US Employment Levels Analysis

After publishing my previous post yesterday, I decided to take a closer look at the numbers.

My first thought was, while comparing the current recession to the previous two downturns makes sense, I didn't know how this recession compared to the others before 1990-91, such as the big recession in 1981-82 (a vivid memory for myself). Were there any recessions that were worse than either 1981-82 or 2007-09? (For my analysis, I'm using November 2007 as the start of the current recession.)

What I did was to download the US employment levels data, seasonally adjusted, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for the period of January 1948 to the present. From this data, I found nine downturns in which employment sank on a significant basis, followed by a recovery period. I then took percentages from the nine downturns in which the highest level of employment prior to the downturn (the peak month) is equal to 100%. Following months, through to the point where the employment level once more reached the level of the peak month, were then compared as a percentage to the peak month.

What I found is that the 2007-09 recession is already the eighth worst downturn of the nine. Through January 2009, the employment level is at 96.89% of the peak month's level, a drop of 3.11%. Only the 1953-54 recession is worse (-3.82%). And, of course, there is no bottom in sight yet for the 2007-09 data; if current trends continue, 1953-54's record will be broken in either February or March at the latest.

Adding to the distress is the fact that 2007-09 is already in its fourteenth month past the peak. Only two other downturns took longer: 1953-54, which lasted sixteen months, and 1981-82, which lasted twenty months.

Eventually, of course, previous recessions reached a bottom and then began a period of economic recovery. Of the eight previous recoveries, the average length of time was 12.38 months from the trough month through to the level where employment reached the previous peak. (It should be noted, though, that the previous two recoveries, 1991-93 and 2002-03, took twenty-one and seventeen months respectively, which were by far the two longest recoveries since 1948.)

If the 1953-54 recession is any guide to what may be in store for this recession, any recovery back to November 2007 employment levels will not occur prior to March 2010 at the earliest, and quite possibly not until August-December 2010.

Let's hope I'm wrong, and that we reach the trough and the recovery months more quickly.

3,600,000 and Counting

Here's a graph to make you wet your pants a little. As The Gavel points out, the current recession is much, much more serious in terms of job losses to date (3.6 million and counting) than the previous two. And there's no bottom in sight.

This chart compares the job loss so far in this recession to job losses in the 1990-1991 recession and the 2001 recession – showing how dramatic and unprecedented the job loss over the last 13 months has been. Over the last 13 months, our economy has lost a total of 3.6 million jobs – and continuing job losses in the next few months are predicted.

By comparison, we lost a total of 1.6 million jobs in the 1990-1991 recession, before the economy began turning around and jobs began increasing; and we lost a total of 2.7 million jobs in the 2001 recession, before the economy began turning around and jobs began increasing.

US Unemployment Rates - December 2008

The December US regional and state unemployment figures were released in late January. The figures, overall, continue to get worse. Here are some of the highlights:

• Overall, the "official" national unemployment rate (U-3) increased by 0.4%, from 6.8% to 7.2%, over November's number. (November's percentage was revised upward by 0.1%.) For the past twelve months, the national rate has increased 2.3%.
  
• For the most inclusive unemployment rate measured (U-6), the increase was 0.9%, from 12.6% to 13.5%. For the past twelve months, U-6 has increased by 4.8%.
  
• In terms of monthly change, the states with the largest increases were Indiana and South Carolina, both with a 1.1% increase; six states had a 1.0% increase: Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Oregon.
  
• On an annual basis, the state with the largest increase continues to be Rhode Island with an increase of 4.8%. North Carolina remains in second place with an increase of 4.0%, and Nevada has jumped into third with an increase of 3.9%.
  
• The states with the lowest annual increases are North Dakota at 0.3%, Arkansas at 0.7%, and Iowa and Oklahoma at 0.8% each.
  
• The state with the highest unemployment rate is Michigan, which increased 1.0% to 10.6%; Rhode Island remains in second place, with a rate of 10.0% (up 0.7%). South Carolina comes in third at 9.5% (up 1.1%).
  
• The states with the lowest unemployment rates continue to be Wyoming (3.4%, up 0.2%), North Dakota (3.5%, up 0.2%), and South Dakota (3.9%, up 0.5%).
  
• In terms of non-farm payroll employment (i.e., number of jobs), the states with the biggest decreases since November were California (-78,200), Michigan (-59,000), and New York (-54,000).
  
• For annual changes in non-farm payroll employment, the states with the biggest decreases are California (-257,400), Florida (-255,200), and Michigan (-173,000). Texas continues to be the nation's bright spot, with an annual increase of 153,700, down 67,500 from November.

The PDF version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release can be found here.

Singapore Preliminary GDP Estimate for 2008Q4 and Forecast for 2009

Singapore's Ministry of Trade and Industry has released its preliminary GDP estimate for the fourth quarter of 2008. It has also released forecasts for both 2009's GDP and consumer price index (CPI) inflation. Below are some of the highlights:

On the GDP Estimate for the Fourth Quarter of 2008:

Preliminary estimates for the Singapore economy show that real gross domestic product (GDP) contracted by 3.7 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2008, following the decline of 0.2 per cent in the preceding quarter. On a seasonally adjusted, annualised quarter-on-quarter basis, real GDP fell by 16.9 per cent, compared to a decline of 5.1 per cent in the third quarter of 2008. ... For 2008 as a whole, the economy is estimated to have grown by 1.2 per cent, compared with 7.7 per cent in 2007.

The manufacturing sector is estimated to have contracted by 4.1 per cent, down from an expansion of 5.8 per cent in 2007. Several clusters - electronics, precision engineering, and chemicals - were affected by the rapid decline in demand in Singapore's key export markets, especially in the last quarter of 2008. Industry-specific factors also exerted a negative impact. ... The construction sector grew by 17.9 per cent in 2008, compared to 20.3 per cent in 2007. The healthy level of construction output in 2008 was sustained by robust activity in the residential, industrial and civil engineering building segments. Construction demand was also supported by an upswing in the number of public housing and infrastructural projects committed.

