Social Security

According to Greg Mankiw,

Concern about social security's future comes not from decades of scare-mongering by conservative ideologues but from decades of dispassionate analysis by some of the best policy economists.

He cites a 1998 statement by Bill Clinton and another by President Clinton’s Advisory Council on Social Security. Greg certainly has a point that Paul Krugman is stretching by using the word “decades,” since 1998 was less than a decade ago, and there were, at the time, clearly many relatively liberal policy analysts who were concerned about the future of Social Security (though I think the most vocal expressions of concern came from conservatives). But I think Greg is also being a bit disingenuous here.

Though I know little about the details of Social Security projections, I know something about the assumptions that go into them, and those assumptions, I’m pretty sure, have changed dramatically between 1997 (when the Advisory Council published its report) and 2007. The title of the report is “Report of the 1994-1996 Advisory Council on Social Security,” which suggests that the analysis was done before 1997, at a time when the US productivity slowdown that began in the 1970s still appeared to be an ongoing process. When productivity grows slowly, the outlook for Social Security looks bad.

Starting in the mid-1990s, but not fully apparent in available statistics until the decade was drawing to a close, US productivity accelerated to growth rates not seen since the 1960s. Productivity in the early 2000s appeared to accelerate even further. Over the past couple of years, productivity has appeared to decelerate again, but this deceleration is at least partly a cyclical phenomenon that is not expected to last (and, for the last two quarters, I might add, productivity has accelerated again, although that acceleration is also suspect). Certainly the average expectation of economists today would call for much faster productivity growth in the future than did the average expectation in 1996. When productivity grows quickly, the outlook for Social Security looks fine.

One could, however, make the point that, if we want to be honest with ourselves, we really don’t have much of a clue whether the Social Security system is in trouble or not. Any expectation – high, low, or in between – about the future rate of productivity growth is scarcely more than a slightly educated guess. To be truly conservative, we should make the worst reasonable assumption (based still on only a slightly educated guess as to what range of assumptions is reasonable), and use that assumption in the analysis, which will then tell us that Social Security is in trouble. So on this issue at least, the conservatives (and Barrack Obama) really are being conservative.

But I still have a problem with Senator Obama’s conservative position. As I understand it, the Medicare system fails even under fairly optimistic assumptions about productivity. If you make the assumptions bad enough to make Social Security require significant changes, you’ve made them so bad that the Medicare system requires a complete overhaul and damn near goes broke anyway. Given our limited analytic and political resources in coming up with and implementing solutions to these problems, doesn’t it make sense to spend those resources in such a way that we at least have a chance of coming out OK – that is, spend them on a Medicare overhaul that is almost surely necessary, rather than on a Social Security overhaul that may or may not be necessary?

Why doesn’t Europe have a large trade deficit? (Part 2)

The first rule of this game is that you’re not allowed to answer, “Because Europe has a high savings rate.” The whole point of Paul Krugman’s post to which I linked in Part 1 (as well as this 1995 Krugman piece to which he links therein) is that there has to be some mechanism by which a higher savings rate leads to a smaller trade deficit (or a surplus). The usual mechanism is the exchange rate, but in this case, the dollar has not appreciated against the euro. (It has depreciated in nominal terms and probably mildly depreciated in real terms also.) You can’t just say that when people save more, they buy fewer imports: if this were the only mechanism, then an increased savings rate would necessarily lead to a huge recession, because people would also buy fewer domestic products. Once the central bank and the financial markets make the necessary adjustments to avoid that recession, they increase the demand for imports again, and we’re back where we started. Unless something else – such as the value of the currency – changes.

I’m somewhat disappointed that I haven’t yet seen an answer that is both convincing and conventional. Apparently, there is no easy story that explains the divergence in trade balances between the US and Europe. (When I say Europe, BTW, I mean the Euro Zone – since I’m speaking with reference to exchange rates. Steve Waldman points out that there is diversity within the Euro Zone, with Germany running a surplus and most of the others running deficits. At a pinch, I’ll make this whole discussion about Germany and say, “Why does Germany still have a trade surplus?”)

There were a couple of interesting unconventional answers that involve complementarity. Karl Smith (in a comment that he develops more fully on his own blog) suggests a complementarity between Asian production and US distribution. In this story, the major cause of the US trade deficit is what might be called the “Wal-Mart effect.” Imports have become cheap to buy in the US, not so much because they have become cheap to produce in Asia, but because US retailers have learned to operate on thinner margins. European retailers, on the other hand, have not.

