Showing posts with label manufacturing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label manufacturing. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Guest Blogger 2012: What’s Ahead for the World Economy by John Manzella


Slow growth, high unemployment, political gridlock, European fallout, Chinese tension, and a bright spot in manufacturing.

Caution, volatility and uncertainty are three key words we will continue to hear in 2012. Due to slow economic growth, which is projected to hover around 2 percent, the unemployment rate likely will continue to remain in the 8 to 9 percent range this year. Prior to the Great Recession, the United States had not experienced similar unemployment levels since 1983. When including those who have stopped looking for work or have reluctantly accepted part-time jobs, the rate could be as high as 16 percent, analysts say.

Several factors will continue to put a drag on growth. For example, some estimates indicate one in five homeowners owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. Until home values stabilize and consumers feel more confident about their future, consumer demand, which typically represents 70 percent of gross domestic product, will continue to lag.

In addition, declining U.S. federal and state government spending will depress U.S. growth in 2012. And with the presidential election this November, we can expect continued gridlock and an inability of our policymakers to come together to execute necessary reforms, restructure entitlement programs, increase investment in education, research and infrastructure, and improve immigration laws and the tax code.

Gerrymandering, the redrawing of congressional districts to assure dominance by one party over the other, shares some responsibility. It has enabled politicians to stake out extreme positions and no longer seek approval of the moderate-voting public. This makes compromise difficult.

European Fallout
A major factor impacting U.S. growth this year will be the European debt crisis. Although this was a big story in 2011, its impact certainly will be felt in 2012.

On a cumulative basis, Europe is the source of 72 percent of foreign direct investment in the United States. It‘s also the destination of 22 percent of our exports. A disruption in U.S.-European trade and investment, as well as major European defaults, can have serious consequences on this side of the Atlantic.

The 27 members of the European Union (EU) have different economies, fiscal disciplines, democracies, histories, values, and languages. Holding together a group this diverse is difficult in the best of times. Now, due to its debt crisis, many are wondering if the eurozone, the 17 EU member countries using the euro, will survive.

An underlying problem with many EU members has been their inability to adapt to globalization. When a country recognizes the rules of the free market and globalization, and decides to abide by them, it puts on what author and New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, in 1999 called the “Golden Straitjacket.” But to fit, Friedman said, countries must adhere to various policies to enhance national competitiveness.

The United States began squeezing into the Golden Straitjacket in the 1980s. However, one could argue that Greece, and perhaps Spain and Italy, haven’t donned the straitjacket or, in some ways, adapted as well to globalization as the United States or several northern European countries like Germany, Austria and the Netherlands.

Stronger American Manufacturing
According to the Institute for Supply Chain Management, economic activity in the manufacturing sector expanded in December for the 29th consecutive month. Output will continue to rise as it has for decades. Surprising to many, American manufacturing value-added output has tripled since 1980, rising from $558 billion to $1.7 trillion in 2010.

However, due to new technologies and automation, fewer employees can produce much more in less time. Consequently, manufacturing employment has fallen from its high of 19.5 million in 1979 to 11.7 million last November. In December, Americans were reminded of this fact by President Obama, who said “Steel mills that needed 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100 employees, so layoffs too often became permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle.”
In turn, labor as a percentage of a product’s total costs has decreased to approximately 10 to 30 percent, on average, analysts say. As the labor component continues to shrink, and Chinese labor rates, fuel costs and expenses related to long distance supply chain logistics continue to rise, it makes sense for some U.S. producers to “backshore” or return previously offshored manufacturing from China to the United States.

Rising U.S.-Chinese Tensions
Due to upcoming U.S. elections and the selection of new Chinese Central Committee members, including China’s presidency, expect harsh rhetoric on both sides this year to escalate as political candidates pander to their constituents. Plus, difficult issues, including piracy of American intellectual property, the protection of certain Chinese strategic sectors, and the Chinese military buildup, will continue to fuel the fire. But the currency issue will continue to remain a primary irritant.

