Saturday, August 04, 2018

The trend line for the percentage of 25-54 year olds employed

If you look at yesterday's post, you can see that after this percentage fell from about 80 to 75 from Dec. 2007 to Oct. 2009, it stayed there for about two years. So the trend line I have starts in Oct. 2011. Maybe that is when the recovery actually began.

So I start the trend line there. Early on, it looks like about 12 months are above the trend line. Then for awhile there are points both above and below the trend line. But each of the last 11 months is above the trend line (except for one, which looks like it is right on the line). Not sure if this is a good sign or not (is the economy overheating?).

Click here to see the graph from the St. Louis Fed.

Friday, August 03, 2018

The percentage of 25-54 year-olds employed rose to 79.5% in July from 79.3% in June

One weakness of the unemployment rate is that if people drop out of the labor force they cannot be counted as an unemployed person and the unemployment rate goes down. They are no longer actively seeking work and it might be because they are discouraged workers. The lower unemployment rate can be misleading in this case. People dropping out of the labor force might indicate a weak labor market.

We could look at the employment to population ratio instead, since that includes those not in the labor force. But that includes everyone over 16 and that means that senior citizens are in the group but many of them have retired. The more that retire, the lower this ratio would be and that might be misleading. It would not necessarily mean the labor market is weak.

But we have this ratio for people age 25-54 (which also eliminates traditional college age people who might not be looking for work)

The percentage of 25-54 year olds employed was 79.5% for July. It was 79.3% in June. It is still below the 79.7% in December 2007 when the recession started (it was 80.3% in January 2007).  Click here to see the BLS data. The unemployment rate was 3.8% in May . Click here to go to that data. The % of those 16 and older employed went from 60.38% in April to 60.49% in May.

Here is a good graph from the St. Louis Fed. It shows that there are 126,337,000 people in the 25-54 year old group. So since we are 0.2 percentage points below the 79.7% of December 2007, that is still 252,674 fewer jobs (Hat tip: Vance Ginn of the Texas Public Policy Foundation).

For all of 2007, it was 79.9%. For the last 12 months, it has been 79.08%. That difference is still about 1 million jobs. From July 1997 thru March 2001, it was at least 81% each month.

Here is the timeline graph of the percentage of 25-54 year olds employed since 2008.


Here it is going all the way back to 1948.

Thursday, August 02, 2018

Rents are relatively low in San Antonio

See Pricey San Francisco apartments can exceed annual pay of Houston renters by Katherine Feser of The Houston Chronicle. The article has a list for 25 large cities. Excerpt:
"Renters need to make $46,500 a year to comfortably afford the average two-bedroom apartment in San Antonio"

"Rents in San Antonio average $1,085 per month, or $13,020 a year, according to SmartAsset, which calculated how much someone would need to earn in each city to spend only 28 percent of their income on rent.

In New York as well, residents would need to make 3 ½ times the salary required to live in San Antonio, Smart-Asset found. To afford the $3,789 a month rent in New York requires an annual salary of $162,386.

San Antonio’s average cost of $1,085 for a two-bedroom unit is among the lowest of the Texas cities ranked.

It’s below the monthly average of $1,324 in Dallas, $1,431 in Austin, $1,205 in Houston and $1,124 in Fort Worth."

Wednesday, August 01, 2018

The trade deficit, unemployment rates and wages

Click here to read this unpublished study I did about ten years ago. Using statistical analysis and trying to take some other factors into account, I found that trade deficits did not seem to be causing unemployment rates to rise or wages to fall (or if they did, not very much). In some cases, variables were lagged one year in case a trade deficit this year leads to higher unemployment next year instead of this year.

My guess is that it has been studied quite a bit, with probably alot of papers on it. Alot of people talk about trade deficits and how they affect jobs, wages and the unemployment rate.

But I tried something myself anyway. The data was the U.S. from 1965-2000.

I ran a regression in which the yearly percentage point change in the unemployment rate was the dependent variable (UE). The independent variables were

BAL = the yearly percentage point change in the trade balance (as a percentage of GDP). For example, in 2000 it was -3.8% and in 1999 it was -2.8%. So for 2000, the change was -1.0.

LF = the yearly percentage point change in the labor force participation rate.

