00623210

Economy & Business Environment Blog

Aug
24
2017

What’s in Store for Emerging Markets?

Looking ahead, the outlook for emerging markets during the second half remains solid. However, whether growth can accelerate much beyond the first half is probably a long shot.

Rapidly growing emerging markets continue to offer a larger contribution to global growth than mature economies. Yet Europe, the United States, and other mature economies are picking up steam, indicating some re-balancing of the sources of growth from emerging to mature economies. Stronger demand from mature markets will eventually help emerging markets, particularly those which are export-oriented. Global growth in 2017 appears to be robust, with the combined effects of a cyclical pick up in industrial activity and global trade. If any emerging economy hits a speed bump, it will likely be due to its own domestic economic conditions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jun
27
2017

We can turbocharge our technology industry with immigration reform

by Brian Schaitkin and Diane Lim

Today, “tech week” begins at the White House. The five-day confab will reportedly see the likes of technology experts and big-name CEOs like Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, Oracle’s Safra Catz, and Apple’s Tim Cook.

They plan on covering a host of topics, including the elephant in the room: our fundamentally flawed immigration system. Left unaddressed, the issue poses a growing threat to several sectors including tech. For a course correction, it would behoove summit participants to consider a policy blueprint just put forth by the Committee for Economic Development of The Conference Board.

States have vastly different levels of access to foreign-born health care workers
As the report details, under the current immigration system the federal government chooses only a small share of immigrants based on their educational training and work experience. While more than one million immigrants received permanent resident status in 2015, the federal government admitted just 14 percent through employment-based visa programs.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jun
27
2017

Why Mexico’s Economy Is Putting On The Breaks

by Ataman Ozyildirim

A Conference Board analysis was recently released and projected Mexico’s economy to grow at 1.8 percent in 2017. This marks a downward revision from an earlier projection of 2.6 percent made last November, and slower than the estimate of 2.1 percent in 2016.

So what accounts for the slowdown?

No single culprit exists. Instead, look to a trifecta consisting of rising inflation and interest rates, a possible trade conflict with the US and business sector uncertainty. Together, they have formed the perfect storm - and the serious punch they pack warrants a look at each.

Mexican-Economy2

Heightened Inflation Concerns And Tightening Monetary Policy

In May, the central bank of Mexico (Banixco) raised its benchmark interest rate to 6.75 percent - up from 3.75 percent a year earlier, largely because inflationary pressures have been increasing. Back in April, the peso weakened against the dollar by 7.2% relative to a year earlier, fueling concern about the rising prices of imports.

Read the rest of this entry »

May
12
2017

Growth in American manufacturing jobs? It’s happening in Michigan

by Gad Levanon and Diane Lim

Today’s jobs report reinforces the slow yet steady recovery of the auto industry. Since 2009 when auto manufacturing jobs bottomed out at just over 600,000 jobs, the sector has seen steady improvement: back above 900,000 jobs for the past two years and at 946,300 in April, according to today’s report.

Still, U.S. manufacturing and auto manufacturing jobs have yet to reach their pre-recession levels. And as we’ve said in our Hill column before, the recession by no means can serve as the scapegoat for the challenges facing the manufacturing industry.

But for a happy story about manufacturing, look no further than Michigan.

Read the rest of this entry »

May
12
2017

Our unemployment rate is great, so why aren’t wages rising faster?

Authored by Gad Levanon and Brian Schaitkin.

Five years ago, an unemployment rate of 4.4 percent — which the latest jobs report shows — would have been unthinkable. The impact of the tighter labor market is noticeable in larger recruiting difficulties and higher quit rates, but so far low unemployment has not been sufficient to deliver the types of wage increases workers crave. Nominal wage growth has remained stubbornly below 3 percent. Adjusting for inflation, real wage growth remains below 1 percent. In fact, the last time workers truly had leverage to enjoy an extended period of real wage growth was during the halcyon days of the dot-com boom.

So what factors are preventing workers from securing wages in an environment that should be favorable to them?

First, worker sentiment indicators suggest that the labor market is as tight as it was at the end of the last expansion, but not tight enough to force more robust wage growth just yet. The “labor market differential” is a valuable measure derived from two questions in the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Survey. It is calculated as the difference between the share of respondents who believe jobs are plentiful and those who believe jobs are hard to get. This measure currently sits at a slightly higher level than right before the Great Recession, though still far below record high levels reached in 2000. Should the measure improve further, payrolls may well rise.

Moreover, measures of productivity and inflation also serve as key drivers of wage growth. Since 2005, average productivity growth (the amount produced by a worker per hour) has been considerably slower than during the period between 1997 to 2004. Slower productivity growth means firms are receiving lower returns per worker and therefore are unwilling to pay higher wages. A low inflation environment in recent years has also reduced the need of employers to compensate for increases in the cost of living, which contributed to lower wage growth.