Growth in the services producing industries moderated from the strong growth rates in 2007. Growth in the wholesale & retail trade and the transport & storage sectors moderated to 2.6 per cent and 3.2 per cent respectively in 2008, from 7.3 per cent and 5.1 per cent in 2007. After a robust 16.9 per cent growth in 2007, the financial services sector grew by 7.1 per cent in 2008. As a result of the global financial crisis, there was a significant decline in fund management and stock broking activities in the second half of 2008. ... The business services sector grew by 7.3 per cent, compared to 7.8 per cent in 2007, although segments such as real estate, legal services and accounting services slowed down in the last two quarters of the year.

On 2009's GDP Forecast:

MTI expects the economic downturn to continue in 2009. The weaker outlook for the Singapore economy compared to earlier forecasts reflects two factors: global economic activity has declined faster and deeper, and the spillover effects on key sectors of the economy will be stronger. ... [E]xternal demand conditions have weakened to a greater extent than earlier estimated. ... The electronics purchasing managers' index for Singapore posted a record low in December 2008. The chemicals cluster is expected to weaken with lower oil prices and lower global demand for other manufactured goods. Global trade is expected to contract in 2009, which will affect trade-related sectors such as wholesale & retail trade and transport & storage. The weak economic performance in the fourth quarter of 2008 reflects these spillover effects, and suggests that growth will weaken further in 2009.

Taking into account the above factors, MTI is revising the economic growth forecast for 2009 to -5.0 to -2.0 per cent.

On CPI Inflation:

The forecast for CPI inflation in 2009 has been revised to -1.0 to 0 per cent. This is largely in expectation of a continued downward correction of commodity prices from the peaks in 2008, in line with the weakening global economy. These global developments will ease upward pressures on domestic retail prices. ...

A pdf copy of the report, including further statistics, can be found here.

How to Protect Your Job in a Recession

The blog Advertising is Good for You linked to a Harvard Business Review article (published September 2008) entitled How to Protect Your Job in a Recession. I thought the article's executive summary had some good advice, so I'm posting it down below. All of the emphases are mine.

As the economy softens, corporate downsizing appears almost inevitable. Don't panic yet, though. While layoff decisions might seem beyond your control, there's plenty you can do to make sure you retain your job. In this article, Banks, a former HR executive at Chase Manhattan and FleetBoston Financial, and Coutu, an HBR senior editor and former affiliate scholar at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, describe how to improve your chances of survival. It's mostly a matter of coolheaded planning, they observe. When cuts loom, the first thing to do is act like a survivor. Be confident and cheerful. Research shows that congeniality trumps competence when push comes to shove. Look to the future by focusing on customers, for without them, no one will have work. Survivors also tend to be versatile; tight budgets demand managers who can wear several hats, so start demonstrating what other capabilities you can offer. If you're, say, a manager who once worked as a teacher, take on a training role. Remember to be a good corporate citizen: Participation matters now more than ever. It isn't the time to behave as if work is beneath you or to argue for a new title. When one executive's department was folded under the management of a less-experienced colleague, she swallowed her pride and wholeheartedly supported the new hierarchy. Her superiors noticed her commitment and eventually rewarded her with a prestigious appointment. It's also important to offer leaders hope and realistic solutions. Energize your colleagues around change, like the VP of learning at a firm undergoing major staff reductions did. He organized a humorous in-house radio show that revived spirits and helped management communicate with employees-and ended up with a promotion.

US Unemployment Rates - November 2008

The November US unemployment figures were released recently. The figures, overall, are continuing to get worse. Here are some of the highlights:

• Overall, the "official" national unemployment rate (U-3) increased by 0.2%, from 6.5% to 6.7%, over October's number. For the past twelve months, the national rate has increased 2.0%.
  
• For the most inclusive unemployment rate measured (U-6), the increase was 0.7%, from 11.8% to 12.5%. For the past twelve months, U-6 has increased by 4.1%.
  
• In terms of monthly change, the state with the largest increase was Oregon (again), with a 0.9% increase; North Carolina had the next largest increase, at 0.8%, and the District of Columbia and Indiana had increases of 0.7% each.
  
• On an annual basis, the state with the largest increase continues to be Rhode Island with an increase of 4.1%. North Carolina has moved into second place, with an increase of 3.2%, and Georgia and Idaho are tied for third with increases of 3.0% each.
  
• The states with the lowest annual increases are Nebraska at 0.4%, Iowa and South Dakota at 0.5%, Wisconsin at 0.8%, and Kansas, New Hampshire and Utah at 0.9%.
  
• The state with the highest unemployment rate is Michigan, which increased 0.3% to 9.6%; Rhode Island, which was tied for the highest rate in October remained at 9.3% to place second. California and South Carolina are tied for third with a rate of 8.4%.
  
• The states with the lowest unemployment rates continue to be Wyoming (3.2%), North Dakota (3.3%), and South Dakota (3.4%). Utah has been joined by Nebraska at 3.7% each.
  
• In terms of non-farm payroll employment (i.e., number of jobs), the states with the biggest decreases since October were Florida (-58,600), North Carolina (-46,000), California (-41,700), Michigan (-36,900) and Georgia (-30,000).
  
• For annual changes in non-farm payroll employment, the states with the biggest decreases are Florida (-206,900), California (-136,000), Michigan (-112,700), and Arizona (-82,200). Two states continue to have statistically significant increases over the past year: Texas (221,200; down 9,200 from October) and Wyoming (8,200; down 1,300).

The PDF version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release can be found here.

All Recessions are Not Created Equal

In an announcement that was of little surprise to most of us, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) finally declared that the United States has been in a recession since December 2007. What may not be quite as well known is that not every state is necessarily undergoing an economic recession at any given time. I thought it might be interesting to see which states are doing well despite the recession and which states are suffering the most.

To do my analysis, I downloaded the historical data spreadsheet (Excel file) of the State Coincident Indexes, which is published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. This is a long-running series of indexes that has been published since 1979. What the coincident indexes do is:

...combine four state-level indicators to summarize current economic conditions in a single statistic. The four state-level variables in each coincident index are nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average).