PR =  the yearly percentage change in productivity.

GDP = the yearly percentage change in the real per capita GDP (with the labor force used instead of the population).

WAGE = the yearly percentage change in real hourly wages

The OLS regression equation was

UE = .49 + .368*BAL - .87*LF + .087*PR - .358*GDP + .05*WAGE

The r-squared was .854 and the standard error was .391

The t-values were

BAL 2.65
LF –3.00
PR 1.48
GDP –9.82
WAGE 1.07

So holding the other factors constant, as the yearly percentage point change in the trade balance gets more positive (negative), the yearly percentage point change in the unemployment rate gets bigger (smaller). This says that as we get bigger trades deficits, the lower the unemployment rate (at least compared to the previous year).

It looks like as the labor force participation rate rises, the unemployment rate goes down, ceteris paribus. But the bigger the productivity improvement, the higher the unemployment rate. I thought that if productivity goes up, firms could increase output without adding workers. But that might be only one explanation. And of course, the bigger the increase in GDP, the lower the unemployment rate.

So if GDP goes up 4.0%, then the unemployment rate would fall 1.43 percentage points. If the trade balance gets 1.0 percentage points more negative, then the unemployment rate would fall .368 percentage points. If productivity rises 3.0%, then the unemployment rate would rise .261 percentage points. If the labor force participation rate rise 1.0 percentage points, unemployment would fall .87 percentage points.

There may be time series issues like serial correlation which I have not tested for. There may also be other factors like minimum wage laws, regulations, etc that might affect this.

Comments welcome.

The correlation between WAGE and PR was high, .72. So I removed both from the regression and added the difference (PR – WAGE). So it is the productivity increase above the wage increase. Sort of the increase in the net benefit of hiring workers. That regression equation was

UE = .85 – .02*(PR – WAGE) + .216*BAL – 1.28*LF - .34*GDP

The r-squared was .813 and the standard error was .436. The t-values were

(PR – WAGE) -.398
BAL 1.50
LF –4.47
GDP –8.48

But the unemployment rate still goes down when the trade deficit gets more negative since the coefficient on BAL is still positive (which says if the trade balance gets more positive, the unemployment rate goes up).

I also tried lagging the BAL variable one year. The coefficient became .087. But that still shows that as the trade balance gets more positive, the UE rate goes up. And as the trade balance gets more negative, the UE rate goes down. Regressions with only GDP growth, BAL and productivity growth have pretty much the same results.

As for wages, they too seem to go up when the trade deficit gets bigger. This covered the 1965-2004 period.

In the regression below

WAGE =   the annual percentage increase in the hourly wage – the annual percentage increase in the CPI

So it is the increase in real wages.

WAGE = -1.96 + .616*PR +.165*GDP -.70*LF - .022*BAL

The r-squared was .40 and the standard error was about 1.7 (which seems high). So, as the trade deficit gets bigger (or more negative), wages go up. If I lagged the trade deficit (BAL) one year, it got even more negative. The t-value on productivity was 3.24. So it was significant. None of the other variables had t-values close to 1.96.

If I took out the labor force participation variable (LF).

WAGE = -2.25 + .679*PR +.151*GDP + .042*BAL

So, if trade deficit gets smaller, wages go up since the coefficient on BAL is positive. If we went from having imports equal to exports to a trade surplus equal to 1% of GDP, wages would go up .04%. This is extremely slight and the t-value was .07, so it was not significant. If I lagged the trade deficit (BAL) one year, it turned negative. Again meaning that a bigger trade deficit meant higher wages. Notice how productivity is the dominant force.

So it looks like reducing the trade deficit does not increase wages.

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

CORRECTLY DRAWING THE ZERO ECONOMIC PROFIT GRAPH FOR A MONOPOLISTICALLY COMPETITIVE FIRM

This was a paper I presented at a conference about 10 years ago. Click here to open the MS Word file. Here is he abstract.


