The Retail Sales Gap Is The Housing Gap

Atif Mian and Amir Sufi pondered why spending hasn't caught up to trend.

How would spending catch up to trend when employment hasn't caught up to trend?

And why would we expect employment to catch up when home construction lurks below the 1982 recession levels let alone below trend?

And even if employment were caught up, we're not going to have as much retail sales of home furnishings and such household goods until we have as many new homes to furnish.

Notice how in the early 1980s, home construction started up before employment. Just like how in 2006 home construction started slowing before employment ... and then started plummeting before employment.

Retail sales include paint, furnishings, and lots of other household goods. So really, is it any surprise that retail sales haven't recovered to trend but rather have only stopped dropping?

By and large, the home is where the retail sales live.

And why would a home builder ramp up construction when employment is low? Why is it again that we haven't restored the CCC and WPA this time around to get people working?

The Cost of Balanced Budgets and a Longer View on Presidents and Jobs From Ike To 2012

I'd usually heard the 50s described as more or less a golden era of rising prosperity. But till recently I tended to skip over digging into that decade's economic data to focus on the Great Depression up through World War II (when not mucking about the peaks and valleys of more recent times). So I have to admit this chart surprised me.

starting with Ike, the first President fully covered in the monthly POP data; to June 2012

I was expecting that adding in the Republican Presidents before Reagan would show that prior to Trickle-down / Supply-side economics / Reaganomics infecting the Republican party, they'd done better. I expected to be illustrating the post-Depression glory days of the Republican party via Ike, Nixon, and Ford. Instead, the data gave me what we see above. In jobs, Nixon and Ford both did worse than Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. While Nixon and Ford did better than Obama's marks for his full term so far, they each did worse than during his tepid recovery span from February 2010 on to the latest data. And then there's Ike -- whom we admire -- down there with the likes of the Bushes. I didn't want to see that. Frankly, I wanted to believe Ike pulled off the Clinton trick of balancing the budget while improving employment. But I can't deny the data.

If we look a bit further back, before the dates in the data used above to put payroll growth in perspective via population growth, we can at least compare Ike's raw payroll figures to those from FDR (since 1939) and Truman, but that only rules out claiming Ike's dismal jobs performance as part of a longer trend.

Ike's sad job numbers with context: at least he's not Bush II

It's not a pretty picture for Ike, which I'm sad to see. Thankfully there's still much to admire from President Eisenhower in the highway system and his work for civil rights. I still like Ike. I still think I'd have voted for him if I'd been old enough at the time. But his economic record is tarnished.

In his defense, President Eisenhower did start his term with a 2.6% unemployment rate during that first full month. It's hard to improve on 2.6% unemployment. Still, unemployment rose dramatically to 6.9% by the first full month of his successor's term. Ike's shift: +165% unemployment. That's a rather lousy fumble. And while the Eisenhower years saw increasing family incomes, the same can be said for the Kennedy / Johnson years except without the rising unemployment, as over the course of their span they reduced that rate from the 6.9% that Eisenhower left them back down to 3.4% by the end of Johnson's Presidency.

So what went wrong? Let's look at the modern history of balanced budgets:

• At Republican urging, FDR tried to balance the budget with spending cuts and it brought us the Recession of 1937-38. 
• After World War II we saw dramatic cutbacks in spending with balanced budgets in 1947 through 1949 and the recessions in 1945 and 1949. (Of course, the war spending was unsustainable; there was probably no way to avoid recession in the late 1940s.)
• Truman balanced the budget in 1951. But like the later Clinton-era balanced budgets this one was done while expanding federal outlays ... rather swiftly increasing from the 1948 lows. Then after we slowed spending at the end of the Korean War, we got the recession of 1953.
• Eisenhower balanced the budget in 1956 and 1957 and we got the Recession of 1957.
• Eisenhower balanced the budget again in 1960 and we got the Recession of 1960.
• Nixon balanced the budget in 1969 and we got the Recession of 1970.
• While Clinton balanced the budget in 1998 lasting through Bush's first budget in 2001, the balancing in these years was done without reducing the growth of federal outlays but rather through moderate increase of tax rates. As such, this particular instance was thoroughly different from most previous balancing of the budget (except Truman's).

There were also some recessions that didn't correspond to these balanced budgets: the oil shock under Nixon, the extremely high interest rates under Reagan, the S&L crisis under Bush I, the Dot-Com crash under Clinton and Bush II, and the housing/finance crash under Bush II. I'm not suggesting that all recessions are caused by cutting to achieve balanced budgets. However, it would seem that balancing our national budget via cuts -- even if only in inflation-adjusted terms as in 1960 and 1969 -- tends to lead to recession.

The impact of Eisenhower's budget balancing exploits are particularly of interest for its parallel to job losses in the Great Recession. Private payrolls dropped by 2.385 million between August 1957 and June 1958, a 5.26% decline. By comparison, that's just barely below the 5.47% decline during the worst job-loss months of the Great Recession from August 2008 through June 2009. Remember that saying about doing the same thing and expecting different results. If we implement massive cutbacks like Eisenhower with our sequestration fiscal cliff, we can expect yet another massive fall just like the Eisenhower recession ... and we've not climbed far enough back from the jagged rocks as it is.