A couple of people hinted at another possible complementarity: between European (i.e., German) exports and the Asian production process. If the Asian (Chinese) investment boom has created a specific demand for European (German) capital goods, then the resulting export demand could outweigh the effect of euro’s appreciation. It’s not entirely clear to me why it wouldn’t also create a demand for (presumably cheaper) US capital goods, but then I know very little about the details, so perhaps US capital goods just aren’t the kind that China needs.

Some people suggested various things, such as European protectionism and the VAT, that might help explain why Europe has in general had a stronger trade balance than the US, but as far as I can tell, they don’t explain why the US has developed a trade deficit over the past decade and Europe hasn’t. The VAT was there a decade ago, when the euro was weaker and Asia was less productive, so why didn’t Europe have a large trade surplus at that time?

Gabriel M. asks why it all matters. He wants the answer to boil down to welfare. Steve Waldman gives an answer which may help satisfy Gabriel. As for me, I don’t have an answer that boils down to welfare, because in this case I’m one of the agents trying to form my own expectations about exchange rates. The observation that the US is importing a lot more than it is exporting, and the presumed unwillingness of people outside the US to keep sending goods to the US without eventually receiving something in exchange, suggests to me that the dollar is overvalued. The fact that a similar argument cannot be made for Europe suggests that the euro is undervalued against the dollar. But I’m troubled because there is a piece of the puzzle that doesn’t seem to fit.

Why doesn’t Europe have a large trade deficit?

Paul Krugman (hat tip: Greg Mankiw) points out that, for national savings (and investment) to affect the trade balance, it first has to affect the exchange rate. (In particular, if the US had a higher savings rate, the trade deficit wouldn’t fall unless the dollar depreciated further, so it is absurd to blame the weak dollar on the low savings rate.) One of the implications of this realization is that one can talk about the immediate causes of trade imbalances without mentioning national savings or investment: the cause has to be either in the (real) exchange rate or in the business cycle.

In terms of exchange rates, it’s pretty easy to see why the US has a large trade deficit today. (For now I’ll leave out the oil issue, though that’s part of the explanation.) The Asian countries (and China in particular) have become dramatically more productive over the past decade. Therefore their prices for traded goods have fallen dramatically, but they have not allowed their currencies to appreciate commensurately. Consequently, the dollar is overvalued (in real terms) relative to those currencies today. Ergo, the US has a trade deficit.

OK, so far it makes sense, but wait a minute: productivity growth in Europe has not been much faster than productivity growth in the US over the past decade. Prices of traded goods produced in Europe have not fallen. The euro has not, on balance, depreciated against the dollar. And Europe didn’t have a huge surplus with the US a decade ago (despite the booming US economy at the time). So if Asian goods are cheap today relative to US goods, then Asian goods must also be cheap relative to European goods. So why doesn’t Europe have a large trade deficit like the US?

If I get a chance, I’m going to download actual data on trade balances and exchange rates and see if I can figure this out. For now, though, it’s a puzzle. And it makes me wonder if we should start to get really worried about Europe’s trade balance now that the euro has appreciated dramatically against the dollar.

For Richer or Poorer

Robert Reich (hat tip: Mark Thoma) says that the weak dollar is going to make Americans poorer (except for those who are rich enough to hedge against the dollar’s fall) and that “the real worry isn’t inflation” but “our pocketbooks.” Reich’s scenario is indeed what you get from a comparative static exercise in a simple full-employment model: when the terms of trade shift against you, you end up worse off, and (provided nobody expands the money supply) inflation isn’t an issue because falling prices outside the tradable sector (like, let’s say, in housing) offset rising prices for tradables.

But real life is not a comparative static exercise, and everything else doesn’t get put on hold when we go from an old equilibrium to a new one. In the past, the overwhelming tendency has been for the US (as a whole, anyhow) to get richer over time, and I doubt that the terms-of-trade shock, by itself, will be enough to reverse that tendency over the next few years. The US may get a recession, and that may make the US temporarily poorer, but if we are heading for a recession right now, it is in spite of, not because of, the falling dollar. Aside from the possibility of a recession, the US capital stock will continue to grow as usual, technology will continue to improve as usual, and, provided that the terms-of-trade shock is not too precipitous, improving domestic productivity will offset the deteriorating terms of trade.