Many principles of economics texts do not correctly draw the graph showing zero economic profit for a monopolistically competitive firm. The average total cost curve and the marginal cost curve are not consistent with each other. That is, they are not derived from the same total cost curve (as shown by numerical inspection of these curves). Also, the marginal revenue line is often not twice as steep as the demand line.
Using a total cost curve of the form TC = fixed cost + aQ3 – bQ2 + cQ and a linear demand line, I find the general form equation for calculating the slope and intercept of both demand and marginal revenue for a chosen quantity. That quantity is such that P = ATC, MR = MC, the slope of marginal revenue is twice as steep as the demand line and both the ATC and MC lines are derived from the same total cost curve. These equations are used to generate the correct graph in a spreadsheet program.
 


Monday, July 30, 2018

Fed Looks for Goldilocks Path as Jobless Rate Drops

Central-bank researchers study metro-areas data for clues on inflation when unemployment is low

By Nick Timiraos of The WSJ.

I wish he had been a bit more careful in phrasing certain passages. For example, he says inflation rose 2% in the last year. Prices rose 2%. If inflation rose 2% it would mean that this year's inflation rate is 2% higher than last year. So if, for example, the inflation rate was 2% one year then the next hear it would be 2.04%.

The relationship between unemployment rates and how much prices change might depend on the short run aggregate supply (SRAS) line. It might get steeper the higher GDP gets. Some of my links below to earlier posts will show this. We want aggregate demand (AD) to be at the point where SRAS just starts getting steep (where prices will rise significantly). That would give us a certain GDP and unemployment usually falls when GDP rises. When they talk about the neutral interest rate, that might be the rate that gives us this optimal amount of AD.

When it talks about marginal workers re-joining the labor force (people who had previously given up looking for work), that could cause SRAS to increase or shift to the right, lowering prices (or keeping them from rising too much if AD is also shifting to the right).

When it mentions that "expectations of future inflation can be self-fulfilling" it means that workers demand higher wages since they expect prices to go up. But that causes SRAS to shift to the left (since that is what happens to supply when the price of resources go up). But that itself will raise prices of all the goods that are sold. This will not be a problem if expectations of future inflation rates are pretty low, as they have been in recent years.

When it mentions that the natural rate of unemployment is between 4.1% and 4.7%, that is the rate we would get if we had the neutral interest rate.

Excerpts:
"The studies suggest prices might climb faster, but not too much, if unemployment falls a bit more. And inflation might become worrisome if joblessness falls a lot more."

"In one scenario, inflation accelerates once unemployment falls to very low levels, requiring more-aggressive rate increases to keep price pressures in check.

In the other, a period of sustained low unemployment draws more workers into the labor force while inflation pressures stay under control."


"Fed officials want to raise rates enough to prevent the rapidly expanding economy from overheating, but not so much that they choke off healthy growth prematurely."

"Excluding volatile food and energy categories, inflation rose 2% in May from one year earlier."

"Fed researchers recently examined the possibilities of the two inflation scenarios.

One study analyzed data for U.S. metropolitan areas to see what happens to inflation when unemployment is very low.

Economists have long held that inflation rises as unemployment falls, and vice versa. But the relationship, called the Phillips curve, has appeared very weak in recent decades. Inflation has remained tame even as the jobless rate fell to 4% in June from 10% in 2009. The Fed economists found, however, that inflation picked up more quickly once the jobless rate fell below 3.75%."

"In the late 1960s, the last time unemployment fell below 4% for a sustained period, inflation steadily accelerated. By the 1970s, if inflation rose one year, consumers expected it to rise at least as much the following year—and it did. Fed officials believe expectations of future inflation can be self-fulfilling as workers demand pay increases and businesses raise prices in anticipation.

Separate Fed research published in 2016 used data from the 1960s to measure the level at which inflation pressures begin to harm the economy. The researchers concluded this happens when core consumer prices rise by 3% on a sustained basis, according to the Fed’s preferred gauge.

Economists say that inflation accelerates when unemployment falls below a so-called natural level, which Fed officials estimate at 4.1% to 4.7%.

The “point at which you can get a large inflation overshoot” approaching 3% is when the jobless rate falls 1.5 percentage points below the natural level"

"Fed officials are also eager to know how much workers might benefit when unemployment is very low. The policy makers wonder whether people at the margins of the labor market might more easily find jobs, gain skills and become more productive—permanently improving their chances of employment. This would lower the natural unemployment rate and reduce the prospect of the economy overheating."

