. In a down-sizing economy, you let go the least productive workers. Some of the cash, at least in small business, is freed to continue with raises. That might work for a while, depending on the type of business (mine was a restaurant) but then I found myself having them work more, and not being able to compensate them. Working alongside them to alleviate the pressure got tiring after a while. Ultimately, they worked harder for the same money.
My pet peeve is with government inflation figures. When I see "5.6% inflation" being reported, I get angry. I saw 20%-50% annual inflation on many high-ticket foods before I gave up and shut the business down. It's like the time some hurricane expert tried to tell Floridians that Hurricane Wilma was a Category One. There was almost a public stoning. Folks know when someone is fudging the statistics. My question: How accurate are the government's inflation figures?
Dr. Reich:
I think I get the point. Our greedy Capitalism is churning in healthy directions that brought on the Great Depression. Stagnant wages, fewer employees, higher productivity, lower consumption, declining sales, nosediving stock prices, another debt crisis, lower product prices, fewer employees, still lower consumption at higher productivity, lower product prices, profitless retail stores, bankruptcies mount, college bills unpaid, banks stop lending, wealthy flee to Dubai, dollar not wanted, can't pay soaring gas prices with dollar's collapse, Fed starts printing money at 1% interest rate, can't meet bloated Bush debt interest payments. Welcome to a fundamentally sound US economy, booming with 30% unemployment and expanding bread lines despite improving productivity. Do I get the point? I sure do. Canada, even chaotic Italy, is looking better every day. Conservative trickle down compassion? Suuure. I'm gone. End of story.
The Gov debt is riding at ~7.25%
Tax revenue is declining.
So the government has to borrow, to make interest payments.
This leads to faster debt growth.
Government borrowing, without repayment, means the government is creating new money that goes into circulation and is never returned.
So from this one factor alone, it appears that the money supply is growing almost twice as fast as wages. Is it any wondering that gas and food prices are out pacing wages?
If the trend continues, then wages will still be stagnant in two years and gasoline will be almost $8/gal.
Offshoring and the Bush tax cuts inability to create jobs are the main reasons that I didn't vote for George W Bush. I know dimwit US Labor Secretary Elaine Chao chirps "become a registered nurse or an anesthetist," which is a small portion of Alan Greenspan's recommendation from The Age of Turbulence.
How do these two miss their monthly jobs creation target for 7.5 years but bankers in New York City think mortgage rates will reset to a higher monthly payment? It's a great comedy to know that between Washington, DC, and New York City, a set of leaders are that venal or at least that dumb.
Think of the steps required for a head of a family to re-train to become an RN. Identify a college to attend. Identify if there's a wait list. Complete the pre-requisite courses. Complete the academic program itself, which usually involves day classes and ward rotations. Study. Support family at the same time. Total program could take up to four years. Anesthetist training takes even longer.
Art:
The empirical evidence suggests that increasing productivity levels result in increased standards of living, but I don't think it is as linear or as neat as economists would have it.
The economist argument is that sustained, increasing productivity results first in improved profits. Companies begin to use these profits to reinvest in the business through expanded production, new initiatives, etc. These investments create jobs. The other thing they would say creates jobs is the fact that you can only push the workers so far on the productivity thing before you begin adding labor capacity.
I think this is all generally true, though, as I said, messy and nonlinear.
The current report says that productivity went up and that labor went down. I think this is an interesting data point, but I don't know that it's fair to draw any conclusions yet and so I disagree with Dr. Reich's stirring the pot (at least at this point)
Retail rebounded somewhat in Q2 due to the impact of stimulus checks. Inventories were low coming into Q2 because of the generally weak retail environment for the six months preceeding. So, some of this productivity improvement could be just a temporary inventory build or fulfillment of temporarily inflated demand. Only time will tell if this gain is sustainable.
If it is sustainable, then we should all be happy because the productivity data have generally improved ahead of jobs and wage growth when we've come out of prior economic softness.
Anonymous Matt
Productivity isn't rising. The government is just lying about the GDP by pretending inflation is low. Stating a 3.3% rate of growth in the GDP required an absurdly low price deflator of 1.2%.
The logic goes something like this:
If the dollar value of goods and services produced rises about 4.5%,
and inflation is estimated to be only 1.2%,
then you have GDP growth of about 3.3%
and if the workforce actually contracted during the quarter,
then productivity must have increased by more than 3.3%.
Of course this is all bogus because even the understated CPI had inflation running at around 8% during Q2.
Or we could just cut government spending and lower taxes, thus putting more money in the hands of consumers.
Let's not forget that the wealthy save more, thus making more money available for business investment (i.e. hiring employees) and pushing interest rates down.
art/notsofast
Well it appears that I was dead wrong. The reporters that I follow, both of you (art and notsofast), and the energy displayed at the convention tonight (Thursday) attests to the effectiveness of Palin’s speech. I can only conclude that in all likelihood, my bias limited me from observing what seems to be so evident to most others.
In fact, as I write, the msnbc guys think that her speech was by far the best one at the GOP convention, and even much better than McCain’s. This is an interesting dynamic, because, Art, as you say, this “broadway stage show” is suppose to climax with a concluding hero. But what happens when number 2 overshadows number 1?