Based on this index number, individual state economies can be compared against each other and the nation as a whole to see how well the state is doing. The Philadelphia Fed also create month-by-month color-coded maps so that one can see at a glance each state's performance. Below is the most recent map available, from October 2008. (You can find all of the previously published maps since January 2005 here.)


Looking at the data since December 2007, when the recession officially started, what we find is that fourteen states have actually had economic growth as a percentage change over the past eleven months. Thirty-five states have had a contracting economy while one state (Kansas) has had neither a recession nor growth (a 0.0% "change"). (There is no data for the District of Columbia.) The fourteen states, in order of decreasing economic performance, are: Wyoming, Texas, South Dakota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Virginia, New York, West Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Nebraska, Massachusetts, and California. What's surprising to me is that California is in this list as they currently have the third highest unemployment rate in the country.

On the other side, the bottom ten states since last December are Delaware (41st), Arizona, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Michigan, Idaho, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon (50th). All of these states have had their index drop by at least 2.2% since December and, in the cases of the latter four, by over 4.0%. (Oregon's index has dropped by a whopping 6.1%.)

Of course these index numbers can change significantly from month to month. Both Oregon and Nevada have seen their index numbers drop by double digits within the eleven-month span (and not for the better). However, while things may look gloomy for some individual states, the economy may become better for them within a short period of time while the rest of the country labors under the current recession.

U.S. Unemployment Rates: Where Do We Stand?

The October US unemployment figures were recently released and, with very few exceptions, the numbers are rather dismal. (Highlights can be found here.) The numbers that were released, however, are only the "official" statistics. Meaning, the official unemployment rate that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics gives out in its monthly press release is only one of six unemployment rates that it actually calculates. The "official" unemployment rate is the not-so-imaginatively named "U-3." There are two smaller unemployment rates (U-1 and U-2), and three larger (U-4 through U-6). What I'm concerned about is U-6.

The official definition of U-6 is:

Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

...where...

Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

Yada yada yada.

In essence, U-6 covers everyone who's either unemployed, whether they receive unemployment benefits or not, or might be working a part-time job but who really want to be working full-time (i.e., they're underemployed).


On to the statistics then. In October, the "official," U-3 unemployment rate was 6.5%. This is the highest unemployment rate we've seen since March 1994. However, the U-6 unemployment rate in October was 11.8%. This is the fourth month in a row that U-6 has been over 10%, with the lowest rate this year having been in February, at 8.9%. The last time U-6 was this high was in January 1994, when it was 11.8%. (Ironically, this is also the very first month U-6 was published.)


As most economists are presuming today, the country is almost certainly in a recession at this time (even though it hasn't been officially announced yet). How do these unemployment rates, then, compare against the last three recessions? U-6, being a rather limited series of data, only covers one time period when unemployment was almost as bad as it is today. In June 2003, U-3 peaked at 6.3%, while U-6 peaked in September, at 10.4%; the largest spread between the two unemployment rates that year was 4.3%.

The next earliest spike in unemployment rates happened in June 1992, when U-3 reached 7.8%. However, there wasn't any U-6 rate at that time, so we can only guess what it might have been. Doing a little spreadsheet analysis, my own guess is that the spread between U-3 and U-6 at the time was about 5.3%; add that to the 7.8% and the hypothetical U-6 unemployment rate may have been about 13.1%. The worst of the three recessions, though, was that of the early 80s. U-3 peaked in November and December 1982 at 10.8%; this is the only time U-3 has ever peaked above 10% since 1948, when the current series of unemployment rate data starts. Assuming that the spread between U-3 and the hypothetical U-6 was still around 5% at that time (and I think it may have actually been larger), total unemployment and underemployment probably would have been around 16% in late 1982.

So. Unemployment is bad now. It's slightly worse than it was six years ago, but it's also not as bad as it was back in the early 90s or the early 80s, which was much, much worse. Consider that your positive thought for the day. ;)

US Unemployment Figures - October 2008

The October US unemployment figures were released on Friday. Unsurprisingly, the numbers were not good, although there were a few positive surprises. Here are some of the highlights:

• Overall, the national unemployment rate increased by 0.4%, from 6.1% to 6.5%, over September's number. For the past twelve months, the national rate has increased 1.7%.
  
• In terms of monthly change, the state with the largest increase is Oregon, with a 0.9% increase; Alaska and South Carolina have the next two largest increases, at 0.7% each.
  
• On an annual basis, the state with the largest increase is Rhode Island, which has nearly doubled in the past twelve months, from 5.1% to 9.3%, an increase of 4.2%. Florida had the second largest increase, at 2.7%, followed closely by the states of Idaho (2.6%), California, Georgia and Nevada (all at 2.5%).
  
• The state with the highest unemployment rate are the states of Rhode Island and Michigan, both of which are at 9.3%. California is in third with a rate of 8.2%, followed by South Carolina with a rate of 8.0%.
  
• States with the lowest unemployment rates are primarily located in the west and upper mid-west: Wyoming and South Dakota (3.3%), North Dakota (3.4%), and Utah (3.5%).
  
• In terms of non-farm payroll employment (i.e., number of jobs), states with the biggest decreases since September were Washington (-29,300), Florida (-27,300), Michigan (-19,600), and Arizona (-17,700).
  
• For annual changes in non-farm payroll employment, states with the biggest decreases are Florida (-156,200), California (-101,300), Michigan (-71,200), and Arizona (-70,400). However, two states had statistically significant increases over the past year: Texas (230,400) and Wyoming (9,500).

The PDF version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release can be found here.

China Beating the US in the Global Oil Game

A very interesting article at Money Morning about how China is beating the United States in the global oil game. (Actually, The Economist tackled the larger issue of China's thirst for natural resources and how they're going about getting them, particularly in Africa, in a noteworthy special report back in March.) Below are some of the article's highlights:

While this deal, on its face, appears to be just another global oil-services contract, it’s actually a very significant development in the hunt for long-term energy supplies. In fact, it actually demonstrates that – when it comes to nailing down those long-term oil supplies – China is an expert, and is playing a very deep game. And the outcome of that game will certainly have substantial long-term implications for consumers and investors both here in the United States, and in markets abroad. Here’s why:

• With estimated reserves of 115 billion barrels, Iraq is tied with Iran for the world’s No. 2 position, trailing Saudi Arabia, which has estimated reserves of 264 billion barrels, according to estimates from the Energy Information Administration.
  