"“It’s difficult to forecast the economy and these concepts that we have,” Mr. Powell said in a radio interview in July. “It’s not like the fact that water boils at 212 degrees. The economy doesn’t boil at 4% unemployment.”"
Related posts:

Powell Says Fed Should Keep Gradually Raising Interest Rates.

Unemployment Has Bottomed Out. So Where's the Wage Growth?

E-Commerce Might Help Solve the Mystery of Low Inflation

U.S. Inflation Rate Hit 6-Year High in May

Fed officials disagree on how much inflation the current low unemployment rate might cause

Is There A Neutral Interest Rate? If So, How Much Is it?

Is The Phillips Curve Dead In Japan? Maybe not

Is The Phillips Curve Not Holding Up Well Because The Service And Goods Sectors Are Behaving Differently?

Has the Fed Flattened the Phillips Curve?

Nobody knows what the natural rate of unemployment is today

More on the natural rate of unemployment

How Central Banks Differ In Their Methods Of Calculating Inflation.

Fed Officials Disagree On Threat Of Inflation (from 2009)

Fed Chair Janet Yellen: "there remains considerable slack in the economy" (from 2014) 

Sunday, July 29, 2018

Pre-market societies could sometimes have alot of violence

Non-capitalist or pre-capitalist societies can have quite a bit of violence. The first quote comes from The Making of Economic Society, 13e by Robert L. Heilbroner and William Milberg.

"It is difficult for us to reconstruct the violent tenor of much of feudal life, but one investigator has provided a statistic that may serve to make the point: Among the sons of English dukes, 46 percent of those born between 1330 and 1479 died violent deaths. Their life expectancy when violent death was excluded was 31 years; when violent death was included, it was but 24 years."
That came from T. H. Hollingsworth, “A Demographic Study of the British Ducal Families,” Population Studies, XI (1957–58). Imagine if someone told you that 46% of the sons of senators or Fortune 500 CEOs were going to die violently over the next 150 years.

Now there is a study out called "The Better Angels of Their Nature: Declining Violence through Time among Prehispanic Farmers of the Pueblo Southwest", American Antiquity, Volume 79, Number 3 / July 2014. See The Most Violent Era In America Was Before Europeans Arrived. It discusses some periods when native American life was quite violent. Here are some excerpts:
"Writing in the journal American Antiquity, Washington State University archaeologist Tim Kohler and colleagues document how nearly 90 percent of human remains from that period had trauma from blows to either their heads or parts of their arms.

"If we're identifying that much trauma, many were dying a violent death," said Kohler. The study also offers new clues to the mysterious depopulation of the northern Southwest, from a population of about 40,000 people in the mid-1200s to 0 in 30 years."
"It wasn't just violent deaths that poke holes in the harmony with the land and each other myth. A paper in June in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the Southwest also had a baby boom between 500 and 1300 that likely exceeded any population spurt on earth today. The northern Rio Grande also experienced population booms but the central Mesa Verde got more violent while the northern Rio Grande was less so.

Kohler has conjectures on why. Social structures among people in the northern Rio Grande changed so that they identified less with their kin and more with the larger pueblo and specific organizations that span many pueblos, such as medicine societies. The Rio Grande also had more commercial exchanges where craft specialists provided people both in the pueblo, and outsiders, specific things they needed, such as obsidian arrow points.

But in the central Mesa Verde, there was less specialization.

"When you don't have specialization in societies, there's a sense in which everybody is a competitor because everybody is doing the same thing," said Kohler. But with specialization, people are more dependent on each other and more reluctant to do harm."

Saturday, July 28, 2018

Regulating a Natural Monopoly

I show that in one model (although it is not the only plausible model), marginal cost price regulation and a subsidy is the best policy using the concept of social welfare).

Click here to read it. It is an MS Word file.

Friday, July 27, 2018

U.S. Economy Grew at 4.1% Rate in Second Quarter

Consumer spending, exports and business investment power strongest growth pace in nearly four years

By Harriet Torry of The WSJ. Excerpt:
"The U.S. economy grew at the strongest pace in nearly four years during the second quarter, powered by a rebound in consumer spending, strong exports and firm business investment.

Gross domestic product—the value of all goods and services produced across the economy—rose at a seasonally and inflation-adjusted annual rate of 4.1% from April through June, the Commerce Department said Friday. That was a pickup from the first quarter’s revised growth rate of 2.2%.