It obviously depends on whether this will be a short term phenomena. However, we can be sure that all eyes will be on the vp debates, and they’ll be much more significant than the cheney-edwards debate a few years back. And though I have nothing but the utmost respect for Biden’s sincerity, I can only echo notsofast, and hope he’ll be practicing LIKE HELL for the one-on-one with her. ESPECIALLY because there is an extremely fine line between criticizing her, and having people (particularly females) getting pissed because they feel a female is getting taken advantage of. And of course, he's (biden) not that good at political theater.
In the meantime… the obama camp is unleashing their high-profile girls to campaign in key states, including of course, mrs. clinton. I hope Palin's got her a little jealous, so she'll put that much more heart into campaigning for a cause that is not specifically her (to be fair, i heard shes been helping obama nicely)... I still think the ‘no more bush’ message, mixed with the message in the title of Prof. Reich’s post, will win this thing.
aly k
Dr. Reich,
Here's a repeat of the accumulated DEBT our nation has inherited now and for future generations from Republican administrations... the blame for which Mitt Romney was deviously trying to put on the table of the Democrats, saying needs MORE CONSERVATIVES in Washington to cure our problems:
___________________________________TABLE 14: BEGINNING AND ENDING NATIONAL DEBT UNDER PRESIDENTS SINCE JOHNSON; % AVE. ANNUAL INCREASE; % OF GDP--1962-2008
(Data in Current $Billlions) ___________________________________
JOHNSON 1963-68
Beginning DEBT Balance.....$302.9
Ending DEBT Balance........$358.7
Ave. Year % Increase.......2.9%
% of GDP: Beginning.......43.7%
% of GDP: Ending..........33.4%
NIXON 1969-73
Beginning DEBT Balance.....$358.7
Ending DEBT Balance........$466.3
Ave. Year % Increase.......5.5%
% of GDP: Beginning.......33.4%
% of GDP: Ending..........26.1%
FORD 1974-76
Beginning DEBT Balance.....$466.3
Ending DEBT Balance........$629.0
Ave. Year % Increase......10.5%
% of GDP: Beginning.......26.1%
% of GDP: Ending..........27.5%
CARTER 1977-80
Beginning DEBT Balance.....$629.0
Ending DEBT Balance........$909.0
Ave. Year % Increase.......9.6%
% of GDP: Beginning.......27.5%
% of GDP: Ending..........26.1%
REAGAN 1981-84
Beginning DEBT Balance.....$909.0
Ending DEBT Balance......$1,564.6
Ave. Year % Increase......14.5%
% of GDP: Beginning.......26.1%
% of GDP: Ending..........34.0%
REAGAN 1985-88
Beginning DEBT Balance...$1,564.6
Ending DEBT Balance......$2,601.1
Ave. Year % Increase......13.6%
% of GDP: Beginning.......34.0%
% of GDP: Ending..........41.0%
BUSH Sr. 1989-92
Beginning DEBT Balance...$2,601.1
Ending DEBT Balance......$4,001.8
Ave. Year % Increase.....11.4%
% of GDP: Beginning......41.0%
% of GDP: Ending..........8.1%
CLINTON 1993-96
Beginning DEBT Balance...$4,001.8
Ending DEBT Balance......$5,181.5
Ave. Year % Increase......6.7%
% of GDP: Beginning......48.1%
% of GDP: Ending.........48.5%
CLINTON 1997-2000
Beginning DEBT Balance...$5,181.5
Ending DEBT Balance......$5,628.7
Ave. Year % Increase......2.1%
% of GDP: Beginning......48.5%
% of GDP: Ending.........35.1%
BUSH Jr. 2001-04
Beginning DEBT Balance...$5,628.7
Ending DEBT Balance......$7,354.7
Ave. Year % Increase......6.9%
% of GDP: Beginning......35.1%
% of GDP: Ending.........37.3%
BUSH Jr. 2005-08
Beginning DEBT Balance...$7,354.7
Ending DEBT Balance......$9,676.5
Ave. Year % Increase......7.1%
% of GDP: Beginning......35.1%
% of GDP: Ending.........36.8%
Data Source: White House Office of Management and Budget
-----------------------------------
COMMENTS:
Of the forecast Year-End 2008 $9.7 Trillion National DEBT accumulated since 1950, $7.1 Trillion was generated, or 74%, over 20 years of Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. administrations. This was mostly the cause of exploding Defense Spending combined with Tax Cuts that went primarily to top 10% of households (not offset by stimulation of increased Tax Revenues), thereby leading to a Double Hit on annual Deficits.
Clinton was first President to restore fiscal discipline under Treasury Secretary Rubin, resulting in Budget Surpluses during Clinton´s last term of Office.
The trick now is how to regenerate the economy with appropriate Investments in Social-Infrastructure, Alternate Energy Tax Incentives, Health Care for All, strengthing Pre-college Educational System and Worker Retraining programs, reducing taxes on middle class offset partially by modestly higher taxes on upper class and businesses WITHOUT exacerbating the annual DEFICITS to above $600 Billion over next 4 years. Bush´s Budget for 2009 already projects a Deficit exceeding $500 Billion!
As I´ve said for so long now, our Economic Model is Out-of-Balance with its traditional extreme dependence on Consumption (72% of GDP) to drive the economy and NO reliance on Savings (Zero %) and weak Investment(4%) as supporting drivers of the economy. This formula in combination with long periods of stagnant working middle class wages drives people to Debt and guarantees a repetitive national financial crisis syndrome, each crisis more serious than the last one.