The structure of the labor market has changed dramatically since 2000. More Americans work in these service sector jobs, which also lend themselves to more flexibility for employers in determining business location and tapping into many different pools of workers. With lower union membership rates, service-providing industries can utilize alternative work arrangements more. For example, the rise of contract labor has allowed firms to hire janitors, security guards, and other workers in non-core functions at lower costs. Also, the changing age composition of the labor force has held down wage gains as a large number of experienced and well-paid older workers are retiring.

Finally, it is important to remember that wage growth lags behind a tighter labor market, so the best of times for workers may well lie ahead. Unemployment fell below 5 percent in the middle of 2005, but it was only in the middle of 2007 that real wage growth moved above 1.0 percent. By this standard, faster wage growth could arrive at the end of this year or at the beginning of 2018.

The Atlanta Federal Reserve tracks wages of those who have remained employed for the past 12 months and that measure shows that wages started growing at a more rapid clip almost two years ago. Some of the workers rejoining the ranks of the employed now have spent years away from the labor market and therefore command lower wages, bringing down the overall average. With fewer workers left on the sideline though, employers will have increased difficulty filling vacancies. A seller’s market could well be on the horizon for workers soon, and with that a long sought after raise.

This piece originally appeared in “The Hill.”

May
03
2017

America’s Foodies are Powering the Economy with Manufacturing Jobs

Authored by Gad Levanon and Diane Lim.

In a column last month, one of us detailed the long-term decline in manufacturing jobs. But it turns out that the somewhat gloomy story by no means pervades the whole manufacturing sector. On the upside, in April’s jobs report, it serves as a reminder of America’s impressive ability to make and manufacture food.

While overall manufacturing employment has been on a fairly constant upswing since 2010, it still remains more than 1.5 million jobs below its pre-recession level from 10 years ago. Although food manufacturing jobs, now at 1.6 million, comprise just 13 percent of total manufacturing jobs, food manufacturing has contributed more than all of the net new manufacturing jobs over the past year, as the rest of manufacturing has lost 3,000 jobs. And unlike the rest of manufacturing which has failed to get back to pre-recession employment levels, there are now over 100,000 more food manufacturing jobs than before the recession.

So why has food employment done so well?

One reason: despite food manufacturing being a “goods-producing” industry, the American consumer increasingly views food as more of an “experience” and less of just a “thing.” The growing preference for “food experiences” means higher demand for food and, ultimately, more jobs producing food. Start with the simple fact that food consumed away at restaurants now surpasses food consumed at home. Consider all the labor that goes into satisfying, for example, the young urban couple who now wants a distinctive presentation of the food — and to boot, a backstory of the ingredients in the food. Look no further than the rise of the “foodie” — a term that would leave most scratching their heads even a decade ago.

Second, demand for food is by necessity a constant, no matter our economic circumstances. It is not adversely affected by an economic downturn in the way purchases of durable or luxury goods — houses, cars, household appliances, even clothing — are. We have to eat, no matter where we eat, at home or at a restaurant. When incomes decline, we might tighten our food budgets by eating out less and substituting store-branded grocery items for national ones, but we cannot eliminate our food purchases.

Third, in contrast to some other things our country makes, the U.S. still has a “comparative advantage” in producing food. In the simplest of terms, America does food well. Among the reasons, the food “supply chain” journey still remains largely within our borders. This matters due to the perishable nature of food. Overall, the country has the benefit of close proximity between production, at food manufacturing facilities, and consumption, at grocery stores and restaurants.

And that supply-chain journey that food takes from farm to table has a dizzying array of steps in the process. As a Committee for Economic Development of The Conference Board report points out, the process involves and employs millions of people in a huge diversity of roles. By no means is it just workers in the food manufacturing industry, but people who work on the service side of food. For example, employment at food and beverage stores now far exceeds pre-recession levels, up more than 250,000 jobs over the past 10 years.

Apparently, we Americans especially enjoy our carbs and sweets, as employment in retail bakeries (think gourmet cupcakes) has increased by more than 25 percent in 10 years. And our growing preference to eat out shows in the employment numbers for restaurants and bars, now far above pre-recession levels by about 2 million jobs.

Even as our economy shifts from making things to providing experiences, the American “foodie” turns out to be a manufacturing and job creating powerhouse. So with today being Friday, let’s dine and drink to that!

Mar
30
2017

3 Things the Jobs Report Doesn’t Tell Us About the US Economy

This blog is authored by Gad Levanon and Diane Lim.

Like every U.S. jobs report, this morning’s report gave an incomplete snapshot of the labor market’s current condition and trajectory.

Make no mistake-the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report remains the gold standard in terms of being the highest quality, most reliable labor market data out there.