Since July 2005, when the Chinese yuan, also known as the renminbi, was allowed to climb in value, it has risen from about 8.28 to nearly 6.36 per U.S. dollar. Nevertheless, most economists agree that it still is considerably undervalued giving Chinese exporters an unfair advantage that’s boosting the U.S. trade deficit. But much of the tension here is caused by misinformation. Why? The true U.S. trade deficit with China is not accurately reflected in conventional trade statistics. Thus, Chinese value-added, as a component of Chinese exports to the United States, is about 50 percent, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission. Others put this figure much lower.

Consider Apple’s Ipod. When imported into the United States from China, the iPod‘s value is identified at approximately $150. Yet, only about $4 of this is Chinese value-added derived from Chinese labor and components, according to the University of California. The remaining $146 represents the value of components produced in the United States, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and Korea. Nevertheless, $150, not $4, is added to U.S. import statistics, artificially increasing the U.S.-China trade deficit.

Long-Term Optimism
Although our economy will remain weak this year, American optimism, free market capitalism, acceptance of immigrants and a brilliant Constitution will propel the United States forward for generations to come.


John Manzella is a frequent speaker, author of "Grasping Globalization," and president of Manzella Trade Communications (www.ManzellaTrade.com), a strategic communications firm focusing on global business and today’s leading economic issues. His firm provides insight and analysis, and crafts communications programs to help clients educate stakeholders and decision makers. Services include custom publishing, public affairs, public relations, marketing, consulting, and speaking engagements.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

US Manufacturing – Global Jack Rabbit?

In my last post (May 17) I made some comments about US manufacturing noting that output of manufacturing companies had grown in the last 10 years. I said I wanted to focus on output for that post and would see how comments might bring up some additional questions.  If US manufacturing output is rising then a couple questions arise. First, how did the US compare to other countries? Second, what are the sources of the output increases?

To answer the first question I found data at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod4.pdf . The second question can be answered many ways but a first step is to recall that that output growth can always be decomposed into two parts – (1) the contribution from labor utilization plus (2) the contribution from the productivity of labor. Luckily the data source at the BLS had information for the years 2000 to 2007 for 19 countries and for manufacturing output, labor hours, and output per hour. Viola.   

The bottom line is that US manufacturing growth stood out when compared with 18 other countries.  The US was in a pack of countries (the Jack Rabbits) that had very high manufacturing output growth. Among those countries the US distinguished itself with respect to the relative contribution of manufacturing productivity growth to manufacturing output growth.  The Muddlers and the Brinkers had slower manufacturing output growth than the Jack Rabbits but in all cases would have done even worse had it not been for productivity growth. That is, productivity growth was important to all 19 countries.

This brings us back to macroeconomic policy. The data show that replacing labor with capital was common among almost all countries from 2000 to 2007. (The BLS also presents data for these countries for the 30-year time period from 1979 to 2009. The story is basically the same – virtually all countries had declines in manufacturing employment that were offset by increased productivity. I focus on the 2000 to 2007 time period to keep things current and simple.)
·        
  • The   US was typical in the sense of having negative annual average growth in labor hours.
  •   It also shows that to attain strong growth in manufacturing output it will take continued strong growth in productivity.
  •   Finally, productivity growth will come only within a business environment that is conducive to investment with sanguine expectations.
Below are the details of the analysis and a presentation of the figures for the 19 countries.  I assign each of these countries to one of three groups with respect to growth: Jack Rabbits, Muddlers, and Brinkers.

