Showing posts with label wages. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wages. Show all posts

Monday, April 30, 2007

Another Economic Disconnect: PAUL KRUGMAN - Profit Gusher

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YORK TIMES

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Another Economic Disconnect

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 30, 2007

In the Bush years high profits haven’t led to high investment, and rising productivity hasn’t led to rising wages.


Last fall Edward Lazear, the Bush administration’s top economist, explained that what’s good for corporations is good for America. “Profits,” he declared, “provide the incentive for physical capital investment, and physical capital growth contributes to productivity growth. Thus profits are important not only for investors but also for the workers who benefit from the growth in productivity.”

In other words, ask not for whom the closing bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Unfortunately, these days none of what Mr. Lazear said seems to be true. In the Bush years high profits haven’t led to high investment, and rising productivity hasn’t led to rising wages.

--MORE--

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Dow at 13,000. How to account for the disconnect?

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Call us skeptical by gimleteye

You read and hear the same news we do. Yesterday, on a day the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 13,000 for the first time, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll disclosed that only 22 percent believe the nation is headed in the right direction.

How to account for the disconnect?

Wall Street apparently believes that the consumer economy is strong. But is consumer confidence really so different from what people feel about the war in Iraq and the collapse of the housing markets and sharply tightening credit across the nation?

It is true that Wall Street has always tended to view gridlock in Washington as good for business, and business is generally good in a time of war.

We look, though, at the disparity in wages, between the economic elite and the mass of Americans ("Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans--those with incomes that year of more than $348,000--receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows." NY Times, March 29, 2007) and believe that something else is going on.

The earth has been "flattened" by globalization. Americans have benefited from high quality goods manufactured in low wage nations, but those benefits are diminishing. People are very anxious, and with good reason.

A dollar of US labor no longer towers over our neighbors or trading partners. We are not educating and training American workers fast enough to compete for higher paying jobs in the new global economy. Hungrier workers are getting those jobs.

It doesn't mean we aren't working hard. We are. In urban areas where housing costs have skyrocketed, two wage-earner families are on a fast treadmill just to keep pace with a single wage earner family, a few decades ago. And businesses are finding out that the last dollar of productivity squeezed by technological efficiencies is not necessarily protecting the higher paying jobs that remain.

The stock market is agnostic to the difficulties ordinary Americans are experiencing. The stock market likes what globalization is doing for large multinational corporations, whose executives are part of a new economic elite, defined by the highest wage differential with ordinary workers since the Great Depression.

The markets are glad. Americans are sad and increasingly irrelevant to the operation of the world economy.

In Nation this week, William Greider interviews economist Ralph Gomory who explains, "America... becomes increasingly dependent, buying from abroad more and more of what its citizens consume and producing relatively less at home. US incomes stagnate as the high-wage jobs disappear and US exports become a smaller share of the world total."

Greider writes, "The conventional win-win assurances... are facile generalizations ... some nations, in other words, do indeed become 'losers'."

What seems to be driving both foreign and domestic policy in the United States is the urgency of 'winners' to separate themselves from the afflicted losers of the global economy. It is not just the issue of wage disparity: that the "the top 1 percent (of income earners) recieved 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from the 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income." We all know what happened in 1928.

No, there are more subtle effects, like the fact that so many Americans are driving gas-guzzling SUV's while Exxon coasts from one record profit to the next, a promise sold to consumers by a domestic auto industry that claimed it could not afford high gas mileage standards, leaving Toyota to dismantle US jobs on the basis of better engineered and more fuel efficient products that US auto suppliers couldn't build then but apparently will have to build now, now that they have lost that war, and, American jobs.

We could be wrong. Every government bean counter and statistician for the government wants to find good news in the numbers and even will 'cook the books' (ie. how inflation is measured) when reality cuts too close to the bone.

We noted, yesterday, how the good news on manufacturing and exports highlighted the contribution of a single company, Boeing Aircraft.

It seems inevitable to us that the collapse of housing markets will drag the economy downward. We look at the cranes busily moving over the Miami skyline, hurrying massive condominiums toward certificates of occupancy, we watch our local county commission doing back flips to satisfy the greed of the development lobby, built on the back of liar loans, mortgage fraud, and incestuous relationships between builders and lenders, and shake our heads.

But we may not be wrong. We may just be early.

Monday, March 19, 2007

Inflation is eating US wage gains

from the March 19, 2007 edition

Food, housing, and healthcare costs rose at a 6 percent yearly rate in the past three months.

The Christian Science Monitor

Brian Fortinberry, who runs Front Range Barbecue in Colorado Springs, Colo., is feeling the brunt of a spike in prices.