• In a country where electricity is in short supply, the oil produced from the Ahdab Oil Field will help fuel a planned power plant that would be one of the largest in Iraq. By helping Iraq with this key initiative, China can expect to gain a solid foothold in one of the most oil-rich nations in the world, analysts say.
  
• At the end of the day, the deal clearly highlights something that most U.S. investors haven’t focused on yet – namely that the eventual winners in this game may not be such well-known giants as Chevron Corp. (CVX), ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM), or other household names. Deals like this one and the host of others that are undoubtedly close behind suggest that tomorrow’s winners may have names most English-speaking investors can’t pronounce, since they’ll be distinctly Arabic or Chinese in nature.

...

While China won’t participate in the profits from the oil it helps pump, it is shrewd enough to realize there will be long-term benefits. Analysts who see the bigger picture here agree with our view.

“There are some political profits for China,” Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, a former Iraqi oil minister, told The Times. “They need access to Iraq, and when they need oil, at least the Iraqi people will feel that China has done something for them.”

...

By invading Iraq, the United States dealt China’s central planning commission an embarrassing wakeup call when the second Gulf War summarily wiped out China’s oil interests in Iraq.

When that happened, China’s central planners realized two things:

• The status quo in the global oil game had changed.
  
• And China’s double-digit economic miracle could not be sustained with only a few oil suppliers.

What China fears most is that there will not be enough oil to go around in the very near future and that a U.S.-dominated supply chain could effectively “strangle” China’s growth.

So, it has done what the United States and other great powers have done at other times in history and gone on a buying spree from Darfur to Peru that’s turned heads and ruffled feathers all across the world.

What’s been especially frustrating for hapless Western leaders who do not understand that their actions caused this in the first place, is that China’s not afraid to do business with rogue nations like Iran, Sudan and Burma. It has even gotten chummy with Venezuela and Russia – much to the consternation of our present administration.

It’s a virtual certainty that China will maintain this policy going forward. My contacts in China and Africa have told me point blank that China’s leaders “don’t care about human rights or nukes or hostile governments. What matters is anyone who provides oil to China no matter what the rest of the world thinks.”

So, in as much as the U.S. media has dismissed this deal as only one in a long string of recent Chinese oil purchases, it’s arguably the most important deal yet. The reason: It suggests that China will go to extraordinary lengths to obtain the oil it wants and needs.

To add to its stable of captive oil suppliers, China will pay far more money, endure limitless criticism for ignoring human-rights issues and endure harsher business conditions than our companies can or will undertake. While U.S. firms must worry about sanctions, bad publicity or simply security, China worries about one thing, and one thing only – getting oil.

HT: Informed Comment

Want a Strong Economy? Vote for a Democrat!

Yesterday, I highlighted a post over at Angry Bear that showed that every Democratic president since World War II has left office with a lower unemployment rate than the one he inherited from his predecessor, whereas only one Republican president, Ronald Reagan, could make the same claim. The moral of that story: if you want a job, you should vote for a Democrat.

Today, the folks at Angry Bear have ranked the last fourteen presidents (since Herbert Hoover) as to how the American economy did in real terms (i.e., adjusted for inflation) during each administration. Interestingly enough, five of the top seven presidents were Democrats, and only one Democratic president (Truman) was in the bottom seven. Below is the listing of presidents and the last two paragraphs of the essay; you can read the entire post here.

1. FDR
2. LBJ
3. JFK
4. Clinton
5. Reagan
6. Carter
7. Nixon
8. Ike
10. GW (that's 10 so far – don't be surprised if he sinks further into the mire)
11. Ford
12. Bush Sr.
13. Truman
14. Hoover

What the list shows us, is that, the top half of the spots are dominated by Democrats. Two Republicans, Reagan and Nixon, make it in (5th and 7th, respectively). It also shows us that the bottom half of the list is populated almost exclusively with Republicans. The one Democrat in the bottom half of the list, not incidentally, is the Democrat most beloved of Republicans today: Harry Truman. George Bush has compared himself to Truman, and a few weeks, Sarah Palin told us how she too was comparable to Truman. What are the odds that prominent Republicans would compare themselves with FDR or LBJ? (Snarky answer – probably about the same as the odds a Republican administration would produce a growth rate comparable to FDR or LBJ.)

Now, after 70 years of data, after observing what we've observed over all sorts of conditions, it is hard to conclude anything but this: one party advocates policies that produce rapid economic growth, and one part dismisses those policies with epithets like "socialism" and advocates instead policies that produce dismal economic growth. And dismal economic growth has consequences. Poor economic growth makes people worse off, and hits them in their pocketbook. And when people are hurting financially, their health suffers, the rate of divorce goes up, suicides increase, and the abortion rate increases. So those who advocate the policies that bring us lower incomes, poorer health, break up families, increase suicides, and increase the rate of abortions are doing us all a lot of harm. More, in fact, than Osama or Saddam could possibly have done. And yet, the folks who advocates those policies question the patriotism of the rest of us. It's very, very strange.

The Economic Version of "Final Destination 3"

There is someone, walking behind you
Turn around, look at me
There is someone, watching your footsteps
Turn around, look at me
One more post on economics (for now), this time an unusual look at housing prices. The New York Times produced a graph of Robert Shiller's American housing price index, which shows what prices have been like from 1890 through 2006. For example, if a standard house cost $100,000 in 1890 (in 2006 dollars), a similar home would have sold for $199,000 in 2006. What's interesting, though, is that someone has taken Shiller's data and transformed it into a roller-coaster ride using Atari's RollerCoaster Tycoon (R)3 software. (Be sure to look at the bottom right corner to view the year.)



The problem with this video, though, is that it stops short of what's happened in the past two years. Back in late May, The Economist, which I do read (apparently this is a political joke now), produced a graph that shows this past year's plunge. To give an idea of what the end of the roller-coaster ride should look like, one wit at Angry Bear suggested the following video:



HT: Angry Bear

State Coincident Indices Through August 2008

The State Coincident Indices, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, have been released through the month of August. The top graph is from the month of May, which I've republished to provide some continuity from the previous set of graphs; the latter three graphs are for June, July and August.

