- by New Deal democrat
On Friday I noted that the week's data about the American consumer and industrial economies was so different that you may as well be looking at statistics from two separate countries. Looking at other data series over the weekend, I was surprised to find that the stark bifurcation between the two economies - industrial vs. consumer - carried through almost all the data series. The recovery is indeed bifurcated. The industrial recovery is V-shaped and stronger than any recovery since 1983. The consumer economy is little better than L-shaped and in some cases isn't happening at all. What follows is a detailed look.
I. Let's start with the overall GDP, shown here in real, inflation-adjusted terms:
The economy as a whole declined about 4% in real terms from its peak in 2Q 2008. It is over half the way back, as V-shaped as could have been hoped for.
That V-shaped recovery also shows up in industrial production:


Industrial production declined 15% from its peak and has recovered 1/3 of its loss.
This is the strongest recovery in industrial production by far since 1983:

Exports have also regained over half of the ground they lost:


And V-shaped charts turn up in virtually every other aspect of manufacturing, for example, the latest ISM manufacturing report from January:


showing a much stronger recovery than either those from the 1991 and 2001 recessions, and showing an intensity of growth that has only been matched in 1994 and 2003 in the last 20 years.
The Chicago PMI for February, which was just reported on Friday, shows a similar intensity:

Looking at some subparts of the industrial economy, this graph shows durable goods manufacturing and employees so employed:

Durable goods declined almost 35% from their pre-recession peak and have come over 1/3 of the way back. That hasn't helped durable goods employment, which declined 20% and just turned positive on a preliminary basis in January.
The same story has played out in nondurable goods manufacturing and employees in that sector:

Nondurable goods manufacturing declined about 6% from its pre-recession peak (right scale) and has made 2/3 of that up. Employment in that area is still in decline.
The V-shaped recovery also shows up in average weekly hours (blue, left scale) and overtime (red, right scale) worked in manufacturing:

But if hours have gone up, the sector continued to hemorrhage jobs as shown on this graph of monthly gains and losses in industrial employment:

Industrial employment finally eked out an +11,000 gain on a preliminary basis in January's jobs report.
II. Over 100 years ago, Charles Dow (of the Dow Jones Industrial and Transportation Averages) theorized that the amount of goods produced should correlate with the volume of traffic moving those goods to market. Indeed, as we saw last week, the trucking industry has recovered about 2/3 of its volume:


Nondurable goods manufacturing declined about 6% from its pre-recession peak (right scale) and has made 2/3 of that up. Employment in that area is still in decline.
The V-shaped recovery also shows up in average weekly hours (blue, left scale) and overtime (red, right scale) worked in manufacturing:

But if hours have gone up, the sector continued to hemorrhage jobs as shown on this graph of monthly gains and losses in industrial employment:

Industrial employment finally eked out an +11,000 gain on a preliminary basis in January's jobs report.
II. Over 100 years ago, Charles Dow (of the Dow Jones Industrial and Transportation Averages) theorized that the amount of goods produced should correlate with the volume of traffic moving those goods to market. Indeed, as we saw last week, the trucking industry has recovered about 2/3 of its volume:

Total rail traffic declined almost 30% from peak to bottom in late 2008. Some of that was seasonal, but the fact remains that about half of that decline has been erased:

Cyclical rail traffic, which is most sensitive to economic conditions, and which did improve first following the 2001 recession, shows a similar pattern:

Railroad revenue ton-miles, which are reported quarterly, show about 1/3 of the lost ground recovered through December 2009:


Cyclical rail traffic, which is most sensitive to economic conditions, and which did improve first following the 2001 recession, shows a similar pattern:

Railroad revenue ton-miles, which are reported quarterly, show about 1/3 of the lost ground recovered through December 2009:

Although I can't show you a graph, I can tell you that air cargo revenue ton-miles show a smaller rebound as well, having fallen 2/3 from 1.22 Billion in December 2006 to 0.75 Billion in February 2009, and as of November 2009 had increased to 0.92 Billion (note: like rail traffic, undoubtedly some of this is seasonal variation, but the YoY decline from Feb. 2008 - 09 was 50%. November 2009 showed the first YoY increase since April 2007-08).
But despite that improvement, employment in the transportation industries was still declining even in January:

III. If industry and associated economic metrics show a strong V-shaped recovery, the best since 1983, then once we look at that part of the economy most closely associated with average American consumers, another picture emerges entirely.
Real residential spending has typically powered consumer recoveries. Housing permits, however, after collapsing nearly 80% from their levels during the boom, have made up only about 10% of that ground -- the weakest housing recovery on record, including the Great Depression:

(note: I am addressing volume of new homes built, not prices of either new or existing houses, in this discussion. Foreclosures are likely to increase for several years yet, and prices are almost certainly going to resume their decline to the long term mean).

