Friday, June 5, 2015

California vesus Texas Job Growth: 2015 update: Why is California doing so well?

In the first decade of the 21st century California struggled to create new sustainable jobs. The housing boom created jobs for a time, but those disappeared when housing went bust, leaving employment little higher than it had been in 2002.

One welcome surprise during the past few years has been how strongly Californian employment has grown. A state that some feared was headed for stagnation has shown it can still create a lot of jobs when times are good. It remains to be seen how many of the new jobs will survive the next downturn.

Northern California is currently enjoying another tech boom, and it is tempting to credit the Californian recovery to the success of Silicon Valley.  That however is not the whole story. California is a very large and diverse state. Los Angeles is a different economy from the Bay Area, and the Central Valley is different again.  To better understand things, I have looked at job growth by region using data for metro areas.

What I found was that the San Francisco area, which contains Silicon Valley, was only responsible for a fraction of the state's job growth. The Los Angeles area and the Central Valley also created lots of jobs.
If we look at employment growth per 1000 population the exceptional performance of the tech powered San Francisco area becomes clear. However, LA and the Central Valley are also doing well and compare favorably to the growth rates in other states over the same period.

Why is California doing so well? One reason is that it is a highly urbanized state, with few people living in struggling rural areas. Californian cities tend to be large, and nationwide larger cities tend to be more attractive to employers than small ones. Another point is that Californian wages are not particularly high, perhaps because of the housing bust.

Monday, March 30, 2015

California versus Texas Job growth: 2015 update: Part 1

This is an update to a series of posts I did four years ago, which tried to understand why some states produced jobs and others didn't. At the time, a lot of people pointed to the success of Texas in creating jobs, while California was seen as an example of stagnation.

Texas continues to be one of the leading job creating states in the country.  However, California has had a big comeback, and is now doing almost as well as Texas at job creation.

To properly compare states, I have calculated the job growth per 1000 residents from January 2011 to January 2015. Thanks to oil development, North Dakota comes top.  Utah and Texas continue to do very well, as they did  from 2002 to 2009. Rural southern states like West Virginia and Mississippi continue to bleed jobs, as they have for years. Massachusetts and especially California are the most improved.

The Sunbelt continues to do well, while the Northeast apart from Massachusetts continues to lag.  The Midwest has bounced back from the auto industry crisis and bail out.

(Technical notes: Employment data from Department of Labor. Population data from  Census Bureau . I am using state populations as of  April 2010)

US Inflation? Still not happening!

With US unemployment dropping to 5.5%, there has been some concern about a possible acceleration of inflation. I'm going to explain why I don't think there is any risk. The chart below shows inflation in red and unemployment in blue. Inflation is at levels unseen since the 1960s.  In the past 20 years unemployment has dipped below 5% on a couple of occasions without causing inflation problems.

The next chart shows the annual percentage increase in wages in blue and the unemployment rate in red. In the past 50 years, wage growth has never been this low for this long. This a sign of a labor market which is weaker than the unemployment rate indicates.

The next chart shows just how badly the labor market was damaged by the great recession. It also shows that the recession is far from over for the American worker.  The red line shows the mean duration of unemployment, which soared in the Great Recession, and has yet to come back to normal levels.  The blue line shows the percentage of the population between 25-54 years of age who is employed.  This plunged in the Great Recession, and only about half of the damage done has been repaired.

House building and the auto industry are two of the  big motors for the economy. The next chart shows that housing starts, in blue, are still at recessionary levels. The red line shows auto sales which have fully recovered.

The financial world's concern about inflation can be gauged by looking at the difference between ordinary bonds, in blue, and inflation indexed bonds shown in red.  Clearly Wall Street is unconcerned by the US inflation outlook. They seem to be expecting inflation to stay under 2% for the next decade.

What surprised me most when I made these charts, is how much damage the economy still has from the 2008 financial crisis. There is currently some talk of the Fed raising interest rates. I hope they delay that until the economy has fully recovered.

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Did income inequality lead to the collapse of ancient Rome?

In 2013 a consensus developed among American liberals that the problem of income inequality should be a top priority. President Obama stated that income inequality was the 'defining challenge of our time'.

Income inequality was also a major issue when ancient Rome was at the height of its power.  Political struggles over income inequality destabilized the Roman system, and lead to irreversible political changes that fatally undermined Roman civilization.

The Roman city state was founded in the eighth century BC as a kingdom. After a particularly obnoxious king, the monarch was overthrown in 509 BC. Instead of replacing him with another king, the citizens of Rome did something revolutionary.  They swore an oath that no one man would ever again be allowed to rule Rome. They set up a system where no man had absolute power and where the government was accountable to the people. It was similar in many ways to our modern American system. They called it a Republic.

The Republic seems to have been very good for business. Modern science has given us some insight into Roman economic activity through the study of shipwrecks and ice cores. What is really interesting is that both unrelated datasets tell the same story. The Roman economy grew for about 500 years from 500 BC to a peak at 1AD, and then shrank away to nothing by 500 AD.

The data on lead production comes from Greenland ice cores. Lead smelting released pollution, which found its way to the Greenland icecap. The Romans were mining lead so they could use that lead to extract silver from its ore. The Romans needed silver because their monetary system was based on silver coins.

The growth in the Roman economy roughly coincides with the existence of the Roman Republic, which started with the overthrow of the king in 509 BC  and came to an end in 27 BC when the Republic was overthrown. Good institutions are vital to economic growth in the third world today, and the Republic was likely key to the success of Rome.