As you can see, there has been some strengthening in the Gulf states of Texas and Louisiana (one wonders how the graphs will look after taking into account Hurricanes Gustav and Ike), the western half of the upper Midwest, and West Virginia, which went from deep red to dark blue in a matter of two months. Trouble spots include the Pacific Southwest and the Midwest, although the latter region may be improving; we'll have to wait and see.

From the August 2008 press release [pdf]:

The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia has released the coincident indexes for all 50 states for August 2008. The indexes increased in 12 states for the month, decreased in 31, and were unchanged in the remaining seven (a one-month diffusion index of -38). For the past three months, the indexes have increased in 12 states, decreased in 35, and were unchanged in the other three (a three-month diffusion index of -46). For comparison purposes, the Philadelphia Fed developed a similar coincident index for the entire United States. The Philadelphia Fed’s U.S. index was flat in August and has remained unchanged over the past three months.

Want a Job? Vote for a Democrat!

A couple of interesting posts on unemployment today, the first being from Spencer at Angry Bear:

So much for Sarah Palin's claim that Republican tax cuts create jobs. In the post WW II era every Democratic President has left office with a lower unemployment rate than they inherited from their predecessor while only one Republican president left office with a lower unemployment rate than they inherited. That was Ronald Reagan, but his first term still holds the record for the highest average unemployment rate of any post - WW II four year Presidential term.

George Bush inherited a 3.9% unemployment rate and the results of all his tax cuts has been a rise in the unemployment rate to 6.1%, so far. By contrast Bill Clinton inherited a 7.4% unemployment rate and with his prudent fiscal policy left Bush a 3.9% unemployment rate.

Leave it to Team Bush to be the only American President to throw a war that failed to stimulate the economy.

Another scary graph comes from Economist's View:

A grim morning: Double plus ungood news on multiple fronts this morning. The credit crunch is getting worse: LIBOR jumped again, the TED spread is at a new record. Bad news on employment: payrolls down 159,000, average work week down, official unemployment rate flat at 6.1 percent but broad measure (U6) up from 10.7 to 11.

We are going over the edge.

The track record: This chart shows U6, the broadest measure of unemployment and underemployment from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (No data available before 1994.)

State Coincident Indexes

Every month, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia produces a "State Coincident Index" that allows economists to see how well each of the individual states are doing economically:

The coincident indexes combine four state-level indicators to summarize current economic conditions in a single statistic. The four state-level variables in each coincident index are nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average). The trend for each state’s index is set to the trend of its gross domestic product (GDP), so long-term growth in the state’s index matches long-term growth in its GDP.

What the graphs below show is a state-by-state analysis of the economy. The first three maps show the month of January for 2005, 2006 and 2007, respectively. (Note that in these maps, a five-point scale is used with dark blue being the best and dark red being the worst.) The last six maps are for the last six months available, December 2007 through May 2008. While the scale has been increased from five points to seven points, the same basic color scheme is still used; i.e., dark blue is the best, dark red is the worst.

As you can see, the American economy has gotten quite bad over the past six months, especially in the Northwest and, to a slightly lesser degree, in the Midwest and South. Some of the states in the Mountain West and Northeast are doing well, with the best state currently being Texas. (I'd be tempted to say that Texas is doing well because of the multiplier effects from higher oil prices, but if that's the case, then why isn't Alaska doing well too?)










HT: Economist's View

Robert Reich: ""No" to Further Offshore Drilling

The other day, in my update about how much oil the U.S. imports, I wrote:

...[S]hame on you ... if you believe either McCain or Cheney that drilling for oil offshore or up in Alaska will make a significant difference. Two reasons: "drop in the bucket" and "long-term projects," neither of which will lower your gas prices.

On the same day that I wrote the above, Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration and currently a professor at the University of California (and a blogger), had a similar post on why the U.S. should not do further offshore drilling for oil. His first and second reasons are identical to what I wrote above, just further developed:

First, the crude oil market is global. Oil companies sell all over the world. The price of crude is established by global supply and demand. So even if 3 million additional barrels a day could be extruded from lands and seabeds of the United States (that sum is the most optimistic figure, after all exploration is done), that sum is tiny compared to 86 million barrels now produced around the world. In other words, even under the best circumstances, the price to American consumers would hardly budge.

Second, whatever impact such drilling might have would occur far in the future anyway. Oil isn't just waiting there to be pumped out of the earth. Exploration takes time. Erecting drilling equipment takes time. Getting the oil out takes time. Turning crude into various oil products takes time. According the the federal energy agency, if we opening drilling where drilling is now banned, there'd be no significant impact on domestic crude and natural gas production until 2030.

Third, oil companies already hold a significant number of leases on federal lands and offshore seabeds where they are now allowed to drill, and which they have not yet fully explored. Why then would they seek more drilling rights? Because they want more leases now, when the Bushies are still in office. Ownership of these parcels would serve to to pump up their balance sheets even if no oil is pumped.

Last but by no means least, environmental risks are still significant.

HT: Economist's View

Update: How Much Oil Does America Import?

Currently, my most popular blog post by far is How Much Oil Does America Import?, written back in May 2006, two years ago. I thought it was time to update the figures and see how the U.S. is doing since I first wrote that post.

The U.S. gets its oil from two sources: either it pumps its own oil, called "Field Production" by the Department of Energy, or it imports oil from other countries around the world. In 2000, American commercial field production made up 38.69% of the total supply of crude oil, while imports made up 60.28%. In 2005, when I wrote the last post, those same percentages were 33.67% and 65.84%, respectively. (These numbers are different from what I wrote back in 2006 as adjustments have been made to the official statistics; these types of revisions are normal for economic statistics.) In 2007 (the most recent year), the percentages were 33.72% and 66.19%, respectively. While there has been an extremely slight increase in the amount of oil pumped domestically (0.05%), imports have also increased as well. (The reason why both numbers can increase is because a third number, "supply adjustments," fell.)