What if the terms-of-trade shock is too precipitous? Then the US will get poorer, temporarily, but the long-run improvement in productivity will continue, and after a few years, we should catch up again. But a precipitous shock would lead me to question Professor Reich’s assertion that “the real worry isn’t inflation.” A sudden deterioration in the terms of trade would (as I argued in my earlier posts about labor cost targeting) put the Fed in a difficult position. Given the stickiness of many domestic wages and prices, the diminution of living standards that Reich foresees would not happen without a fight, and the result of the fight would be either inflation or recession. I would be more worried about either of those possibilities than I would about the fact that some people will have to make modest reductions in their standards of living.

It’s also not unthinkable that the falling dollar could end up improving US living standards, paradoxical though that may seem. The overvalued dollar has pushed a disproportionate fraction of US resources into the nontradable sector. One has to wonder whether this imbalance has damaged productivity growth. It’s a lot easier to imagine productivity growth happening in tradable industries like manufacturing and Internet-based services than in, say, construction and mortgage finance. Surely real investment will make a much greater contribution to productivity if it goes into plant and equipment for export industries rather than into residential housing. And as one who believes that there is more slack in the US labor market than is generally recognized, I hold out the hope that the stimulus from a weak dollar will help us discover that slack and give the US a Keynesian free lunch to offset the rising cost of the French wine we’ll be drinking with that lunch.

Professor Reich also suggests that the weak dollar will have a regressive effect on distribution, but again I’m skeptical. The tradable sector is where most of the good working class jobs are (or were, and presumably could be again). Reduced foreign competition will also put workers in a better position to negotiate a bigger slice of the pie in industries where there’s room for negotiation. If it becomes relatively more economical to produce in America, that’s no net advantage for the world’s capitalists (who will lose, for example, on European production what they gain on American production), but it will be a big advantage for the American workers who are available to do the producing.

Having said all this, I want to point out that, while the prognosis for the dollar is certainly not good, reports that the dollar is already dead have been greatly exaggerated. Yes, the dollar is at a record low against the Euro, but this doesn’t mean that the dollar has crashed. It just means that the dollar’s general downtrend, which has been in place for five years, is continuing, and that we happen to have been in a declining phase of the variation around the trend. There is a good chance that the dollar will keep going down from here and that the general trend will accelerate. But that’s hardly a foregone conclusion. Anyone who remembers the fall of 2004 should know to be cautious in extrapolating the weak dollar into the immediate future.

Target Unit Labor Costs

Last year (here and here, with related posts here, here, here, here, here, here, and here – or just read the August 2006 archives and my post from yesterday) I suggested that the Fed should target unit labor costs. Upon additional thought, I still think so. I won’t go through the whole argument again, but I want to note a few important points:

1. I’m referring to targeting a forecast of labor costs (using a “price rule” that would correct for the failures of earlier forecasts), not trying to react to every wiggle in the reported series, which is reported with a lag, quite volatile and subject sometimes to fairly dramatic revisions. The idea is for the Fed to have a long-run stable growth rate of unit labor costs as its ultimate objective, upon which it could be judged after several years of hindsight, when the final revisions come in and the trends become clear.
   
   
2. The main purpose of this approach is to have a simple and easily understood (by the market) answer to the question of how to react to supply shocks. The appropriate response to supply shocks is a matter of great controversy in macroeconomics: should a central bank accommodate supply shocks and let the inflation rate rise temporarily in order to avoid a recession or a slowing of growth (or a boom, in the case of a favorable supply shock), or should it lean heavily against the inflationary impact (or the deflationary impact) of supply shocks in order to pursue an unchanged target inflation rate? The labor cost target settles the question: if the shock is to domestic productivity or to the labor market, then lean against the inflationary impact; if the shock is entirely outside the domestic labor market and production process, then accommodate (except to the extent that you expect the shock to have indirect effects on productivity and the labor market, such as might arise, for example, from sticky real wages).
   
   
3. If the Fed is going to adopt such a policy, now is the time to announce it – or rather, to let the idea of prioritizing unit labor costs find its way into the speeches of Fed officials, since that’s the way the Fed operates. All indications today are that we are heading directly into an unfavorable import price shock. How will the Fed react? The market shouldn’t have to make random guesses. Moreover, there is great uncertainty about the intensity of the shock, and to some extent, the direction (because oil is something of a wild card and could have a big drop in price just as easily as a big increase). We want to know now what reactions to expect when these uncertainties are resolved.
   