How did US manufacturing output fare compared to other countries?
·         US output growth from 2000 to 2007 averaged 2.9% per year – the seventh highest rate among the 19 countries.
·         The rates ranged from 7.4% per year for the Czech Republic to -0.6% for Canada.
·         Notice that the top 8 countries were diverse – high income Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, and Norway); Asian countries (Taiwan, S. Korea, and Singapore); and finally one Central European transforming nation (the Czech Republic).
·         The slowest growing manufacturing sectors were generally from high income European countries and Canada

% Change in manufacturing output, average annual 2000 to 2007
Czech Rep
7.4
Taiwan
7.2
S. Korea
6.8
Finland
6.1
Singapore
5.5
Sweden
5
USA
2.9
Norway
2.6
Japan
2.3
Germany
2.1
Netherlands
1.9
Australia
1.6
Spain
1.2
France
1.1
Belgium
0.8
Denmark
0.6
Italy
0.3
UK
0
Canada
-0.6

Next we examine how much of this output growth was the result of changes in labor hours, labor productivity, a combination of the hours and productivity.

The results for labor hours are as follows.
·         Singapore was the only country to increase labor hours from 2000 to 2007. Singapore’s strong output rate of 5.5% per year was very much the result of strong employment growth of 3.5% per year. Singapore is the only country among these 19 to generate most of its manufacturing growth through more labor input.
·         The UK and the USA led the 19 countries in labor input reduction with average annual decreases of 3.9% and 3.1% respectively. Other rich nations had similar patterns – Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Canada, and so on.

% Change in labor hours, average annual 2000 to 2007
UK
-3.9
USA
-3.1
Denmark
-2.4
France
-2.0
Netherlands
-1.7
Canada
-1.4
Japan
-1.4
Sweden
-1.4
Germany
-1.3
Belgium
-1.2
S. Korea
-1.1
Australia
-0.8
Finland
-0.7
Spain
-0.6
Taiwan
-0.4
Norway
-0.3
Italy
-0.1
Czech Rep
0.0
Singapore
3.5


Productivity growth helps explain the ability of countries to grow their manufacturing output despite these reductions in employment hours.
·         South Korea led this group of 19 countries with productivity growing of almost 8% per year.
·         US productivity growth averaged 6% per year.
·         S. Korea was followed by Taiwan, the Czech Republic, Finland, Sweden, and the USA
·         Countries with the slowest productivity growth were Italy, Canada, and Spain.

% Change in manufacturing productivity, average annual 2000 to 2007
S. Korea
7.9
Taiwan
7.6
Czech Rep
7.4
Finland
6.8
Sweden
6.4
USA
6.2
UK
3.9
Japan
3.7
Netherlands
3.6
Germany
3.4
France
3.1
Denmark
3.0
Norway
2.9
Australia
2.4
Belgium
2.0
Singapore
2.0
Spain
1.8
Canada
0.8
Italy
0.4

Below is a summary of the key points.
Because employment was shrinking in all countries except two, productivity is the key explanation for output growth.

Singapore is unusual because it had strong growth in employment – thus employment growth (3.5% per year) explained a great deal of that country’s growth of 5.5% per year.

The Jack Rabbits: Several countries with strong output growth had stellar productivity growth as the source of their manufacturing expansions – Sweden, South Korea, Taiwan, Norway, Finland and the Czech Republic

The US leads the Jack Rabbits – This group had strong productivity growth behind very strong output growth The US leads that group by virtue of the percentage contribution of productivity to output growth. In the US the productivity contribution of 6% per year was double the output growth of approximately 4% per year.  Several countries had stronger output growth than the US. Others had stronger productivity growth. But the US contribution of productivity to output deserves recognition.

Brinkers on the Edge – Canada, UK, Italy, France, Belgium, and Denmark were countries with very slow or negative manufacturing output growth. Without the productivity changes the labor reductions would have led to declines or larger declines in output.

Muddlers – had average to below-average manufacturing growth sparked by just enough productivity growth to offset the negative impacts of labor growth on output. Muddlers include the Netherlands, Germany, Japan, Spain, and Australia

In all three groups productivity was the key to manufacturing growth. Productivity is costly and requires significant investment. Investment requires financial markets that efficiently channel the supply of national savings to risk-taking firms. Some governments may use industrial policy to pick winners and funnel or incent financial flows to the chosen few but such policies have been shown to be risky and often wasteful. What is not controversial is that all business firms must have the freedom, flexibility, ability, and desire to take considerable risks. Congress and the President need to take that to heart.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Misunderstanding Marvelous Manufacturing

Today is a big day for the debt ceiling. So I am going to avoid that topic for a little while. My last posting brought out a couple of issues so I would like to focus on those. First, what is up with manufacturing? I will show below that while manufacturing output has become a smaller portion of the US economy in the last 60 years – the sector has grown tremendously and there is an apparent change in trend toward increasing relative importance since about 1998. This posting is about the data and leaves little space for what it all means. I hope you help me get to that in the comments. Second, who reads this blog? Some of you have asked so I will say a little about that. 