A more stable economic-model balance, in my amateur view, would be to make the temporary painful transition to Consumption at 65%, Savings at 6% and Investment at 6-8% of GDP. This means, in addition to lower taxes for middle class, tax incentives will be needed to stimulate more Americans to SAVE (consume less) whereby resultant added Liquidity Inflows into financial system will help finance much of the considerable Investments ... so urgently required now to regenerate
(reindustrialize, hopefully) our economy and to achieve energy independence. This increasing Savings strategy component would also help slow down our dependence on lavish borrowings from China, Europe.
So there are a lot of Catch 22s here that require the best brains to get the financial Inflow-Outflow policy mix right and to retain the innovative commercial vibrance of our unique CAN DO society ... that benefits ALL Americans.
Making phoney dogamatic labels of `You Liberals´ or `You Radical Conservatives´ are getting us nowwhere. This poisoning labeling culture is responsible for paralyzing our creativity and compromise to get things done and repaired in a Balanced, Pragmatic fashion. No one ideology has a monopoly of the right ideas or perfect panacea of thinking about what´s ailing us and what the exact solutions should be. That´s the first Reality we Americans need to grow up to FAST!
Dr. Reich,
Correction: 1st paragraph, last two sentences:
... saying we need MORE CONSERVATIVES in Washington...
I've started wondering about the productivity level of undocumented aliens working in US vs. productivity of US citizens in same or similar jobs. --I'm not xenophobic, and am a left-winger, so my quesdtion isn't tied to the "they're stealing our jobs" argrument.
Rather, I'm wondering about the heightened productivity of the person who has signed away their future to a coyote to the tune of $50,000 or more. Normally, bonded labor and servitude don't seem likely to motivate one to work hard and harder. But, I guess if you add to that the need to support a family at home, you have a huge swathe of the workforce that is underpaid, overworked, working without benefits and protection...and little chance of the dispossessed lower to middle class ever getting jobs back again. -- And it's a perfect set-up for disunity and strife at the lower end, so the oligarchs can continue to skim the cream while we down on the bottom eat each other alive.
Send the best paying jobs offshore, fail the replace the income or force the middle class to return to school to retrain in health sciences, and you don't need as many banks. Maybe one bank, with a small mortgage branch, with satellite offices in the states ringing around the coast.
@Anonymous #1:
The profit motive only motivates those who share in the profit. And, as we've seen, it's not been the workers. There's no incentive for workers to work any harder than it takes not to get fired, which is becoming harder and harder, because there is no real or perceived benefit to it anymore. Management doesn't come from the shop floor anymore, and without strong unions, there isn't much benefit to longevity with a firm. Dr. Reich is right on about profits. If they weren't so bloated, and were shared amongst the whole firm, we probably wouldn't be in the economic mess we're in.
Art Layman,
je ne réussi pas vous contacter. Je renonce. Si vous excusez moi, mais j'ai essaye bien des fois.
Peût-etre, vous préfèrez votre
intimité. Je comprends.
Justin Rietz said... "Let's not forget that the wealthy save more, thus making more money available for business investment (i.e. hiring employees) and pushing interest rates down."
With inflation high, the wealthy would be fools to invest in people and business.
The smart money invests in financial vehicles, no human beings or corporations.
What you want to invest in, is debt based instruments that rise with inflation.
The reason you don't want to invest the money in people and corporations is because they are getting squeezed and showing a much lower return than inflation. Long term, they'll all go out of business without government intervention.
The assumption you make is that extra money earned, can only be invested in one way. As we've seen, even if the money is reinvested in business and people, it often does so to improve business in another country that promises a better return. So in effect American tax breaks have helped build competing economies, thus worsening our domestic situation.
Get rid of the out of control government spending, stabilize the dollar and make it more profitable to invest in domestic business and many of these problems will become trivial.
The US Government has become 49% of our economy. So the US government is the largest driver of our GDP. The more money our government wastes, the higher our GDP.
This needs to change. But with tax breaks for offshoring, two ongoing wars and a few more to be added, I don't see this situation being reversed for many years.
The downward spiral must continue for now.
The kicker is that a constantly declining economy endangers us more than an occasional terrorist bombing. The effects cause damage to the lives of many more people.
anonymous:
Je ne sais pas ce qui arrive. Recevez-vous mes courriers électroniques ?
The relationship between productivity and rising wages is not sancrosanct. In fact it was only a rationale for higher wages when there were effective unions to demand them based on that. In the absence of unions the gains from productivity will go to corporate profits. It's a myth that higher productivity is due to workers working harder or more efficiently. In fact any mature manufacturing industry has been automated and robotized and productivity gains are more due to that which is to say due to capital and not workers. You only have to watch "How Things Work" on the science channel to realize that. The fact is that workers are less and less necessary for production as machines take over. Think of how many jobs at the check-out counter have been eliminated due to self check-out. That is why a nationally based share the wealth program is necessary. Otherwise, only those lucky enough to have the few remaining jobs and owners of capital will prosper.
Both political parties have become married to the idea of a consumer driven GDP. It doesn't take a genius to figure at some point in the process the ponzi scheme runs out of steam via consumer debt loads. People endlessly buying products and service they do not need other then to promote their status does run out of steam.