Much has been written about why Rome fell. What the modern data reveals, is that the economy had been shrinking for centuries before the final collapse of the Roman state. When the last Roman emperor was overthrown in 476 AD, the economy had withered away. The data also shows that the economy peaked around 1 AD, so the cause of the eventual collapse of Rome dates to that era.  The replacement of the Republic with emperors seems to be the most likely reason. Kings and emperors are very common in history, while republics are rare.

Why did the Republic fall?

What seems to have destabilized the Republic was growing income inequality.  By the middle of the second century, the economic situation for the average Roman was declining. The backbone of Rome was small farmers who owned their own land. These small farms started going bankrupt, and they sold their land to aristocrats who set up  large estates worked by imported slave labor. The displaced farmers went to the cities looking for work, but they didn't find many jobs, and ended up dependent on government welfare.

In 133 BC these unemployed people elected a populist called Tiberius Gracchus who promised them land reform. The wealthy elite resisted the reforms, and Tiberius was assassinated. This started a series of political assassinations and military coups which lead to the dismantling of the Republic by 27AD. The whole process took over a hundred years.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Who's afraid of inflation?: Part 2

This chart covers the US economy  from 1960 through to the present day. Core inflation is shown in red, and year over year wage growth is shown in blue.

The first point here is that inflation problems go hand in hand with stong wage growth. In the high inflation period of the 1970s, wage growth was never less than 7.5% per year. Strong wage growth in the late 60s preceded the slide into high inflation. Inflation is a problem that tends to appear in the late stages of an economic boom, not when the economy is deeply depressed. Wage growth at present is very low.

The second point is that the Fed's current target for inflation, at 2.5%, is far lower than the 3-5% inflation that prevailed during Reagan's presidency. Nobody saw inflation as a problem at the time, even though it was far above the level which the Fed now regards as acceptable. And job growth in the Reagan recovery was far better than anything which we have seen in the past few years.

Clearly the Bernanke Fed has prioritized low inflation over fighting unemployment. I believe this reflects a lack of accountability to the American public.

Wage growth isn't likely to be a problem any time soon

This chart shows wage growth in blue and the unemployment rate in green. Wages seem to take off when unemployment gets below about 5%. There is no chance of that happening in the near future because unemployment remains far too high. If wage growth stays low, so will inflation.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Who's afraid of inflation?

Central banks continue to point to fears of inflation as their justification for not doing more to generate growth and fight unemployment. I find their concern about inflation almost impossible to understand and in this post I will explain why.

Inflation: A problem of the past

As this chart shows, inflation has been dormant since the mid-90s. It hasn't been a serious problem for 30 years, since 1982. Inflation is in red, while unemployment is in blue. And unemployment remains far above the 5% level which has sometimes sparked inflation in the past.

Global conditions don't favor inflation

When inflation was last a serious problem, in the 1970s, it wasn't just a US issue. As the next chart shows, it was a global problem. Japan is in red, the UK in green, France in orange and Germany in blue. Japan and the UK had even more serious inflation than the US. Today, global inflation is lower than at any time in the past 50 years.

The bond market isn't worried

The next chart shows the yield on ordinary 10-year Treasuries in green, and on inflation protected bonds in blue. Bond rates are lower than at any time in the past 50 years. Real interest rates are negative. The difference between ordinary and inflation protected bonds gives an implied inflation forecast of 2.5%.

Demand is very weak

The next chart shows housing starts in red, and GDP in blue. In past recoveries, falling interest rates would encourage home building, and that added demand would pull the economy out of recession. The housing market is badly broken, and housing starts remain at very low levels despite very low interest rates. In the past month there have been a few stories indicating an upturn in housing, which is a rare piece of good economic news, but there is a long ways to go to get back to normal levels.

When inflation was a problem, in the 1970s, demand was much stronger, with housing starts running at over 2 million units.  Growth surged to over 5% back then.

Today, growth is extremely weak by comparison with past recoveries. It is below 2.5%, which is unusual for an economy that is not in recession.

Car demand is also unusually weak.

Unemployment in catastrophically bad

Not since the Depression have so many been unemployed for so long, yet Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve don't seem to care. The longer people stay unemployed, the more skills they lose.

We have an economy with surplus capital, industrial capacity and labor, and very weak demand. This is not the sort of economy that generates inflation. Yet the Bernanke Fed appears to have given up on its mandate to fight unemployment.

Saturday, July 7, 2012

A divided Europe

The European crisis is often framed in terms of 'wealthy' Northern Europe bailing out 'poor' Southern Europe. Reality is more complicated.

Regional GDP as a percent of EU average (2009 data)

This map shows economic output by region. Dark greens show the regions of highest output, light green shows regions close to the EU average, while the poorest regions are colored pale yellow. The north-south divide runs right through the middle of Italy, and parts of northern Italy and northern Spain have output levels comparable to Germany.

Meanwhile, parts of eastern Germany have output levels comparable to Greece and southern Spain. Despite 20 years and vast amounts of aid, East Germany is nowhere near matching West Germany's economic performance. East Germany has never really recovered from having an overvalued currency after unification
Chart source: Eurostat

Judging by the very slow improvement of East Germany, it seems very unlikely that the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain) will be able to solve their problems by raising competitiveness. German experience with reunification probably explains why Germany is reluctant to give the PIGS large amounts of aid. They tried that with East Germany and it didn't work.

Regional unemployment (2010)

Chart source: Eurostat

In this map dark green shows high levels of unemployment while light yellow shows low unemployment. Southern Germany and Northern Italy are doing very well, while most of Europe struggles.

Given the divergent economic performance, a single currency no longer seems to make sense. Of course the USA also struggles with large regional differences in wealth. However, it is the vast differences in unemployment rates which will probably make the Eurozone unworkable. Salzburg region, Austria has 2.5% unemployment, while Andalucia region, Spain suffers from 30% unemployment.

Source: Eurostat