One on my reasons for starting this blog in March of 2010 was that I wanted to have a way to stay connected to friends, students, colleagues, relatives, neighbors, high school girl friends, etc. Being newly retired in 2010 I also wanted to have something to do that kept me connected to the world of economics . So there you have it – a blog about econ that harasses a wide range of people.  As far as I am concerned it has worked. Whenever I say I am working on my blog, Betty does not ask me to take out the trash or weed the garden. The weekly blog postings have also led to lots of nice communications with old friends and new – and most of which have little to do with economics. For example, one student from a macro class I taught in 1986 wrote and asked me to change his grade.  The rough edge is that since the audience is so varied in background and interest it makes it difficult to really connect with any or all of you. So if you were thinking that you were alone in this regard, then you can quit thinking that. But I am undaunted. I will continue to try to write about econ and hope that some of you get the main gist of what I am saying. If not, you can always send me notes about other topics and just stay in touch.

Now let’s get to manufacturing. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about manufacturing in the USA and I want to get started on that topic. In my last blog I wrote about US business competitiveness and I singled out the recent news regarding growing strength in manufacturing output. Clearly manufacturing is important to the USA so I want to dig deeper into what’s true and what isn’t so true about manufacturing. I am going to use some data to back-up what I say. If you are skeptical about data then you won’t be much convinced. 

So let’s start with a word about data. One constant about data is that it never really adequately measures the item of your interest.  There is always something lacking. How many cars crossed the bridge today? That sounds easy but we might have a disagreement about what constitutes a car. For example, is a Kia Soul really a car or is it a vehicle from outer space?  Anyway, I think you know what I mean. The key question about data is whether or not it is good enough to indicate something about the subject. The scale says I gained 18 pounds in Italy (Did I tell you that we went to Italy for 19 days?). Okay, so another scale says I gained 28 pounds. Who cares if it is 18 or 28 pounds, I ate enough to fill three Rhinos in mating season and I had to buy new pants with elastic fabric. So long as the data is good enough for the purpose at hand and is not purposely biased in one direction or another – then we collect and use data and don’t worry too much about it not being perfect.

In this post about manufacturing I am not going to focus on employment.  There are few major misunderstandings about manufacturing employment. It is down. Period. Down.  I would rather concentrate on output of manufacturing companies. There is some belief that we are producing less in the way of manufacturing in this country and we have become a nation of burger flippers. Having eaten at 5 Guys lately I see nothing much wrong with being a national of burger sellers, but let’s not get back to my weight right away.  My point is that while there is a smidgen of truth about manufacturing output, it is a bit misleading. So let’s get a t it.

The source of the data is the Bureau of Economic Analysis – GDP by Industry found at http://bea.gov/industry/gdpbyind_data.htm  There are several tables available at the site – the data I am quoting comes from what is called value added in chained 2005 dollars. In short, this data tells you what each industry produced and it purges price changes. Changes discussed below are totally the result of changes in output. Because of the distorting effects of the last recession, I am going to use data from 2007 and backward. In 2007 GDP was $13.23 trillion and manufacturing output was $1.69 trillion. Thus the output of manufacturing companies amounted to about 12.8% of US GDP (output produced within the borders of the USA).  Sixty years before in 1947 manufacturing output was $62.4 billion and was about 25.6% of that year’s GDP. What can we learn from that?