The other hidden issue is money velocity relative to GDP. That is by using credit rather then cash the GDP numbers get spiked either on a short or longer term basis. Like a drug addict that needs more or economy keeps looking for the next bubble fix which inflates money velocity and thereby creates a higher GDP but real growth in jobs and wages don't happen only the illusion of growth is created.
Dr. Reich, a question:
Are there any studies showing how the corporate profits are actually disbursed? Not in theory or principle, but actually disbursed. I'm thinking like 10% to stock dividends, 5% for bonds, 15% stock buy backs, etc.? I'd be also interested in knowing how much of the disbursement goes to people in the US.
Dr. Reich,
I've always admired the corporate management philosophy of Warren Buffet -- one of world's greatest investors, businessmen and philanthropists, now the largest shareholder and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway ... a man who calls the present serious downturn in the financial sector, "poetic justice."
He's been a firm believer that Employees come first, then Customers, followed by Shareholders. He has always invested for the very long-term and has never let dips in the economy or market changes motivate him to short-term corrections like laying off workers or making employees redundant by any excuse such as reorganizations, downsizing, etc.. His management style is very proactive, transparent, fair remuneration-wise, and one of constantly engaging employees as partners in necessary management and market changes. His many companies have been rewarded by this style 100 times over by the innovation, enthusiasm, and loyal hard work of employees.
In contrast, the productivity of workers in most US public firms is often exploited for pure shareholder interests, short-term profit opportunism, or by simply bad management. However, Mainstream corporate priorities have trended to the exact opposite of Buffet's management philosophy: Shareholders first, Customers second, and Employees last.
What makes matters worst, those who are victims of downsizing, outsourcing, redundantcies, plant closings from relocation of production facilities, etc. are often treated miserably in terms of unemployment compensation, retraining, and support to find new employment.
I have witnessed how these deplorable social-net protections are essentially non-existent in mature EU countries where they are considered a basic societal human responsibility. These same countries also have (with exception of Germany and France for a host of special reasons I'll not go into here) relatively stable employment, i.e., low unemployment rates in 5-6% range.
Furthemore, as mentioned earlier the excellent financial support dismissed workers receive acts as an "Economic Cushion" for the entire economy of a country during a downtime cycle, making it less severe by far as well as preseving the dignity of the unemployed. After many years refining such systems, the mature European countries (Scandinavia, Holland, Ireland, UK, Austria, and to greater extent Spain, etc.) have any abuses of the social-net rather well under control.
Maybe we can't do this in the same way as the European countries, but we certainly can make fundamental improvements that give more hope and empowerment to our Human Capital when a major personal, unavoidable economic crisis occurs.
To bring more humanism in how employees are treated, a great first general step would be to move more towards Warren Buffet's (and I believe Southwest Airlines)Business "Stakeholders" ...
those individuals influencing or being influenced by decisions of the organization in relative order of importance as follows:
I. EMPLOYEES
II. CUSTOMERS
III. SHAREHOLDERS
Getting the basic beliefs, assumptions, and values with respect to the Stakeholders in the right order may play as important a role in the success of a firm as the products themselves. It determines the firm's "culture" and basic appreciation of its Human Capital. No nation knows this better than the Japanese!
Matt:
I may have been wrong about the presidential timber. You recitation would hold you in good stead with the Republicans. ;)
The empirical evidence suggests that increasing productivity levels result in increased standards of living, but I don't think it is as linear or as neat as economists would have it.
First question would be: What empirical evidence?, followed by, how do we determine cause and effect? No doubt if, indeed, increased productivity leads to increased wages then standards of living would rise. If increased productivity leads to increased jobs, in the aggregate standards of living would increase but not necessarily on a per capita basis. In either case I would agree it is not linear.
The economist argument is that sustained, increasing productivity results first in improved profits. Companies begin to use these profits to reinvest in the business through expanded production, new initiatives, etc. These investments create jobs. The other thing they would say creates jobs is the fact that you can only push the workers so far on the productivity thing before you begin adding labor capacity.
As I understand the economic axiom, it is not that increased productivity increases jobs but that it increases wages. In your first part increased jobs from increased profits would not necessarily increase wages, unless again your talking macro, i.e., more workers earning wages thus aggregate wages increase. This assertion would also have to be predicated on the desire of a firm to invest and expand, not necessarily a given, and/or the overall availability of a labor supply. In either case you are adding variables that complicate supporting the original premise and, again, muddles the cause and effect analysis. If a business determines that demand or opportunity is such to warrant investment or expansion, the productivity of their workforce will not be a determinate nor will increased profits be a predicate. The expansion itself would be predicated on increased profitability.
Your second part, while valid, confuses the issue on a couple of fronts. If productivity is measured by output as a function of workers, as opposed to workers pay, then adding more workforce means that productivity gains did not really exist and will be offset and return to previous levels when additional workers are hired. In fact, due to training curves, productivity will likely decline below previous levels for a period of time. On the other hand, if measured "by worker" then working overtime with the same employee base would increase productivity but would not necessarily increase profits on a per unit basis; it would tend to decrease per unit profits.