   
4. When today’s incipient shocks are fully realized, Fed credibility is going to be a big issue, especially with a relatively short-tenured Chairman and given the market’s response to this week’s Fed action. In the case of a severe adverse shock, if the Fed hasn’t specified in advance how it intends to react, it will face a choice between recession and loss of credibility. That’s not a situation that anyone will enjoy.
   
   
5. As the following updated chart indicates, the Fed can make a pretty good case that it has already been targeting unit labor costs since the early 1990s. (The old talk about a preferred inflation rate between 1% and 2% rings a bit hollow – in addition to being, in my opinion, a less than optimal target range for inflation. But unit labor costs have stayed pretty nicely in that range – although, in my opinion, it’s a less than optimal target for unit labor costs as well, and I would hope the Fed would go maybe for something like 2%.)

From the chart, it looks like we need a slowing of unit labor costs now to continue keeping in line with the target. But given the recent weakness in the labor market and simultaneous recovery in output growth, as well as various factors suggesting a high risk of recession, I think the central tendency of the Fed’s forecasts will be for slower labor cost growth anyhow. All in all, labor costs are still very close to the presumed target, so the priority at this point should be for maintaining stable growth rather than attacking a bulge in labor costs. (And if the Fed were to do as I prefer, and raise the target to 2%, there wouldn’t be any question.)

Revised Smoothed Unit Labor Costs

Perhaps the most striking piece of data adduced by Allan Meltzer in arguing against an easing of monetary policy was “unit labor costs rising at a 5% rate.” It appears that he is comparing second quarter 2007 unit labor costs to second quarter 2006 unit labor costs to get that 5% growth rate. As I argued last year (ironically, arguing against Marty Feldstein, who went on to become Allan Meltzer’s major adversary in the recent debate),

...the right way to analyze these data is neither by comparing years to years nor by comparing fourth quarters to fourth quarters, but by smoothing the quarterly data over time to extract an estimate of the general trend.

I have updated the chart I made last year of the smoothed rate of unit labor cost growth, and the picture has not changed dramatically, though things do look a little bit more inflationary than they did a year ago. Certainly, my smoothed series does not suggest that that the 5% growth rate cited by Allan Meltzer is a very good indication of the general trend. The most recent smoothed growth rate is 2.5%, which, while it is higher than what today’s Fed would probably consider ideal, does not suggest that we are moving into a new regime of rapid labor cost growth.



It might also be worth thinking about what we should expect unit labor costs to do in the immediate future (or in the immediate past that hasn’t yet been reported in the data). Are there reasons to expect productivity growth to accelerate or decelerate? Are there reasons to expect compensation growth to accelerate or decelerate? To the extent that there are reasons for either, they go generally in the direction of accelerating productivity growth and decelerating compensation growth, so they point to a less inflationary trend in labor costs. Simply, the labor market is weak. With employment at a near standstill for the past 3 months, employers have little reason to raise compensation, and any significant output growth will have had to come in the form of rising productivity (since there is no indication that hours worked per employee is rising). Various indicators do suggest that output is still rising at a reasonable rate. (Also, I imagine compensation may take a substantial seasonally-adjusted hit when bonus time comes around for Wall Street and the mortgage and construction industries.) All in all, I don’t see much reason to be worried about rising labor costs.

Productivity Slowdown?

Today’s US productivity data were rather unpleasant (see Mark Thoma’s post and the links therefrom), but I’m far from ready to throw in the towel on this one. By my reckoning, the slowing of productivity growth still falls in the category of cyclical variation, and the long-term trend of productivity growth remains at least as high as it was during the late 1990s.

With the latest data, I’ll repeat the analysis from the last time I posted on this topic. (Click on the “productivity” label link at the bottom of this post.) The premise is that productivity goes in cycles, related to, but not necessarily coincident with, the business cycle. (For example, the 1990s business cycle contained two distinct productivity cycles.) I’m measuring cycles from peak to peak, and I’m making the conservative assumption that we have not yet reached the peak of the current cycle. (Obviously we are long past the peak.) Here are the average annual growth rates of business sector productivity:

1.4%  1986q1 to 1990q2
1.6%  1990q2 to 1994q4
2.5%  1994q4 to 2000q2
2.6%  2000q2 to 2006q4

An alternative, less conservative, approach, is to measure from trough to trough, with the assumption that we are currently at a trough:

1.4%  1987q1 to 1991q1
1.6%  1991q1 to 1995q3
2.6%  1995q3 to 2001q1
2.8%  2001q1 to 2006q4

Taken together, these results suggest that the current trend is approximately the same as it was in the previous cycle.