In 2007, the U.S. imported a total of 3,656,170 thousand barrels. Of those 3.66 billion barrles, the U.S. imported from a total of 46 different countries. The top 5 importing countries were: Canada (18.61%), Saudi Arabia (14.50%), Mexico (14.07%), Venezuela (11.48%), and Nigeria (10.80%), for a total of 69.47% of all American imports. In contrast, imports from countries six through ten (Angola, Iraq, Algeria, Ecuador, and Kuwait) made up only 17.95% of the total; countries 11 through 46 made up the remaining 12.58%.

Looking at petroleum imports in two other ways...

• In 2007, imports from OPEC countries* made up 53.85% of all U.S. imports, compared to the 46.15% from non-OPEC countries. However, this is the exception rather than the rule. Since 1993, when the Energy Information Agency (EIA) started breaking out the statistics, non-OPEC countries have been the dominant exporters ten years out of the past fifteen. The year 2007 was the first time since 2001 that OPEC countries had sold more petroleum to the U.S. than non-OPEC countries.
  
• With respect to the Persian Gulf, those countries** only made up 21.19% of the total imports. This is down slightly, one-half percent, from my 2006 analysis. Note that the U.S. imports no oil from Iran.

Conclusions/Predictions:
Two years ago, I made four points as to how I thought things would go with respect to American oil imports and consumption. We'll look at how good or bad those predictions were:

1. American field production will probably go below 25% of its total annual supply within the next five years.

I think we can write this prediction off; I don't foresee this happening within the next three years (or perhaps even the next ten).

2. In that same time frame, imports will probably be in the high 50s percentage (perhaps 58-59%).

On the other hand, I think this prediction is very much a lock at this time. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this number goes back up again, remaining in the 60-65% range.

3. America will continue to seek the majority of its oil from non-OPEC countries, such as Canada and Mexico, if only to avoid being as dependent on OPEC countries as they have been in the past. However, this will probably turn out to be a pipe dream in the long run unless Canadian oil reserve estimates turn out to be near the high end. (Estimates for Canada's proven oil reserves ranges from 4.7 billion barrels (World Oil) to 14.803 billion barrels (BP Statistical Review) to 178.792 billion barrels (Oil & Gas Journal). Obviously, this extremely wide range of guesses shows that no one truly knows how much oil Canada has.)

Since I wrote this, I've gotten a better understanding with respect to Canada's oil reserves. The problem with the Canadian oil sands is that it is made up of a very dense and viscous type of petroleum called bitumen. Bitumen is like molasses at room temperature, and needs heating just to flow. (The tar that we pave roads with is bitumen.) Oil refineries are set up to process certain types of crude oils, and bitumen is normally not one of them. So, while Canada has a lot of proved oil reserves, most of it is not in the form the refineries need to produce products like gasoline. In this respect, the lower reserve amount mentioned above is probably closer to the amount of crude oil Canada actually has. In time, more refineries may convert to take advantage of the Canadian oil sands, but that will probably be a gradual process.

4. Persian Gulf oil, which has ranged between 19.81% and 28.56% of all U.S. imports since 1996, will probably continue to hover in the high teens-low 20s, despite President Bush's goal to cut American consumption of Middle Eastern oil by 75% by 2025, per the latest State of the Union address.

I don't see this forecast changing at all. What President Bush said in 2006 about cutting the amount of Middle Eastern oil America consumes was complete and utter bullshit (and shame on you if you believed him). BTW, shame on you again if you believe either McCain or Cheney that drilling for oil offshore or up in Alaska will make a significant difference. Two reasons: "drop in the bucket" and "long-term projects," neither of which will lower your gas prices. I may post on this in the near future, insha'allah, but in the meantime I recommend that you read John McCain's Oil Scam over at Informed Comment (Juan Cole), and Drilling Our Way to... by Menzie Chinn over at Econbrowser.


References:
US Crude Oil Supply and Disposition (DoE)
US Crude Oil Imports by Country of Origin (DoE)

Notes:
* OPEC countries include Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Venezuela.
** Persian Gulf countries include Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. However, Iran and Qatar export no oil to the U.S.

Cross-posted at Dunner's and Daily Kos.

Why Beef Prices are Heading Higher

Bonddad recently wrote about a Bloomberg article on rising beef prices. My quibble isn't with his technical analysis, but with one of his comments. He thought that demand was increasing for beef because...

...as the world's standard of loving [sic] increases (think India and China making more and more money) people will want better things like steak.

Now, generally speaking, what he said is true; as people's incomes rise, we do want goods that are better than what we had before. In economics, we call these "normal goods." A normal good is any good for which demand increases when income increases. A car is an example of a normal good. All things being equal, what would you rather do if your income increases, continue taking the bus or train to work or buy a new car? Of course, you'd buy the new car. (Conversely, an "inferior good" is a good that decreases in demand as income rises; an example for the US being ramen noodles.) Anyhoo, Bonddad is suggesting that because incomes are rising in countries like India and China, they want to eat better foods such as American steak. However, the truth is that beef exports to other countries isn't the reason.

In 2006, the US exported a total of 1.145 billion pounds of beef out of a total supply of 29.912 billion pounds, which comes to 3.83%. So a little under 4% of all US beef available in the country was exported. In 2007, the percentage was 4.74%, in 2008 total beef exports is projected to be 5.44%, and for 2009, 6.21%. [All of these numbers and the following data come from the US Department of Agriculture's monthly report, World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, for April and May 2008.] So, beef exports are increasing, but very slowly. Rising beef exports out of the total available for sale in the US will cause domestic beef prices to rise, but not by that much. Let's look at the more likely culprit.

American cattle are normally either grass-fed or corn-fed. Per Wikipedia, "In the United States, cattle in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are typically fed corn, soy and other types of feed that can include "by-product feedstuff." As a high-starch, high-energy food, corn decreases the time to fatten cattle and increases yield from dairy cattle." Per a 2003 Colorado State University study, "80% of consumers in the Denver-Colorado area preferred the taste of United States corn-fed beef to Australian grass-fed beef." And so a very significant portion of America's annual corn crop goes to feed cattle, and the price of corn has been rising dramatically, like other agricultural products, such as rice. Just how much corn is being used to feed cattle?