You could also posit that any long standing business that still has appreciable productivity gains available with current staffing deserves the condemnation of shareholders for wasting profits by not effecting the gains earlier. If the gains are due to more automation this would not be true but in that case we would not see increased jobs or increased wages. If it is merely due to making manpower more efficient I would be inclined to ask, where the hell have you been? Notwithstanding that there are always minor efficiency improvements going on but I doubt that most of them appreciably affect productivity.
...So, some of this productivity improvement could be just a temporary inventory build or fulfillment of temporarily inflated demand. Only time will tell if this gain is sustainable.
I'm not sure that I agree that inventories affect productivity much. If production outputs have been down based on demand and a company has kept their employees on an indirect basis you surely would see productivity gains as those employees produce more with no increased headcount. At best, assuming the inventory production merely returns them to previous output capacity levels, changes to productivity simply wained then returned. In this scenario if you use a point in time calculation of productivity you could define the inventory build period as an increase in productivity but this would be an awful lot of smoke and mirrors.
If the shortfall in demand was deemed to be extremely short term companies might keep their employee base intact but even looking out a quarter or so and seeing dampened demand, manufacturing companies are likely to invoke a temporary layoff and then a callback when demand increases. This scenario should resul in no change in productivity.
If it is sustainable, then we should all be happy because the productivity data have generally improved ahead of jobs and wage growth when we've come out of prior economic softness.
Data please? We kinda get back to the original question. Historically your statement has been assumed to be true but is it really? Less doubtful is your premise about jobs but wage growth is extremely arguable. A lot of the effect is probably dependent on the driver of productivity gains. If it is based on initiatives getting more output from the existing worker base without any significant automation possibly more true but if automation is the driver then I don't see increased employment or increased wages as a result.
We have seen significant productivity gains over the past 15 or 20 years, yet very little in sustained employment levels and certainly little or no wage growth. I do believe that this is because much of the recent productivity gain has been due to more automation.
Another factor that no one seems to mention is foreign production of finished goods or, especially, intermediates. If final assembly efforts can be accomplished with fewer workers because intermediates have been produced overseas and shipped here for that assembly, how could productivity gains not appear using the same parameters over the years?
Of course another mitigating factor would be unemployment levels. If labor is in short supply and productivity gains do lead to expansion then rising wages are a likely consequence but you have created a chicken and egg dilemma. You know that if a business sees opportunity for more profits through expansion or additional investment they are going to undertake it regardless their productivity numbers.
I am extremely skeptical of the validity of the reported productivity numbers. You could argue, in a long term stable economic environment, that even if the models are faulty, applying the same parameters to the constant flow of data will give you a decent analytical comparability. In a fast moving, ever changing environment, the comparability, period to period, becomes much less useful.
I do agree that Dr. Reich is reaching a little here. There is, however, the forever present adage of "strike while the iron is hot".
Robert Reich is dead wrong on education!! #1 in spending & 17th -20th in the top 20 industrial countries in test scores. Only berkley Bob would say spend more money in a failed systm. Get rid of the dept. of eduction,the teachers unions & have competition in the school system. 50 separate incubatorars (states) would be a good start to see what systm is best. We would have no where to go but up!!But Bob & his cronies want the control over the American people so they can push their propaganda.
Anonmyous,
You miss one major point in your 50free-for-all State Competition Contest to see someday who comes up with the best educational improvements. Such test-trail adventures in a social science like Education take years to see valid results. You likely end up at a late date with many States doing the wrong things which will take several years to correct. Meanwhile you've experimented in "dumbing down" a major portion of our school children in various parts of our country. Inequality in the quality of education may mushroom without some universal performance criteria.
Your idea needs much more refinement and substance to make any sense. Any further thoughts?
anonymous:
Ah!!! America's answer to all that ails you: Competition!.
In the first place most of our education problems begin with parents and their kids, not with the Department of Education or Teacher's Unions.
States aren't the answer either. They have been in charge of their local education systems for years and we are where we are because of it, excepting for parents again.
Do you really believe that we should establish 50 different approaches in "learning labs" in each state to see who wins? How do we determine who wins, test scores? A very poor determinate. Do we expect our parents to accept that their children will be part of a national experiment and many of them will see their learning skills ruined because one particular state had a hairbrained idea?
When my kids were young New Math was introduced as a better methodology for teaching math. I thought it sounded like a very good idea. What happened? We ended up with a generation that couldn't balance a checkbook, not rocket science.
No doubt our education systems are faulty and we have to find an answer. Parents have to take the lead on this and not by taking over control of the education process but by working with their children, instilling in them the desire and the necessity for more education. All the evidence supports the premise that smaller class sizes lead to better education results, alas, predicated on test scores. That would seem to argue for more infrastructure and more teachers as the best starting point.
Agree that throwing more money at the problem indiscriminately gets us nowhere and might even agree that we have too many voices involved in the process. On the other hand the solution does not lie in a vacuum or a small board room and certainly not in competition.
School A has better test results then all the rest so parents scramble to send their kids to school A. Soon school A is buried with students or they have turned a bunch of them away creating social strife and perhaps significant downtime fighting lawsuits. A year or two later school B has better test scores and school A, encumbered by bigger class sizes, has fallen to a lower strata. Now the parents scramble to school B and the process begins anew. Who suffers? The children! Changing schools every other year or so; new teachers to contend with; new social stratas to maneuver. Soon seeming outstanding students at school A are poor students at school B. Competition could play this scenario out ad infinitum.