There is no productivity problem.

You’ve probably heard about the awful US productivity numbers for the 3rd quarter (productivity roughly flat, instead of rising as it usually does, and this on top of unimpressive productivity growth in the 3 preceding quarters). If you’re a regular reader of my blog, you shouldn’t be surprised, and if you agree with the argument I made here, you shouldn’t be upset. The 3rd quarter is part of a cyclical downturn in productivity growth. It’s perfectly normal, and in this case, even predictable, and it does not mean that the era of rapid productivity growth is coming to an end.

Let’s take a look at the numbers for the last 4 productivity cycles. And let’s stack the deck against the current cycle by measuring from peak to peak and assuming that we have not yet reached the peak. (Obviously, we are past the peak, and if we wanted to measure accurately from peak to peak, we would have to leave off the weaker numbers for the last 2 quarters.) OK. From 1986Q1 to 1990Q2, business sector productivity rose at an average annual rate of 1.4%. From 1990Q2 to 1994Q4, the rate was 1.6%. From 1994Q4 to 2000Q2 it was 2.5%. From 2000Q2 to 2006Q3 it has been 2.8%. Revisions to employment statistics might shave a tenth of a percentage point off that average and give us 2.7%. Not a rate that I would complain about.

It’s always possible that the longer-term trend of productivity growth has also slowed, just as it’s possible that the US is already in a recession. So far, though, we don’t have evidence that either of these propositions is true.

Unproductive Landing

Expect some bad news about US productivity in the coming quarters – and remember to ignore it. It is well known (though often forgotten) that productivity follows a consistent pattern over the business cycle. During recoveries, it rises rapidly, as firms ramp up production before adding staff; during (and just prior to) recessions, it falls (or slows down), as firms hold on to more staff than they need (presumably in anticipation of an eventual recovery). It is less well-known – because it has only happened once – how productivity behaves during “soft landings.” In principle, however, a soft landing could be even worse, productivity-wise, than a recession.

A recession involves – more or less by definition – declining employment, which reduces the denominator of the productivity ratio and moderates the decline in productivity. A soft landing probably doesn’t involve declining employment. (If it did, I wouldn’t call it a soft landing. Would you?) The ideal soft landing presumably brings firms just to the brink of the point where they would reduce employment. To adjust to weaker demand without reducing employment, firms would have to reduce the numerator (output) of the productivity ratio without substantially reducing the denominator (although they would reduce it a little by using fewer hours from current employees). Thus a soft landing might well bring us to the worst part of the productivity cycle.

Just to substantiate this point empirically, yes, productivity did fall during the 1995 soft landing. During the first 2 quarters of 1995, it fell at annualized rate of 0.9%. For the full year (Q4 to Q4), it rose at the anemic rate of 0.7%. And productivity growth also slowed during the “soft quasi-landings” of 1967 and 1986.

So whether we have a recession or a soft landing, my psychic powers are sensing some unpleasant productivity numbers in our future. Of course, my psychic powers could be wrong, mostly because we may have neither a soft landing nor a recession. We could have a “non-recessionary hard landing,” during which employment falls but the cheerleaders continue yelling “GDP is growing! GDP is growing!” and the NBER refuses to declare a recession. To my knowledge, nothing like that has ever happened in the US, but similar things have happened elsewhere, such as in Japan. Alternatively, if the Iranian nuclear crisis gets solved, the Lebanon cease-fire holds up, Iraq avoids a civil war, and the hurricane season spares oil production, we could conceivably have a “perfect landing” in which declining energy prices allow normal growth to resume quickly without prompting the Fed to slow it down again. If that happens, then we’ve already had our soft landing. (Did you notice all the complaints about second quarter productivity growth?) Or…we could have a soft landing – or even a recession – that coincides with enough technological improvement to mask the productivity effect.

None of these 3 alternative scenarios seems likely, so I’d bet with my familiar spirit on this one. Although 2nd quarter productivity may be revised upward, don’t be disappointed when the subsequent quarters’ data come out. And by the way, measuring from the peak productivity of Q2 2000, the average productivity growth rate this time around has been 2.9%. That tops the previous (widely celebrated) productivity cycle (starting from the peak in Q4 1994) by a good 40 basis points. So if Q2 2006 turns out to be a peak, it’s been a damn good cycle!