The bounce back in consumer spending “was more powerful than anticipated and speaks to the impact of an increasingly tight labor market and strong job growth on consumer income and households’ confidence,” Brian Coulton, chief economist at Fitch Ratings, said in a note to clients, adding the “numbers really bring the possibility of 3% growth for 2018 as a whole into the frame.” Compared with the second quarter a year ago, output grew 2.8%.

President Donald Trump said Friday that the U.S. economy is growing at a “very sustainable” pace and predicted that it will expand at least 3% for the year.

The president touted his own track record since taking office, saying that the economy is growing at a pace 10 times faster than during the presidencies of George W. Bush or Barack Obama.

Actually, the U.S. economy grew faster than a 4.1% annual rate in four quarters of Mr. Obama’s presidency and four quarters of Mr. Bush’s. In the second quarter of 2014, GDP rose at an annual rate of 5.1%—the peak quarterly growth rate of the current expansion so far.

Messrs. Bush and Obama were in office for eight years each, and the economy experienced both expansions and recessions during their tenures."


 




Thursday, July 26, 2018

Package inserts, new form of advertising

See Now for Sale: The Empty Space Inside Retailers’ Packages: Saks, Zulily and other businesses are looking to offset rising shipping costs by selling package inserts to advertisers. Maybe it is not surprising that retailers' profit margins have been falling with increased competition from e-commerce. So they are looking for new revenue sources.
"In the sliver of room between a new pair of shoes and the books you ordered online, retailers have found a different way to monetize the empty space in your packages.

Saks Fifth Avenue, Zulily and Barnes & Noble College are among several businesses that have joined a new marketplace allowing advertisers to buy and insert paper ads in customers’ boxes. More than 25 retailers have listed slots for sale in their packages in the weeks since the website, called UnDigital, went live.

The rise of online shopping has taken a toll on retailers as shipping costs and investments in e-commerce capabilities have cut into profits. Retail margins on average fell to 8% last year from 10.2% in 2012, according to consulting firm AlixPartners. Over that period, e-commerce sales expanded to 17.6% of total sales from 10.5%.

Retailers hope they have a remedy: Wring more money out of the space inside the box.

For years, companies have been adding product samples or targeted coupons in their packages in hopes of encouraging shoppers to place another order at their stores. Some retailers brokered occasional deals with existing vendors or advertisers. With UnDigital, retailers are offering their packages to a broader range of potential advertisers.

On the UnDigital platform, retailers post monthly listings with a number of packages and the maximum number of inserts per package. Advertisers can specify the number of packages in which they want inserts at a price set by the retailer. The average price per insert is between 10 and 12 cents, and the average number of inserts per box is two to three."

"Though the cost of an insert ad is much higher than a digital ad, an insert can be a more efficient way to reach a shopper, said Ian Yung, senior director of business development at Touch of Modern. “It’s rare that someone will order something online and not open the package.”

 Some shoppers say they open packages but don’t bother looking at the inserts."

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Does Everyone Have Two Jobs?

By Andy Puzder in The WSJ. Excerpts:
"But Bureau of Labor Statistics data show only a small minority of Americans work multiple jobs. That percentage has been around 5% of working Americans since 2010, though it was higher before then. Last month 7.6 million, or 4.9%, of the 155.5 million working Americans had multiple jobs.

Are people working “60, 70, 80 hours a week”? Rarely. But for a brief dip during the recession, private-sector employees have worked an average of 34.2 to 34.6 hours a week since BLS began tracking the data in 2006. The average stood at 34.5 hours in June.

BLS considers 35 hours a week “full time,” so working 70 or 80 hours would be equivalent to two full-time jobs. Only 360,000 people worked two full time jobs in June—0.2% of the workforce. There may well be people working 60 hours a week or more on one job—but if that were common, the overall average for hours worked would be well above 34.5."

"In June, wages increased 3.8% year over year for retail-sector employees. It was their highest percentage increase since 2001 using June as the base year. Wages in the hospitality-and-leisure sector, including restaurants, rose 3.3% year over year—on top of a 4.3% increase in 2017. In a fast-growing economy, the demand for labor increases, and more employers have to pay above the applicable minimum wages to get employees."