III. If industry and associated economic metrics show a strong V-shaped recovery, the best since 1983, then once we look at that part of the economy most closely associated with average American consumers, another picture emerges entirely.
Real residential spending has typically powered consumer recoveries. Housing permits, however, after collapsing nearly 80% from their levels during the boom, have made up only about 10% of that ground -- the weakest housing recovery on record, including the Great Depression:

(note: I am addressing volume of new homes built, not prices of either new or existing houses, in this discussion. Foreclosures are likely to increase for several years yet, and prices are almost certainly going to resume their decline to the long term mean).
Courtesy of Calculated Risk, we can break out residential vs. non-residential construction spending:

Rsidential spending has improved, but has relapsed somewhat due to the (believed) expiration of the $8000 housing credit. Commercial construction is still in strong decline, and probably will be so at least until later this year (CR notes that historically commercial spending has usually bottomed about 16 months after residential spending).

Rsidential spending has improved, but has relapsed somewhat due to the (believed) expiration of the $8000 housing credit. Commercial construction is still in strong decline, and probably will be so at least until later this year (CR notes that historically commercial spending has usually bottomed about 16 months after residential spending).
Reflecting that, construction employment continues to decline relentlessly (it was one of two areas responsible for January's preliminarily negative jobs report):

Over two million jobs have been lost in construction since its late 2005 peak. (note: there is no data breaking this down between residential vs. commercial construction jobs)

Over two million jobs have been lost in construction since its late 2005 peak. (note: there is no data breaking this down between residential vs. commercial construction jobs)
If houses are typically the largest and most important purchases made by consumers, autos are second. Auto sales declined from about 16 million a year to 9 million in early 2009, and have since rebounded to about 11 million, or about 25% of the way back to their peak:


This is a better situation than housing, but not nearly as strong a rebound as in the industrial economy.
Real retail sales (blue) which make up about 70% of consumer spending, declined about 12.5% from their pre-recession peak, also increased from their bottom, but only made up about 1/5 to 1/4 of that loss. Employment in the service part of the economy (red) declined almost 4%, and just started to eke out small gains in November's jobs report:

Government employment now includes more workers than all goods-producing employment. It is typically the last to turn down in a recession, and the last to turn up, sometimes not doing so until a year later. For example, here is the graph of gains and losses in government employment on a monthly basis during the 1970s:

and here is the chart of the same data, showing that even after the economy began to recover from the deep recessions of 1973-74 and 1981-82, employees in government continued to be laid off:


and here is the chart of the same data, showing that even after the economy began to recover from the deep recessions of 1973-74 and 1981-82, employees in government continued to be laid off:

Here is the same graph as to the 2001-03 recession and "jobless recovery":

and here is the chart of the same data, showing again that government employees continued to be laid off even into 2004, even after employment as a whole turned up in late 2003:

In the last 8 months, there have been signficant layoffs in government. This undoubtedly is due to the steep decline in revenues, which is reflected in the US Treasury receipts for withholding taxes, shown here (h/t to RDan at Angry Bear):

Daily fluctuations in YoY receipts are in red, the 30 day YoY moving average is the black dotted line. While as of February 25, 2010, this had improved to about -2% YoY, there is every reason to believe that there will be significant layoffs of government workers for the foreseeable future. Government was the second area responsible for the continuing job losses in the economy reported preliminarily in January.

and here is the chart of the same data, showing again that government employees continued to be laid off even into 2004, even after employment as a whole turned up in late 2003:

In the last 8 months, there have been signficant layoffs in government. This undoubtedly is due to the steep decline in revenues, which is reflected in the US Treasury receipts for withholding taxes, shown here (h/t to RDan at Angry Bear):

Daily fluctuations in YoY receipts are in red, the 30 day YoY moving average is the black dotted line. While as of February 25, 2010, this had improved to about -2% YoY, there is every reason to believe that there will be significant layoffs of government workers for the foreseeable future. Government was the second area responsible for the continuing job losses in the economy reported preliminarily in January.
IV. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not look at income and wages. Because of high unemployment and slack in production capacity, there was been much downward pressure on wages and salaries. As a result, after a big decline, real income has stagnated, just barely turning up in the last few months, and lagging the turnaround in all post-WW2 recessions:

Wages are in more severe trouble. In the graph below, average hourly earnings are in green, and the employment cost index (which is a median measure which does not get upwardly distorted by salaries at the upper end of the income scale) is in blue:

As you can see, both have been under intense downward pressure since the onset of the recession, and when one takes into account inflation (in red), both are now negative on a year-over-year basis. Quite simply, wages - which had a respite during the brief interval of low gas prices a year ago - aren't undergoing any recovery at all.