In case after case, budgets balanced with spending cuts have brought on recession. And now the Republicans are once again pushing us to balance the budget with dramatic spending cuts. Democrats may not be leading the charge, but Obama like FDR is far too willing to accept the Republican push for cuts. If we don't turn away from this push to slash budgets, previous experience shows us it will hurt the economy. When we make the debt more manageable by growing our economy such that the debt shrinks by comparison, that's tended to work out well. When we clumsily attempt to tackle the debt directly by slashing spending to balance the budget in the hopes a primary surplus, the records shows it tends to work out poorly.

Presidents and Jobs (Average Private Payrolls Added Per Month Since Carter)

Given that Republicans are often billed as the pro-business party, shouldn't we find business booming under Republican Presidents? Shouldn't we find payrolls rising significantly from all that business expansion?

For President Reagan, to be fair, we should note that his early years were hurt by the same force that crushed payrolls under President Carter during April through July of 1980: the high rates with which Paul Volcker battled inflation. Double-digit prime interest rates diminished employment under both Presidents Reagan and Carter. While those unusually high interest rates may have been necessary to get control over inflation, those high rates severely slowed expansion and thus hiring. However, that doesn't remove the possibility that President Reagan's descent from Carter's payroll numbers hinted at the start of a Republican trend under Trickle-down policies. After all, the Bush I policies were largely a continuation of the Reagan policies. If we average together the Reagan and Bush I months, together they get 113.3 thousand jobs / month. That's less than either of Carter or Clinton. And it's also less than the rate of increase we've seen since the turn-around on 2/1/2010 under President Obama.

While these figures aren't conclusive proof alone, add them together with a few other factors such as that GDP growth has lagged under the lowest top marginal tax rates. It sure looks like Trickle-down (or Supply-side economic or Reaganomics) failed us in a big way.

Maybe we should stop accepting the notion that talking about lowering taxes and deregulating would actually be business-friendly. Maybe we should instead consider ways to return to the sort of sensible, progressive tax structures we had before Reagan lead us down the road to decline. Instead of calling it red tape, maybe we should consider regulation's value for helping business manage risk, compete on a level playing field, and have more predictable returns. And maybe we should get back to expecting serious infrastructure projects and demanding aggressive investments in our research and development programs to build our avenues for growth.

Notes on methodology: Generally speaking, the January in which the executive transitions from one branch to another will be almost entirely impacted by the outgoing President's policies and not those of the incoming President. As such, the average uses the change in monthly manufacturing payrolls starting with the change from the first full month of the President's term (i.e., from the February that is the first full month to the March thereafter) and going until the first full month after the President's term (i.e., the last change counted is from the January during which the President in question is last in office to the February thereafter). Data from BLS/FRED.

Updated Job Picture Under President Obama

How's the job picture look under President Obama's term in office so far? Not only did payrolls stop the inherited plummeting but also private sector jobs have strongly, steadily grown since turning around in February 2010. Meanwhile, aside from the Census spike, steady govt cuts -- mainly at the state and local levels -- have taken government payrolls in the opposite direction.

We have here a good, solid private recovery that's impeded by heavy govt cuts diminishing it from how good it'd be otherwise. Below, we can see roughly the hypothetical difference that govt cutbacks (aside from the brief census surge) have made to the overall employment picture by looking at total employment assuming private sector hiring had still followed exactly the path it did and govt payrolls had held steady at February 2009 levels.

The adjusted line likely understates how much it would have helped to avoid the govt cutbacks. After all, those laid off govt workers couldn't buy as many goods and services, so there would arguably have been more demand fueling more private sector jobs and making the private component grow faster if we hadn't had cutbacks. But for the chart above, the only adjustment reflected in the green line versus the blue line is a freezing of govt payrolls at precisely the February 2009 level. A more complete picture of the difference cutbacks made would reflect an estimate of anticipated higher private payrolls resulting from avoiding the govt layoffs.

What Part Was The Mistake Rep Ryan? The Jobs Perhaps?

"Representative Paul D. Ryan said on Thursday it was a mistake to have requested funds in 2009 from the federal stimulus bill after voting against it."

So what part of that was a mistake? Could it be the effort to help create jobs for his constituents?

"The Congressional Budget Office said the stimulus increased employment by 1.3 million to 3.3 million people."

So why would it be a mistake to increase employment? Could that be because the Republicans figure that anything that helps employment during President Obama's term hurts their 2012 election chances? Could that be because they've cynically decided that helping the American people is against their political interests? Could that be because they've fanatically decided that they know what's best for us so much that they figure it's OK to hurt us for a while as long as it helps them get back in power in the long run?

Private Payroll Employment picture

Quite the picture...

from "New Jobs Numbers & New Hands on Deck to Keep Them Growing"

Speaking of job growth, in Repealing the Affordable Care Act will Hurt the Economy, Stephanie Cutter, Assistant to the President for Special Projects, says that repealing health care would be "Preventing 250,000 to 400,000 jobs from being created annually over the next decade." Part of the reason why:

"The law reduces small businesses’ health care expenses by giving them $40 billion worth of tax credits,and through the creation of new, competitive state-based insurance Exchanges. Exchanges will enable individuals and small businesses to pool together and use their market strength to buy coverage at a lower cost, the same way large employers do today, giving them the freedom to launch their own companies without worrying whether health care will be available when they need it."