But here are three reasons why this monthly report fails to provide a high-resolution view of the labor market-a view that we economists need to better understand what’s going on.

It doesn’t fully capture unconventional jobs like Uber.

The survey questions fail to fully capture the rising trend of non-standard job arrangements. For example, jobs associated with mobile platforms, like Uber, along with the broader population of the self-employed, including temps and contractors.

These types of work arrangements are not always viewed or counted as employment by either the “worker” or “business” surveys that feed into the BLS report. From the worker’s perspective, a part-time (and often sporadic) activity, even if paid, can be considered more of a hobby or side gig than a “job.”

From the business’s perspective, hiring a “consultant” for specific services is not the same as bringing more employees onto the company payroll. So when the surveys ask workers about their employment situation and ask businesses to “count jobs,” these non-standard work arrangements typically fall under the survey’s radar, and thus don’t get captured in the employment report.

It describes the employment conditions of groups, not individuals.

The report aggregates businesses into industry categories and workers into large demographic categories. Any particular group might show close to zero change in the number of jobs or employment status. For example, in today’s jobs report the manufacturing industry shows a gain of only around 5,000 jobs out of 12.3 million, and the demographic categories of adult men, whites, and those with college degrees each show no change in unemployment rates.

Yet if we could look more closely across different parts of the country, different companies within an industry, and even different occupations within a company, we would likely see plenty of job churning. (In the manufacturing industry, for example, around 275,000 jobs are gained or lost in any month.) And we would likely see changes in the composition of jobs across the narrower categories within the broader ones. Those more micro-level movements would give us much better clues about where the overall labor market and economy as a whole is headed.

It says “a job is a job” rather than identifying “whose” job it is.

Finally, the two separate surveys that feed into the employment report make it difficult to figure out how employment arrangements are distributed across real people. The establishment survey counts jobs as reported by businesses, while the household survey measures employment and unemployment as reported by individuals.

One person can hold multiple jobs, but a job is a job in the establishment survey. Each job in the establishment job count cannot be linked to specific people in the employment status household survey. A person employed in three part-time jobs can be counted as one “full-time” employed person in the household survey (holding multiple jobs), and three jobs in the establishment survey. So more jobs counted from the business side does not always mean “more employment” from the household (real people) perspective.

The monthly employment report falls short in providing the microscopic, high-resolution view of the labor market that economists yearn for. That’s why BLS does so much more, and collects so much more data, than what goes into the monthly employment report-a prime example being their survey of contingent and alternative employment arrangements. They last fielded this survey a dozen years ago in 2005, but have scheduled the next one to be fielded this spring, with the results set to come out in late 2017 or early 2018.

These kinds of supplemental surveys that collect more granular, micro-level information on employment status are essential for economists to have a better understanding of today’s uncertain and ever-changing economic conditions.

This piece originally appeared in “The Hill.”

Mar
24
2017

The Real Reasons Behind the Fall in America’s Manufacturing Jobs

This morning’s employment report shows a healthy increase of 235,000 total (nonfarm) jobs last month—pretty much across the board, in all major categories except for retail services. The manufacturing sector alone gained 28,000 jobs—a stronger showing than we’ve seen in a long time.

But we shouldn’t break out the champagne over one month’s worth of manufacturing jobs. Compared with a year ago (February 2016), manufacturing has been essentially flat (up just 7,000 jobs). Looking further back it becomes obvious that manufacturing just has not followed the typical storyline of an industry merely living through and recovering from the Great Recession.

In fact, the saga of manufacturing jobs is not so much about the cyclical recession, but more about more fundamental and longer-term economic trends.

Over the last 10 years, while other sectors have made great strides or at least inched upward, manufacturing has lost over 1.6 million jobs—down from nearly 14 million in February 2007 to 12.4 million in today’s report. Moreover, as a share of total employment, manufacturing jobs comprised just over 10 percent of total nonfarm jobs in February 2007; now, a decade later, they comprise only 8.5 percent.

It doesn’t look likely that once the economy has fully recovered from the recession, that manufacturing will be back to where it was before the recession (in the “old normal”). So what has dealt this more permanent blow to manufacturing?

Believe it or not, it has little if anything to do with public policy. Look to four factors.

First, consumers nowadays increasingly opt for “experiences” rather than “things.” This largely results from the changing demographic composition of American consumers. The rise of retiring, empty-nester Baby Boomers naturally leads to more demand for health care services and tourist destinations. At the other end of the generational spectrum, Millennials can’t live without services like Uber and Netflix; that also means they don’t need their own car or television. A trend away from “things” to “experiences” means jobs in service-providing industries rise (like health care). At the same time, manufacturing jobs in goods-producing industries fall.