We're talking human lives here not laboratory mice. Education experiments should be undertaken very carefully. Just a year or two of frustrating education experiences and you could damage years of learning for a very competent young scholar. The best and brightest and those with involved parents will survive and likely flourish but the vast majority of students may well suffer at worst, or lag, at best.
anonymous:
Your closing statement:
But Bob & his cronies want the control over the American people so they can push their propaganda goes to the heart of many of our problems in this country. "Those who have a different idea or who disagree with me are my enemy and they have conspiratorial agendas desiring to subvert what is best for our country."
Anyone with a thinking mind understands many of our problems do not have one and only one solution. Most are complex problems with mine fields abounding. Attempting to corral differing views and creating optimal solutions from those divergent views is our only salvation.
Continuing this, "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is not only wrong but is an enemy of the state" gets us nowhere. It has been this prevailing nonsensical view that has had us languishing for so many years moaning about the same problems but never coming close to solving them.
Propose, don't condemn!
Art Layman,
Have received all your Ems. Just sent one at AL's new Em address but apparently it also didn't arrive. C'est la vie! The thought was right, execution not.
Twenty years ago the only capacitor manufacture in the Untied States built an automatic manufacturing plant in the United States with only one operator and produced 10,000 capacitors an hour. Their competitor in Japan was still selling their capacitors for less. When they looked into how the Japanese competitor was selling for less, they found the competitor also had built an automatic manufacturing plant with one operator. But there was a difference; the Japanese competitor was making 100,000 capacitors an hour. The Japanese’s productivity was 10 times the productivity of the U.S. Company. Both companies replaced many capacitor-manufacturing jobs, but created more high paying jobs for manufacturing equipment and service companies. All of these jobs have now been moved overseas.
Over 70 percent of our jobs are in the service sector. So when productivity goes up, jobs are not replaced with higher paying skilled jobs. They are replaced with lower paying unskilled jobs serving the more fortunate.
Capitalism does not work on the honor system: it is based on greed. Business has no innate responsibility to work for the good of society. The Constitution assigns that responsibility to government - “to promote the general Welfare”.
bruce barnes:
Good post!
Bruce Barnes,
Compliments on your words and thoughts!
Your and John Lawrence's posts have very SUCCINCTLY capsulated the key undercurrent factors why working middle wages have hardly kept up with inflation the past 15-20 years and job growth the last 8 years has become very weak.
Pervasive job-replacing automation and outsourcing also underscore why the next Administration must lead in stirring major internal Investments in new technologies and industrial knowhow related to alternate fuels, social-infrastructure modernization, smaller efficient vehicles, bio-technology, the educational sciences and trade skills for emerging high-tech service industries ... to name a few of the obvious growth areas for broad job expansion.
New ideas to strengthen our Human Capital knowhow and industrial base are desperately needed ... with the goal to keep jobs in the United States.
The challenges are immense!
Dr. Reich and Readers,
As an Independent, it's sad to see the Republican duo McCain/Palin trying to copy with no specifics the Obama embrasive theme of CHANGE ... using the same old Republican cliches and fabrications in the process.
For example, McCain now keeps repeating he's going to attack that Out-of-Control SPENDING in Washington that´s occurred the last 12, yes LAST 12, years. He slyly includes Clinton's last 4 years (1996-2000)when SPENDING increased a very low 3% a year, (including or excluding Soc. Security/Medicare).
In sharp contrast, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.´s average annual rate of growth in SPENDING was more than TWICE the rate of the Clinton Administration´s performance with Rubin at the Treasury wheel.
So McCain is playing with the facts again when it comes to SPENDING ... as the Republican Administrations the last 20 years have been the Big Spenders by far generating an additional $7.1 Trillion to our National Debt bringing it to ±$9.7 Trillion in 2008. Who exactly is guilty of BIG GOVERNMENT? Certainly not just the Democrats!
As I´ve documented, Bush Sr. had to raise taxes because of Reagan´s massive DEFICITS and Clinton had to do same because of Bush Sr.´s massive DEFICITS.
We are being treated to another fabrication by Mrs. Palin when she is heralded and blusters about her cost-cutting with Alaska´s state budget. Haven´t checked to what extent this is really true.
But the IRONY is that her cost cuts were cleverly sought to be offset by over $750 million in requests for special Federal (taxpayer) Funds ... a US RECORD request for Federal money on a per capita basis!
She wanted to convert her internal cost cutting into a Federal government HANDOUT.
Pretty clever for a hockey Mom with a degree in journalism from the University of Idaho. She´s got the TV media and parade of radio news communicators in the palm of her hand.
The stretching of the truth (trying to be polite) and hypocrisy to sell the new Father `Teresa´ McCain and company of COMPASSIONATE CHANGE is getting too DEEP to handle unless one responds to it right away.
For the Republican organizers and representatives have shown themselves to be masters in repeating over and over the same fabrications with a straight face... knowing loyal millions will accept it carte blanche as `true patriots,´ of course.
Frank:
Though we seem to be of one mind these days, let me reiterate: I told you so! Ha!
It could be merely amusing, this potpourri of lies and innuendo, if the conservatives had not been so successful with the strategy over the last 30 years.