Wages are in more severe trouble. In the graph below, average hourly earnings are in green, and the employment cost index (which is a median measure which does not get upwardly distorted by salaries at the upper end of the income scale) is in blue:

As you can see, both have been under intense downward pressure since the onset of the recession, and when one takes into account inflation (in red), both are now negative on a year-over-year basis. Quite simply, wages - which had a respite during the brief interval of low gas prices a year ago - aren't undergoing any recovery at all.
But if wages are in real decline, there is yet one more graph that is probably the most V-shaped of them all. S&P 500 earnings, which almost entirely disappeared during the past recession - for the first time since the worst days of the 1929-32 contraction - have almost all been made up (h/t chartoftheday):

In real terms, profits at America's largest companies are the highest they have even been with the exception of the dot-com and housing bubbles.
In summation, we really do have two separate economies:
(1) an industrial and export economy, which is in a strong, full, V-shaped recovery;
(2) an economy consisting of
- a commerical construction subpart, which is still in sharp decline,
- and consumer related goods and services (residential construction, vehicles, and retail), which are barely growing.

In real terms, profits at America's largest companies are the highest they have even been with the exception of the dot-com and housing bubbles.
In summation, we really do have two separate economies:
(1) an industrial and export economy, which is in a strong, full, V-shaped recovery;
(2) an economy consisting of
- a commerical construction subpart, which is still in sharp decline,
- and consumer related goods and services (residential construction, vehicles, and retail), which are barely growing.
- employment, which even in the industrial sector, is either still declining or just barely growing.
Wall Street and industrial companies are showing near record profits, while employment, wages and salaries for ordinary workers/consumers are totally stagnant or in actual decline.
A bifurcated recovery indeed.
Wall Street and industrial companies are showing near record profits, while employment, wages and salaries for ordinary workers/consumers are totally stagnant or in actual decline.
A bifurcated recovery indeed.