In 2005/6, the US had a total supply of 13.237 billion bushels of corn. Of that amount 6.155 billion bushels (46.50%) were used as "feed and residual," 2.981 billion bushels (22.52%) were used as "food, seed and industrial," and 2.134 billion bushels (16.12%) were exported. The remainder (1.967 billion bushels, 14.86%) was "closing stock" and used in the following year, 2006/7. Now, looking at these individual categories, we see that "feed and residual" was 44.73% in 2006/7 and is estimated to be 42.73% in 2007/8 and 39.19% in 2008/9. Clearly, "feed and residual" isn't a problem. Likewise, exports aren't a significant cause of corn inflation either: 16.98% of all US corn was exported in 2006/7, and 17.37% and 15.53% is expected to be exported in 2007/8 and 2008/9, respectively. Which leads to "food, seed and industrial."

The first two of these should be self-explanatory. It's the industrial that we're concerned with. The industrial use of corn comes primarily in the form of ethanol. You know, the alcohol addititive to your gasoline so that you wouldn't pay as much money (you hoped) to run your car? Turns out that ethanol is bringing up the price of corn. The USDA breaks out the amount of corn that's used in the production of ethanol, which is very helpful for our analysis. In 2005/6, corn used for ethanol made up 1.603 billion bushels out of the 2.981 billion bushels mentioned above (the remainder was presumably used for food and seed). Which means that that 1.603 billion bushels made up 12.11% of the total American corn supply. In 2006/7, that percentage increased to 16.92%, and is expected to increase to 20.84% and 29.58% in 2007/8 and 2008/9, respectively. That's where the corn's going! So, let's connect the dots.

Because Americans prefer corn-fed cattle over grass-fed, cattle producers feed them lots of corn and other grains that, in turn, help them to fatten up quicker before they're slaughtered. Still, it takes feedlot cattle 14-18 months before they are killed, which means they eat a lot of corn. (I don't know exactly how much an average cow eats in its lifetime. No doubt the farmers do.) Because the price of corn has been going up ($2.00 per bushel in 2005/6 to $3.04 per bushel in 2006/7), it costs the cattle producer that much more to feed a cow until it gets to its terminal weight. Which means that cattle producers are actually losing money now for every cow they sell. According to the Bloomberg article, the feedlots were losing $139.56 a head in April, up from a record loss of $169.80 a head in March, and down from a profit of $46.79 a head in April 2007. No doubt there are some other factors that probably have affected the price increases for corn (oil and fertilizers come to mind), but the primary cause of the price increases in beef appears to be due to the increases in the price of corn. Which, no doubt, must be a relief to the Indians and Chinese, who don't tend to eat beef anyway; the former tend to eat mutton and chicken, the latter pork.

James Hamilton: Oil Price Fundamentals

James Hamilton at Econbrowser looks at the question of what's been driving oil prices higher, market fundamentals or speculation? I've got some additional comments down below.

The developed economies consume a disproportionate share of the world's energy, with North America and Europe accounting for about half of the total oil use in 2006. However, it is the newly industrialized countries and oil producers that account for the recent rapid growth in demand, with Asia and the Middle East accounting for 60% of the increase in petroleum use between 2003 and 2006. North America and Europe contributed only 1/5 of the growth.

Particularly dramatic in this growth has been China, whose petroleum consumption between 1990 and 2006 increased at a 7.2% annual compound rate. It's always amusing to project these impressive exponential growth rates. If that rate of growth were to continue, China would be using 20 million barrels a day by 2020, about as much as the U.S. is today. By 2030, China would be up to 40 mb/d, twice the current U.S. consumption.

Are such projections plausible from the point of view of potential demand? During 2006, China used about 2 barrels of oil per person. For comparison, Mexico used 6.6-- Chinese oil consumption could triple and they'd still be using less per person than Mexico is today. The U.S. used almost 25 barrels per person. According to the data collected for a new research paper by Max Auffhammer and Richard Carson, there were 3.3 passenger vehicles per 100 Chinese residents in 2006, compared with 77 in the United States. Yes, I would say that these astonishing numbers for potential future Chinese oil demand are not at all inconceivable.

...

I do think there are prospects for a significant boost to world petroleum production this year, thanks to a number of big new projects scheduled to begin production. The Wikipedia database reports 7 mb/d in eventual gross new production capacity eventually expected from projects that are supposed to begin producing during the current calendar year. Before you get too excited about that number, however, several cautions are in order. First, 7 mb/d refers to the eventual peak production, not the amount that can be produced this year. Second, there is inevitably some slippage and delays. For example, the list includes 250,000 b/d from Thunder Horse, BP's Gulf of Mexico project that was initially hoped to start giving us oil in 2005, but is still undergoing repair work. Third, the above tabulation refers to gross new capacity, much of which is needed to replace declining production currently being observed in the world's mature producing fields. At any point in time, some of the world's producing fields are well into decline, some are at plateau production, and others are on the way up. It is not clear what average decline rate is appropriate to apply to aggregate global production, but a plausible ballpark number might be 4%. That would mean that in the absence of new projects, global production would decline by 3.4 mb/d each year. To put it another way, a new producing area equivalent to current annual production from Iran (OPEC's second biggest producer) needs to be brought on line every year just to keep global production from falling. Of the 7mb/d in gross new capacity from the projects tabulated above, projects in Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Mexico account for about a third of this gross increase. Data currently available for the first two months of 2008 show actual production in Saudi Arabia down 350,000 b/d from its average 2005 value, though the latest news suggests that Saudi production may be close to returning to 2005 levels. Mexican production is currently down 400,000 b/d from 2005, and Russian production is down 100,000 b/d from its average level in the second half of 2007.

To summarize, I think we will see some net production gains this year, and expect this to bring some relief for oil prices. But I cannot imagine that the projected path for China above will ever become a reality. Oil prices have to rise to whatever value it takes to prevent that from happening.

So yes, I do believe that speculation has played a role in the oil price increases, particularly what we've observed the last few months. But it's a big mistake to conclude that speculation is the most important part of the longer run trend we've been seeing.