·        First, manufacturing output, sans prices, grew from $62.4 billion to $1.69 trillion in 60 years.  It grew by a factor of 27 times.

·         Second, even back in 1947 when the US was producing much of the world’s manufactured goods, it represented only a little more than a quarter of the nation’s output. Back in 1947 wholesale and retail trade accounted for about 20% of US GDP and various services sectors (finance, insurance, real estate) accounted for another 16%.  So even if we go back to when I was a cute little tyke in Roy Rogers PJs, manufacturing in the USA was never the only dog in the race – the US was already a major producer of sales and services.
    ·         Third, in proportional terms, manufacturing output grew slower than Real GDP so its share of GDP fell from 25.6% to 12.8%. It’s share roughly halved in 60 years.
      ·         Fourth, the reduction in manufacturing’s share of GDP was gradual over these 60 years. Since globalization did not really begin in earnest until after about 1990, much more than half of the share reduction occurs before significant globalization during the Cold War. By the early 1990s the share had already fallen to about 16%. So it fell from 26% to 16% in the first 45 years and then from 16% to about 13% in the next two decades.

        Now let’s focus on more recent changes – from 1998 to 2007. In the table below I present changes in output of manufacturers, first in dollars and then in percents: The clear result is that the last 10 years have seen manufacturing keep up and compete. In those years manufacturing output rose in real terms by $445 billion – a 36% increase. That compares to real GDP rising by 29%. Thus during that period of economic growth between 1998 and 2007 the share of manufacturing output rose from 12% to 13% of GDP. While manufacturing did not rise as much as FIRE (Finance, Real Estate, and Insurance), it clearly grew more than many of the other key services sectors. Notice that while Retail Services increased, in dollar terms manufacturing increased three times more and at a much faster pace.

        NOTE: It may appear that I was enjoying a little JD this morning while editing these tables but I assure that nothing could be farther from the truth (burp) and that the fault for the wavy columns is totally this website. These columns look perfectly straight to me in edit mode. 

                                                                      Output Change: 1998 to 2007
        GDP                                                           $2.95 trillion         29%
        Manufacturing                                          $445 billion          36%
        FIRE                                                         $772 billion          39%
        Professional & Business Services  $391 billion          34%
        Education, health and Social assist.        $218 billion          28%
        Retail                                                        $162 billion          23%

        Not all sectors of manufacturing rose by 36% between 1998 and 2007. I list below the biggest winners and losers in manufacturing sectors in terms of dollar change between 1998 and 2007:

        Computer and electronic Products           $208 billion
        Chemical Products (includes pharma)             55
        Petroleum and Coal Products                        33
        Food, Beverage and Tobacco Products         32
        Motor Vehicles and Parts                              31
        Misc Manufacturing                                       25
        Fabricated Metal Products                            14
        Paper and Printing                                         -6
        Nonmetallic minerals                                      -6
        Textiles                                                          -6
        Apparel and Leather                                      -7
        Primary Metals                                             -17

        Other manufacturing sectors with positive growth of at least $3 billion but not in the table include: electrical equipment and appliances, machinery, wood, and plastics.

        In short, despite what you might have thought manufacturing output is larger and is growing. Before the last recession hit, the manufacturing sector was showing a reversal in long-term trend and from 1998 to 2007 had shown both absolute and relative growth. It has grown in terms of output produced and in terms of its relative position with respect to GDP. Manufacturing has grown because of success in some key sectors but clearly the successes have been widespread. Lost output was clustered in six manufacturing sectors and amounted to a total of $42 billion, with much of that coming from primary metals (mostly declines in US production of steel).

        One final dimension of manufacturing competitiveness is exports from the US to the rest of the world. Between 1998 and 2007 US real exports of goods rose from $670 billion to $1.16 trillion -- an increase of 73%. Only a very minor portion of those goods are non-manufacturing foods and feeds. Thus US manufacturing is thriving when you measure our ability to compete in world markets. If the USA has a trade deficit it is not because of deficient exports—it is because of our increased desire to consumer caused imports to rise even more than exports.