Beef costs about 10 percent more than it did in January, he says. Fruit and lettuce are also pricier. Gasoline has gone up, adding to costs when his restaurant does a catering job. And Colorado voters just raised the minimum wage – pushing up his payroll tab.

"We haven't increased our prices, but we're looking to do that," Mr. Fortinberry says. "Eventually you have to pass it along."

The economy may be a bit cooler than it was a year ago, but inflation is still running hot. It's not like the runaway price train of the '70s, but it's enough so that people notice at the grocery checkout, when they pay for day care, or when they buy college textbooks.

Some prices – namely for housing, food, and medical care – have been more noticeable than others of late, jumping at a 6 percent annual rate during the three-month period from December through February, the government reported Friday. Retail gasoline prices rose 7 percent in just two weeks, according to a March 12 report by the US Energy Information Administration.

Of course, not everything is getting more expensive. The core rate of inflation – prices of all goods and services minus volatile food and energy – has been edging up, not soaring, for the past three months. Still, at a 2.6 percent annual rate, inflation is hotter than Federal Reserve officials would like.

Economists are divided over what happens next. Some say inflation is bound to taper off – though maybe not for some months – as the ripple effects of a housing-market downturn cool the economy. Others say that rising prices will persist and that the economy, instead of cooling off, will run close to its speed limit.

"You're going to see continued [inflationary] pressure," predicts Michael Darda, chief economist at MKM Partners, an investment firm in Greenwich, Conn. "Firms will find the pricing power [to pass along increased costs]. I think it is a broad-based issue."

Doug Stoddard, who works at a computer job in Boston, doesn't need government reports to tell him about rising prices. He's seen them in numerous bills over the past year.

"Rent went up. Cable went up. My gym membership went up," he says.

His subway pass rose from $44 to $59 a month. And he's noticed higher prices for gasoline and groceries.

Mr. Stoddard figures that all this has outstripped the change in his income. Higher health-insurance costs alone ate up most of his last raise, he says.

Wage gains of Fall 2006 dissipate

Millions Americans face a similar touch-and-go battle to keep up with rising prices.

In the past two months, average weekly earnings have fallen in real terms (adjusted for inflation). That marks a reversal from last fall when, thanks to a dip in energy prices, real incomes were enjoying sturdy gains.

Consumers are being buffeted from several directions. The resurgence of inflation comes even as homeowners face a dip in property values and as the stock market has sagged from a recent peak. All this dragged consumer confidence down a notch in an index released Friday by the University of Michigan.

Hopes dim for an interest-rate cut

These economic crosswinds also pose a challenge for Federal Reserve policymakers. At a meeting Tuesday and Wednesday, they will weigh the risks to the economy – whether the threat of inflation is greater than the opposing forces that could cause an economic slowdown.

Many investors have been anticipating that the Fed will cut its short-term interest rate later this spring. That would help ensure that the housing downturn doesn't push the nation into a recession.

To pave the way for such a move, the Fed could first announce a "neutral" policy stance, rather than its current inflation-fighting bias toward raising interest rates.

But the latest news on consumer prices is dimming hopes for both the tonal shift and a subsequent interest-rate cut.

Not everyone has given up on the possibility of some easing by the Fed. But it now looks less imminent.

"The Fed will be on hold for the balance of this year," predicts Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at LaSalle Bank in Chicago. He says surveys of wholesale and retail prices "are suggesting that inflation is not entirely under control."

In fact, the Labor Department's consumer price index on Friday showed price momentum in a wide range of goods. Food, clothing, shelter, medical care, energy, and airline tickets all posted sizable gains in February.

Some of the recent price changes may represent one-time shocks. Beef prices are reacting, in part, to a devastating storm that buried cattle country in snow. The higher costs for fresh vegetables and fruits such as oranges can be attributed in part to bad weather. Oil and gasoline prices have gone up and down based on forecasts for demand, production quotas set by OPEC nations, and glitches at refineries.

But if the Fed doesn't need to worry about any one price, it does have the task of watching the overall price level. A loose monetary policy can allow a broader cycle of price hikes in the economy, damaging consumer and investor confidence. Such a spiral, once started, can be hard to stop.

The Fed wants "to maintain a healthy investment environment where investors are not seeing their ... returns eaten by rising prices," says Mr. Tannenbaum. That stability helps businesses create jobs and boost productivity, allowing workers' real income to rise.

Some economists say a cooling economy will help to tame inflation. Prices have been falling, in fact, for cars, computer equipment, and other categories that respond to cyclical swings by consumers.

Other analysts are skeptical that the economy is slowing down. Mr. Darda expects both output and inflation to show surprising strength.

"I think we're going to end the year with core inflation much closer to 3 than to 2.5" percent, compared with 12 months before, Darda says. The Fed may not act soon, but "the next move is probably a tightening."

Mark Trumbull | Staff writer