I've been studying petroleum consumption for a number of months now, and have done my own forecast for China through the year 2012 (a five-year forecast). Although I haven't had the chance to post the executive summary of my Northeast Asia forecast here, China's petroleum consumption rate on a per-capita basis is very, very small. Hamilton said that China "used about 2 barrels of oil per person" in 2006, but the actual number is 1.0256 barrels per person. Likewise, petroleum consumption on a per capita basis has been very weak as well. The Chinese compound annual growth rate between 1985 and 2006 was 1.86% per year. I'm forecasting a per capita growth rate of 0.61% to 0.88% for the period between 2006 and 2012. Of course, aggregate consumption growth rates should be somewhat higher but, at current consumption growth rates, it will take decades for China to reach Mexico's consumption level, let alone the U.S.'s level. (To be honest, I don't think that China will ever get that far; I suspect most oil worldwide would be gone before China could get up to the U.S.'s level of gluttony.)

Overall, though, I agree with Hamilton's analysis; I think oil prices are primarily driven by market fundamentals. There probably is some speculation at work here (as there is for commodity prices), but I think a relatively stable level of supply and an ever increasing level of demand are the primary factors bringing oil prices higher.

Jeffrey D. Sachs: Surging Food Prices Mean Global Instability

Quite by coincidence, I came across the following article in Scientific American just a short time after publishing my last post. This article, by Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, focuses primarily on one of the root causes of the current food crisis, the conversion of maize ("corn" to us Americans) into ethanol. One of the good things about this article is that four recommendations are given; the first of which ties in very well with the food sovereignty idea/Malawi case study mentioned in my previous post.

While you're at it, you should also read Angry Bear's The Biofuel-Backlash Backlash and Econbrowser's Reconciling Estimates: Biofuels and Food Prices.

The recent surge in world food prices is already creating havoc in poor countries, and worse is to come. Food riots are spreading across Africa, though many are unreported in the international press. Moreover, the surge in wheat, maize and rice prices seen on commodities markets have not yet fully percolated into the shops and stalls of the poor countries or the budgets of relief organizations. Nor has the budget crunch facing relief organizations such as the World Food Program, which must buy food in world markets, been fully felt. The results could be calamitous unless offsetting policy actions are taken rapidly.

The facts are stark. A metric ton of wheat cost around $375 on the commodity exchanges in early 2006. In March 2008, it stood at over $900. Maize has gone from around $250 to $560 in the same period. Rice prices have also soared. The physical inventories of grain relative to demand are also down sharply in recent years.

Several factors are at play in the skyrocketing prices, reflecting both rising global demand and falling supplies of food grains. World incomes have been rising at around 5 percent annually in recent years, and 4 percent in per capita terms, leading to an increased global demand for food and for meat as a share of the diet. China’s economic growth, of course, has been double the world’s average. The rising demand for meat exacerbates the pressures on grain and oil-seed prices since several kilograms of animal feed are required to produce each kilogram of meat.

Feed grains have risen from around 30 percent of total global grain production to around 40 percent today. Land that would otherwise be planted to the main grains is shifting to soya bean and other oil seeds used for animal feed. It is forecast, for example, that U.S. farmers will cut maize plantings by 8 million acres, while raising soya-bean production by about the same amount. The grain supply side has also been disrupted by climate shocks, such as Australia’s massive droughts.

An even bigger blow has been the U.S. decision to subsidize conversion of maize into ethanol to blend with gasoline. This wrong-headed policy, pushed by an aggressive farm lobby, gives a 51-cent tax credit for each gallon of ethanol blended into gasoline. The 2005 Energy Policy Act mandates a minimum of 7.5 billion gallons of domestic renewable-fuel production, which will overwhelmingly be corn-based ethanol, by 2012. Consequently, up to a third of the U.S. mid-Western maize crop this year will be converted to ethanol, causing a cascade of price increases across the food chain. (Worse, use of ethanol instead of gasoline does little to reduce net carbon emissions once the energy-intensive full cycle of ethanol production-- including the energy-intensive fertilizer and transport needs --is taken into account.)

The food price increases are pummeling poor food-importing regions, with Africa by far the hardest hit. Several countries, such as Egypt, India and Vietnam, have cut off their rice exports in response to soaring prices at home, thereby exacerbating the effects on rice-importing countries. Even small changes in food prices can push the poor into hunger and destitution: as famously expounded by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, some of the greatest famines in history were caused not by massive declines in grain production but rather by losses in the purchasing power of the poor.

At a time when hundreds of billions of dollars each year veer to war rather than peaceful development, and when media attention is riveted on the U.S. financial crises, it is hard to raise even a few billion dollars for desperately hungry people. Still, it is urgent to do so. At least four measures should be taken in response to soaring food prices.

First, the world should heed the call of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to fund a massive increase in Africa’s own food production. The needed technologies are available—high-yield seeds, fertilizer, small-scale irrigation—but the financing is not. The new African Green Revolution would initially subsidize peasant farmers’ access to high-yield technologies and thereby at least double grain yields. The funding would also help farm communities establish long-term micro-finance institutions to ensure continued access to improved agricultural inputs after the temporary subsidies are ended in a few years.

Second, the U.S. should end its misguided corn-to-ethanol subsidies. Farmers hardly need them given world demand for food and feed grains. There is certainly a case for re-doubling the scientific efforts to produce bio-fuels on lands which do not compete with food crops, for example from cellulosic ethanol, but this technology is still not ready for the market.

Third, the world should support longer-term research into higher agricultural production. Shockingly, the Bush administration is proposing to cut sharply the U.S. funding for tropical agriculture research in the Consultative Group for International Agriculture Research (CGIAR), just when that research is most urgently needed. This is an example of the Administration’s anti-scientific approach at its worst.

Finally, the world should follow through on the promised Climate Adaptation Fund announced last December in the Bali Climate Change conference, to help poor countries face the growing risks to food production from increasingly adverse climate conditions. Even as the world staunches the immediate crisis, there will be more wrenching dislocations as drought, heat stress, pest infestations and other climate-induced shocks occur increasingly often.

HT: Economist's View