Second, there’s automation. With each passing day, companies from a range of sectors use robots to a greater and greater extent. Their capabilities particularly suit them to work alongside or take over the type of work done by manufacturing production workers—tasks that are highly physical, precisely defined, and routinized. And automation will only intensify down the road: a recent McKinsey report determined that about 60 percent of time across all manufacturing jobs is spent performing activities that current technology can automate.

Third, off-shoring production often comes at a cheaper price tag. Locating manufacturing processes in other countries allows companies to leverage the less expensive labor available. Moreover, America’s native-born pipeline of young workers shows no signs of gravitating to the manufacturing sector. Immigrants are not well represented among manufacturing workers either. So we don’t enjoy the benefit of robust supply.

And last but not least, the manufacturing sector as a whole has little worker mobility. During the Great Recession, workers who lost manufacturing jobs disproportionately consisted of middle-aged white men living and working in the Midwest. These workers spent decades at a particular company or in a specific line of manufacturing work. Given their family roots and community ties, they cannot easily move to other parts of the country, where other forms of work (even manufacturing) may be more plentiful.

Mudslinging about which party dealt a blow to manufacturing can make for good politics. But the trends make clear: no public policy could have so much influence as to stop all the fundamental, economic reasons for the industry’s decline. We can’t fight the economic forces driving manufacturing employment, and neither should we try. Such a strategy is inevitably counterproductive. We should focus our public policy efforts on helping those manufacturing workers who got laid off during the Great Recession find a “new normal” – one that maximizes both their desired participation in the labor market and their well-being.

This piece originally appeared in “The Hill.”

Mar
10
2017

This Lost Generation May Finally Buy Pricey Things Now That Their Paychecks are Soaring

https://www.thestreet.com/story/14036395/1/the-solid-jobs-report-could-mean-one-thing-a-lost-generation-may-finally-spend-on-luxuries.html

This piece originally appeared in “The Street.”

Dec
14
2016

Italy says no, Renzi resigns, what to know about the Italian referendum

This blog was written by Ilaria Maselli, Brian Schaitkin, and Klaas de Vries.

Asked whether they agree or not with a set of changes to the Constitution, 65 percent of Italians (almost 33 million voters) showed up to answer on Sunday December 4. The response was a loud no: 59.1 percent of the votes. How did this referendum become such a critical question not just in Italy but also for the global economy?

  • In the past weeks some commentators made the connection between an eventual no win and the risk for Italy to leave the Euro Area. The initial reaction from the markets was quite mild and contradicted this argument. The spread between the interest rates on Italian and German government bond (a common measure of sovereign risk in Europe) did increase initially, albeit limitedly (on December 14 is 150 base points). This is because key economic agents anticipated the risk of a no vote.
  • The no side was driven to victory by strong support from those under 35 years old, while those who were 55+ voted to support the referendum. Despite vast disparities in wealth among regions, the referendum was rejected everywhere except for Italians voting abroad. The share of no-votes was particularly high in southern regions.
  • Urgent issues on the table of the resigning government are the Budget law for 2017 and the recapitalization of the banks. Monte dei Paschi is on the top of the list, but it is not the only bank that is suffering due to a combination of bad management and large amount of non-performing loans after years of stagnant growth. As many as 360 billion euros of credit are at risk of not being paid back to banks after years of economic stagnation.
  • One way of thinking about this referendum is as “the anti-catennacio referendum,” named for the famously defensive style of generations of Italian national football teams. The aim of the referendum was to change the structure of government to make possible the more ambitious reforms former PM Matteo Renzi had in mind even when they conflicted with entrenched interests. Growth in Italy has been shallow for the past two decades. When Greece and Spain were experiencing a boom before the 2008/09 recession, Italy was struggling to achieve a 1.5 percent GDP growth. Since then, unemployment has remained stubbornly high, especially among the young.
  • The rejection of the reform is a lost chance of modernizing the economy and making product market reforms easier. As our global economic outlook model shows, the problems with the Italian economy are mostly on the supply side. Since 1999, total factor productivity – that is efficiency with which production factors, labor and capital, are being used in the productivity process - contributed negatively to growth (see chart). In other words, talents, capital, ideas, credit started to match in a less efficient way compared to the past.
  • There is no room for optimism down the road: the new Gentiloni government has a narrow mandate. This means that the lack of further reforms risks making Italy a less and less attractive place for business. This will eventually translate into even slower growth.

ilaria-blog-chart

Watch Facebook Live video here: https://www.facebook.com/ConferenceBoard/videos/10154671023157707/

The Key Business Issues You Should Be Thinking About Now

CEO Challenge® 2017

The Conference Board CEO Challenge® 2017 reveals CEOs’ most pressing business challenges and strategies to mitigate them.

Read the 2017 report

Economy & Business Environment Practice

As you face information overload and fast-changing business conditions, we help you make sense of the most relevant economic data to support your decision-making.

Learn more