An interesting fact(?) is that Alaska receives 1/3 of its budget revenues from the federal government. Palin's, supposedly, miraculous budget management comes from handling a budget with a $5 billion surplus. Not due to cuts and premier management but primarily from oil royalties and fed handouts. Give most of the governors around the country this windfall and we would have a huge list of potential VP candidates. Doubtful any as pretty though.
I am struck by McCain's constant refrain about reforming government, especially by exposing earmarks and their originators. Now folks in Arizona will be upset with any member of Congress from Texas who puts through frivilous earmarks but folks in Texas might be offended at making light of attempts to return some federal tax dollars to their state. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder as is ugly.
Now Dumbya was able to keep the Reps in Congress in tow and following the party line because he was deemed to be one of them. Reps will rally behind McCain to win the election but many of them in Congress do not like him and likely won't be as supportive of his initiatives as those of Dumbya.
McCain's history of working across the aisle (could it be because many in his own party didn't want to connect with him?) but he will not endear himself to his own party by following that tact as President. Reps are not big on compromise nor do they think Dems have many good ideas.
His insistence that Palin will aid in this process is absurd. The VP doesn't get to vote except to break ties and the VP has no veto power. How exactly, other than running her mouth, is she going to be significant in this fight? Is she going to shut down the Senate whenever they are voting on a bill with earmarks?
It is highly likely his "maverick" history will come back to haunt him from the halls of his own party.
In net all Palin provides is the appeal to the base of the party, the right wing, religious zealots. Holes are appearing right and left in her vaunted "executive experience". When the smoke finally clears, her anti-abortion stance and the fact that she shoots guns, assumedly with better aim than Cheney, will be the only assets she brings to the game.
Most troubling to me in this Troopergate issue is the involvement of her husband. What in the hell is the "first dude" doing lobbying state officials about anything beyond new curtains for the governor's mansion? And he appears to be more closely tied to this extremist Alaska political group than she, but then could it be that the brains of Sarah Palin reside in the head of "first dude"?
Perhaps the most ironic is demeaning Obama for his Community Organizer history. Starting with Kennedy, and maybe before, every presidential administration has pushed for more citizen involvement in solving our problems and those of the world. Reagan and both Bush's pronounced the process as how we can minimize government intrusions and spending. It has been emphasized as a tool for aiding folks to pull themselves up instead of looking for handouts. Now, all of the sudden, it is a dishonorable profession, one to be disdained and ridiculed as contributing nothing to someone's knowledge of common folk and the effect of real problems. Mayors, governors, even presidents, feel our pain through the prism of mansions and insulating staff. Oh yes, they tour the areas of the downtrodden, when it's politically advantageous, but then they retire to their comforts and mull over how those people could do so much better if they would only get some personal intiative.
Alas, in the final analysis, the truth of any of this or of any of the accomplishments of McCain or Palin or Obama/Biden for that matter will be reflected in the electorate and that bodes a scary scenario.
It may very well come down to the youth vote. If they come out, which historically they haven't, then Obama stands in good stead. There will be a larger than normal black voter turnout and much of the addition will be those voting simply for a black man which is completely understandable. That turnout will be offset by voting white Dems who will not vote for a black man as well as previously nonvoting white Dems and Reps coming out to vote against a black man. Pathetic I know. This leaves us with a few previously nonvoting Dems who will vote due to the historic nature of the election and the youth vote. The numbers in the youth vote alone could blow us right over the top.
I would feel more comfortable if our voting electorate had historically voted from an informed basis but: Reality is reality, and lies, distortions and disingenuousness have often ruled the day.
Art,
I've been aware of the disingenuousness, distortions and dirty nature of American politics and media-radio uncivil dialogue for over 40 years. That's why I left the states at the age of 26, have spent over 30 years in Europe mostly with European firms, and will probably die here.
But our American connection and my beautiful Maine heritage remains intense. We visit our daughter in NY regularly. Michèle, was Consultant Production Manager for the New York Philharmonic's fabulously successful concert in Pyongyang, North Korea last February. We love America and rejoice in the positive spirit of newness and reinvigoration that Obama has sparkled. He does indeed give hope and inspiration in the uphill struggle against an ingrained cynicism and distrust of government.
The first time I ever blogged in my life was last December ... have always used computer strictly for my lectures. But after hearing Obama's words in 2004 and after reading his books and volumes of other material about him, I felt for the first time this is a guy who can bring Americans a general a step back from their internal poisoning dialogue and name calling to a position of relative common sense, constructive focus, and deeper reflection.
Am happy to see I have lots of company as millions of Americans and by far the vast majority of Europeans trust and admire this gentleman's potential. They embrace him as a national and world figure of talent and integrity ... the right person for America at the right time.
Win of lose he's certainly done been the lighting firecracker for CHANGE with flying colors. As I have said to you, in internal crises, character and instinct of the American President is critical ...determinative as Bush Jr. has so disastrously shown. Obama is by nature a cool, bright, pragmatic, careful Unitor. McCain is an aggressive, unorthodox, unpredictable radical ... and therefore not someone I would rely on with his finger on Change and the Red Button. As has been said,
"Sometimes the radical choice (with Miss runner-up Alaska .. or is it Wasilla?, as VP and next in line as Pres.) is CORRECT ... BUT SAFE? FORGET IT."
Frank:
Anyone that has a child involved in classical music can't be all bad. ;)
Art,
Sorry for little misprints. You must be used to this by now from me. Don't take appropriate time to perfect typing errors.
