We will soon have a new President and, even though his election was somewhat of a fluke, he will obviously want to help the blue-collar workers who elected him. The best way to do this is to make the economy grow faster.
The Gallup economist, Jonathan Rothwell, has just issued an excellent analysis of some of the major reasons for our current slow economy, “No Recovery: an analysis of long-term U.S. productivity decline.”
Says Mr. Rothwell:
The problem is severe. U.S. GDP growth per capita has declined from 2.6% in 1966 to .5% today. Small differences expand into vast gaps in potential living standards. 1% growth for the next 35 years would expand household income from $56,000 in 2015 to $79,000 in 2050 (inflation adjusted), whereas 1.7% growth would raise household income to $101,000 in 2050.
Changes in living standards are fundamentally linked to changes of how the quantity of goods and services relate to their cost. Deterioration in the quality-to-cost ratio for healthcare, housing and education is dragging down economic growth. These three sectors alone have increased from 25% of GDP in 1980 to 36% of GDP in 2015.
The cost of healthcare is 4.8 times as high today as in 1980, the cost of education is 8.9 times as high today as in 1980 and the cost of housing is 3.5 times as high today as in 1980. These compare to an overall cost increase of all items of 2.5 times today compared to 1980.
These three sectors have all gotten more expensive (without getting more productive), thereby absorbing more of families’ incomes, making it harder to satisfy other wants.
Conclusion. We all want schools that work, adequate housing, and quality healthcare. The problem is how to achieve these ends in a much more affordable manner. Stay tuned!
The economist Alan Blinder has just reported, “The Mystery of Declining Productivity Growth” that U.S. productivity growth has fallen dramatically in the last few years. “The healthy 2.6% a year from 1995-2010 has since been an anemic 0.4%. What’s scary is that we don’t know why.” The economists Edward Prescott and Lee Ohanian believe the productivity slowdown is caused by a corresponding slowdown in new startups (as illustrated by the above chart). They point out, for example, that:
The creation rate of new businesses in 2011 was 30% lower than the average rate of the 1980s.
New startups are critical for growth since many of today’s heavyweights will decline as new businesses take their place. For example, only half of the Fortune 500 firms in 1995 remained on that list in 2010.
Startups in high technology have also declined since 2000 even though there is no slowdown in the development of new technology.
Consistent with the recommendations of James Bessen in a recent post of mine, “Learning by Doing,” Messrs. Prescott and Ohanian recommend policy changes such as:
Better training, plus immigration reform, to produce more skilled workers.
Streamlining regulations that raise cost, especially for small businesses.
Tax reform to reduce marginal tax rates.
Reforming Dodd-Frank to make it easier for small businesses to obtain loans from main street banks.
In today’s New York Times, the economist Tyler Cowen wonders whether our economy is in the midst of a “Great Reset.” “Perhaps the most crucial issue is whether economies will return to normal conditions of steady growth, or whether we are witnessing a fundamental transformation” to a less productive economy.
Here’s another way to put it: shall we attempt to adopt better pro-growth policies or shall we just give in to the status quo and accept that we can’t do any better? Are we optimists or are we pessimists?
The social economist William Galston has a column, in last week’s Wall Street Journal, “Closing the Productivity and Pay Gap”, discussing the large gap between the rising productivity of American workers and the stagnant pay level which has developed since 1973 (see below). He points out that “the erosion of the compensation/productivity link has made it harder to sustain robust domestic demand for goods and services, which constitutes more than two-thirds of our entire economy. As the gap widened, U.S. households responded by sending more women into the workforce, expanding the numbers of hours worked, and taking on a greater burden of debt. These strategies have hit a wall. Unless compensation rises more rapidly, stagnant domestic demand will depress economic growth as far as the eye can see.” In other words, workers are no longer receiving their fair share of the productivity gains. And this retards the increased economic growth which we all desire. Without detracting from the seriousness of Mr. Galston’s argument, I would like to make several observations which are pertinent to the discussion. First of all, as pointed out by the Heritage Foundation (in the second chart), wage stagnation since 1973 does not take into account the growth of total compensation including healthcare and other benefits. And since healthcare costs are twice what they are in any other country, this is a huge drag on the growth of worker’s pay. In other words, if the U.S. were able to cut healthcare costs nearly in half, as should be possible with a more efficient system, then the hundreds of billions of dollars saved would give a huge boost to paychecks. Secondly (as shown in the last chart), there is a direct correlation between wages and education level for U.S. workers. Of course, boosting educational outcomes is much easier said than done and, in any event, is a long term process. Nevertheless, any highly motivated and ambitious person can increase their earnings prospects by succeeding in school. Finally, a combination of minimum wage increases and perhaps an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit can help those people at the lowest levels of the income scale earn a living wage as long as they are willing to work. As Mr. Galston said in an earlier piece, “We need nothing less than a new norm – a revised social contract – that links compensation to productivity. And because we cannot return to the conditions that once sustained that link, we need new policies to bring it about.”