10 comments:
Excellent article....
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/03/im-sure-glad-recession-ended.html
The author is missing a key point behind some of that data. Why is this happening.? For retail sales the answer is that despite being well down yoy per state income data, it's being heavily supported by govt transfer payments (ie unemployment checks, payroll tax cuts, stimulus checks, COBRA, other stimulus), and by massive bond issues by federal and state governments; and overnments have only been able to issue that additional debt because of $1.6+ billion in money printing by the Federal Reserve.
Note that both the printing press is scheduled to stop (for now) this month. The unemployment checks will be extended again, but the stimulus will run out in short time.
Other charts that are more telling are the ones I've been following throughout this crisis, and Mish posted them this morning: namely banks loans and state and federal tax receipts.
About manufacturing, numbers are up mostly because they are building inventories. It's also up to some extent because of the stimulus and because of exports, which are mostly driven directly or indirectly by the Chinese stimulus. The surveys are just surveys. Going forward, we might have another quarter of inventory rebuilding, but not more; the stimulus is ending; and the Chinese stimulus will be spent thru soon.
About trucking, the Transportation services index for December for freight was lower than in many months in 1997.
http://www.bts.gov/xml/tsi/src/datadisp_table.xml
Corporate Profits ???
So were are the profits coming from if not consumer spending? Profits at this level in past years were associated with very large consumer spending – people buying houses, cars, etc. So if they are not buy on a comparable scale now…what are the corporations selling to whom. It does not seem that the level of exports would offset the consumer spending in years 1995 – 2005. For that to happen every dollar that the consumer stopped spending some foreign importer would have to increase a dollar spending. Seems to me.
Tom
. . . bad news. As I commented elsewhere, an economic recovery that doesn't increase median income or decrease unemployment is absolutely worthless to working Americans. That's difficult to understate.
Perhaps the "caboose effect" is making employment and income even more of lagging indicators than normal (the tug of the locomotive has to sweep through the entire length of the train, and as I mentioned before, lead times are REALLY stretched right now), but working Americans are running out of time.
Help Wanted Online New Ads up for the fourth month in a row....
http://www.conference-board.org/economics/helpwantedOnline.cfm
Brodero, Dragonchild -- thanks as always. I really need to check out the help wanted index.
Anon at 8:10:
So, you think Mish is a credible source? Just wait and check back in here tomorrow.
Here's a hint: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
To address the Anonymous 8:10 comment to the general public:
"For retail sales the answer is that despite being well down yoy per state income data, it's being heavily supported by govt transfer payments (ie unemployment checks, payroll tax cuts, stimulus checks, COBRA, other stimulus), and by massive bond issues by federal and state governments; and overnments have only been able to issue that additional debt because of $1.6+ billion in money printing by the Federal Reserve."
Retail sales are down partly because the savings rate has shot up. Not only are industries hoarding jobs; in retaliation, consumers are hoarding cash. We went from a negative savings rate to the highest in decades. . . but it means after sustaining a BUY BUY BUY economy for such an absurdly long time, short-sighted retailers can't gorge themselves consumer debt anymore. Long story short, consumer spending isn't a direct indicator of economic recovery anymore, as it won't necessarily track median income.
And yes, the Federal Reserve "issued money" in that it injected liquidity to the banking system. . . just as it was about to freeze solid. Staving off that disaster took a LOT more than $1.6 billion. IIRC, it was more like $300 billion, but it all went into cash reserves at banks. The banks realized, for the first time in twenty farkin' years, that gee, maybe they need enough cash on hand to cover their drunken casino-style bets. So they're hoarding the cash to stay solvent. That's not disputed much by anyone, as it's a fun way to illustrate how broken the system is, but you can't have it both ways: the cash is either held by the banks or driving up inflation. Considering bank reserves are up (WAY up) and inflation is low, I'd say it's the former, and thus the Fed's role (beyond preventing the worst liquidity trap since the Great Depression) is inconsequential at this point.
Looking at the corporate profits chart for 12/09 from the St. Louis Fed, profits bottom about midway into the recession and climbed (sharp v shaped) through the second half of the recession. It seems that corporate profits are independent of the overall economy. So again, I ask (rhetorically) How do they make their profits? Who is selling what to whom? Or, is a significant portion of those profits coming from financial transaction (buying and selling securities) i.e. TARP transactions?
I am glad to see this break out of the disparity in recoveries. This is quite important more so in the political arena than in the economic one and it illuminates the disconnect between government and the people with respect to the so-called recovery as the recovery truly depends on perspective.
If you are a small business owner or a consumer in the bottom 70 percent or so things are certainly not looking up. Companies reporting record-profits while shedding jobs only fuels discontent among the people. This is evident amongst consumer confidence and the small-business surveys. And those are inter-linked in the sense that small business is (or was) the largest source of employment and the biggest need of small business is customers (rather than credit as the government has been pushing).
Retail sales is the driver of this economy for a majority of the population. It actually has to be. It can't become any caboose on this train. That is the arena where most of the small businesses operate. We don't have any ready replacement for the jobs that are lost in this category. There isn't an employment growth industry out there to take up that slack. The lack of sales and income tax revenues to municipalities only fuels more declines in government services and/or higher property taxes.
Thanks to the big expansion of the corporate chains everywhere and anywhere there is excess capacity. Not only had they killed businesses on their way into geographical markets but they are killing businesses on the way out. Without the traffic they were driving to various shopping centers, etc. the dependent small businesses next door are in trouble.
Recovery for most Americans is going to depend highly on consumer spending. What seems quite evident is that consumers are avoiding the use of credit as much as possible. If consumer spending is being driven based on wages then the people, by and large, are in serious trouble. The reports that consumers are favoring unsecured debt payments over secured asset payments does not bode well either.
A consumer driven double dip as far as I am concerned seems quite likely to me at this point. I think we may have reached a critical mass of consumers throwing in the towel. If grocery sales numbers are down again this month we should know for sure. We are already seeing a re-prioritization of spending and in debt service. In particular the rising trend toward servicing unsecured debt over secured debt should be setting off alarm bells in Washington. Whether anyone there can actually hear those bells is another matter entirely. Of course the last thing that banks want at this time is to repossess assets of any kind as re-selling those assets only depresses the "value" of similar long-term assets thus fueling the cycle.
Shoving tens of millions (eventually) of households through bankruptcy and foreclosure to save the bondholders of 15 banks isn't good public policy. But that is where we are and it certainly hasn't escaped the attention of the people.
What's the bottom line? The stock market has priced in clear skies with little risk of a double dip and/or return to continuing destruction. I expected a bounce, but not a 1 year 50+percent retracement. Thoughts
Post a Comment