Frank:
Not a problem. It is the Internet, not a doctoral dissertation.
Although many would accuse you and I of the posting the latter.
Given the name of this post of Dr. Reich's...let me point out that the name of my blog is It's the 21st Century, Stupid!. Why do I mention this? Because I view one of the primary problems of our nation as being people unable to understand how radically the changes in our world and the accelerating rate of those changes affects our economy and what we need to do about it. We live in a time when jobs with one company for life are the exception, not the rule. Often people cannot find work in the same field their old job was in so they are told to get training. No one explains how they are supposed to support themselves during that retraining or afford the training itself. Our unemployment insurance system is still geared towards the 1950s, not the 2000's. So is our educational system at all levels. The same must be also said for our health care system.
And the answers provided by the Republican Party are just more of the same. Give the wealthy tax breaks and their investments will create jobs. This completely ignores the global flow of capital in our modern world yet it is repeated over and over again.
Is it too much to ask for some honest assessment of where we are, how we got here and how we can do better now to improve our future? I don't expect it from Team McCain for sure.
Now is the time contact your Congressperson and Senators to put the brakes on the forthcoming Big Bang Bailout before it's too late.
With only a three-page summary from Treasury Secretary Paulson, our representatives in Congress are being asked to spend $1 trillion of our money to solve a problem for which nobody knows the precise cause.
All too often well-intentioned legislation turns sour because nobody thought it out enough to identify its impacts. So any Big Bang Bailout must be scrutinized with the Test of Unintended Consequences or else it could produce an even worse disaster or simply throw our money away to reward the private sector exploiters who produced this financial crisis.
It's going to be a bill that runs hundreds of pages and the Bush Administration is putting pressure on Congress to vote on it in a few days. We'll have another instance of Congressmen voting on a bill few have read or even understand.
And we'll have piecemeal legislation to solve a problem without fully understanding its causes (beyond greed and a lack of adequate, focused regulation) -- so the legislation may not actually accomplish much besides getting the folks who produced the crisis off the hook and keeping them wealthy.
This is government at its worst. I'd love to see Obama and McCain issue a joint statement to slow down, analyze the cause and draft legislation that addresses the causes of this crisis so it will not happen again, so that the folks who caused the crisis are not rewarded, and that the average guy and gal actually benefit from it. That'll be the day. McCain is already calling for passage of this bill he hasn't seen.
So write your Congressperson and Senators today to urge them to vote "No" unless a vote is delayed at least two weeks (preferably until after the election) so they can adequately review the Bailout legislation and identify the unintended consequences it may produce. There's really no need to rush this legislation through Congress -- the financial world will not collapse. And no issue this complex can possibly be solved with such hastily-drafted legislation.
You can get the email addresses for your Representative and Senators at http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html
http://www.house.gov/
Most offer a web form you can use to submit email.
Don't delay. Write today.
Example - Here's the email I've been sending to my Congressman Danny Davis and Senators Obama and Durbin:
Put the brakes on the Big Bang Bailout Bill today. With only a three-page summary from Treasury Secretary Paulson, you are being asked to spend $1 trillion of our money to solve a problem for which nobody knows the precise cause. All too often well-intentioned legislation turns sour because nobody thought it out enough to identify its impacts. Any Big Bang Bailout must be scrutinized with the Test of Unintended Consequences or else it could produce an even worse disaster or simply throw our money away to reward the private sector exploiters who produced this financial crisis.
It's going to be a bill that runs hundreds of pages and the Bush Administration is putting pressure on Congress to vote on it in a few days. We'll have another instance of Congressmen voting on a bill few have read or even understand.
And we'll have piecemeal legislation to solve a problem without fully understanding its causes (beyond greed and a lack of adequate, focused regulation) -- so the legislation may not actually accomplish much besides getting the folks who produced the crisis off the hook and keeping them wealthy.
This is government at its worst. I'd love to see Obama and McCain issue a joint statement to slow down, analyze the cause and draft legislation that addresses the causes of this crisis so it will not happen again, so that the folks who caused the crisis are not rewarded, and that the average guy and gal actually benefit from it. That'll be the day. McCain is already calling for passage of this bill he hasn't seen.
So Senator Durbin, I am urging you to start a movement to slow down this train wreck before it crashes. Please urge Congress to allow enough time (at least two weeks, if not delaying it until after the election) to:
(1) Fully understand the actual causes of this financial crisis
(2) Fully understand the extent of the financial crisis -- how much money is at stake?
(3) Craft a solution that addresses the causes, a solution that is not a band-aide
(4) Craft a solution that does not reward those who created the crisis -- because if you don't, they'll just do it all over again knowing that Congress will give them a blank check whenever they screw up
(5) Craft a solution that protects the "
end users," the public that is caught in this financial crisis thanks to the irresponsible practices of the private sector that seeks this Big Bang Bailout.
(6) And carefully apply the Test of Unintended Consequences to the legislation that emerges so that the legislation doesn't merely through good money after bad and solves nothing.
LIKE THE WALL STREET article. They are really declaring BK. In a BK all officer are required to give back the last 90 days of pay, perks etc.
Why are they not?
My retirement savings have dropped 5% in value since last week What happens if we just let things settle and do not bail out wall street?
徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,
Post a Comment
<< Home