The Great Resignation Has Been Greatly Exaggerated

I would like to acknowledge and thank Mr. Steve Hipple, Economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for his generous assistance in assembling the data used in this post from the public-use micro data files of the Current Population Survey.  This post would not have been possible without his help.

A.  Introduction

There has been much discussion in recent months about workers resigning from their jobs at record high levels.  This has often been attributed to workers reassessing their lives and deciding their jobs are simply not worth it.  A new name has even been coined for this:  the “Great Resignation”.

But while resignations have indeed been high, two quite distinct matters have often been confounded.  One is workers resigning from a position in order to move to a new, more attractive and usually higher-paying, position with a different employer.  The other is workers resigning from a position with no intention to take a new job, but rather to leave the labor force and do something else.  The former reflects a reshuffling in the economy, with workers moving to positions where they will likely be better paid and more productive.  This should raise the overall productivity of the economy.  The latter (those leaving the labor force) would reduce the overall capacity of the economy, if significant.  But as we will see below, while quits from jobs in order to move to a new job is, indeed, at record high levels, the number quitting in order to drop out of the labor force is at this point quite modest, and likely also to prove temporary.  While the Covid pandemic led to a major shock in the labor market, previous trends in labor market participation rates are reasserting themselves.

This post will look at the data on each of these two issues – both important but also both quite different.  It will start with the figures on turnover in the labor market, and present these figures in the context of the net number of new jobs being created.  Quits are high, but hiring is also at record highs.  Workers are quitting their jobs largely to switch to more attractive jobs.

While far more modest, some workers have, however, left the labor market.  The second part of this post will look at the reasons given by those not in the labor force for why they are not, and how this has changed from before the pandemic hit.  This is based on original data assembled from the public use micro data files of the Current Population Survey (CPS).  While publicly accessible by scholars and researchers, these figures are not presented in the regular monthly reports of the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the CPS.  This data will hopefully serve to better inform the discussion on what has been termed by some as the “Great Resignation”.

We will see that the changes in the number of US adults deciding whether or not to participate in the labor force are now modest compared to pre-pandemic trends, and are mostly accounted for by older workers deciding to retire earlier than what would have been expected, on average, under previous patterns.  But to the extent some worker decides to retire now, a year or two earlier than when they had earlier planned, there will then be one less worker retiring a year or two from now.  That is, there will not be a long-term impact, and one should expect to see a return to previous trends.  And so far, that is precisely what we have been seeing.

B.  Quits, Job Openings, and Net New Jobs

The number of workers quitting their jobs each month has indeed risen – and to the highest levels of at least two decades (the data do not go back further).  But the number of workers being hired each month to fill open positions has also increased – to even higher levels.  And despite the record pace of hiring, the number of open jobs employers are seeking to fill has grown to especially high levels.

The figures are shown in this chart:

The data come from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Surveys (JOLTS) of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a monthly survey of employers (although with reports that lag one month compared to the more closely watched monthly BLS report titled “The Employment Situation”, with its figures on such estimates as the unemployment rate and on the net number of new jobs in the economy).  The JOLTS surveys are relatively recent, with data going back only to December 2000, in contrast to the CPS, which goes back to 1948.  The chart here is shown in terms of the absolute number of workers or jobs in each group.

[Side Note: One might sometimes see a chart similar to this but shown in terms of rates:  Hires and Quits shown as a percentage share of the number employed, and Job Openings as a percentage share of the number employed plus the number of job openings.  However, for the relatively short period here (21 years) the patterns in the two presentations look very much the same,]

The number of “Hires” are the number of workers added to the payroll in the given month, according to this survey of employers.  Employers are also asked how many workers left the payroll (“Total Separations”) and whether they were workers who left voluntarily (“Quits”), were laid off or discharged involuntarily (“Layoffs & Discharges”), or left for some other reason (“Other Separations”).  The BLS includes in the Other Separations category those who left to go into retirement, or due to a new disability, or due to deaths.  Hence quits are only one reason for workers leaving their jobs, although its share has been growing:  Layoffs & Discharges have been falling, while the number in the “Other Separations” category has been flat and relatively low. (These latter two categories were not included in the chart to reduce the clutter.)

Hires and the various categories of separations are all flows, measured by the BLS over the course of a full month (and then seasonally adjusted, which among other effects will compensate for the different number of days in different months).  The “Job Openings” estimate, in contrast, is a stock, reporting the number of open job positions the employer is actively seeking to fill as of the last business day of each month.  Its scale on the chart therefore should not be taken as directly comparable to the number of Hires or Quits on the chart, which are flows over the course of a one-month period.  While they happen to be similar in number, one could have reported the number of Hires or Quits over, say, a two-month period (in which case they would have been about twice as much).  One needs to remember that stocks and flows are different.

As the chart shows, open jobs that employers are seeking to fill (“Job Openings”) have grown sharply over the last year.  While the monthly rate of hires has also grown – to record levels – the hiring could not keep up.  And with more workers being hired and actively recruited to fill the open job positions, it should not be at all surprising that the number of workers quitting their old jobs to take a new job – a job that is more attractive to them that probably also pays more –  has also been increasing.  Thus there are resignations, but not to leave the labor force.  Rather, workers are resigning to switch to a new, more attractive, job.

Such “churn” in the labor market is a good thing.  Not only are workers moving to what is for them a more attractive (and likely higher-paying) job, but the productivity of the economy as a whole will also go up as a result.  Employers are able to pay more to attract the workers to these jobs because the workers hired into those jobs will likely be producing more than they had in their old jobs.

How do we know that the quits were largely in order to move to a new job?  It is clear from the magnitudes.  The number of quits in the JOLTS data from March 2020 through February 2022 totaled over 85 million over the two-year period.  And this does not even include those quitting in order to retire (they are included in the “other” category in JOLTS).  Yet as will be discussed in the next section below, the labor force in February 2022 totaled only about 2.7 million less as of February 2022 than what would have been the case had the pre-pandemic shares of participation in the labor force continued.  And close to three-quarters of that 2.7 million reduction was due to workers entering into retirement at somewhat greater rates than was the pattern before.  This is nowhere close to the 85 million quits over the period.

One can also compare the monthly averages for the labor turnover figures with the net figures for new jobs:

The chart shows the average monthly figures for 2021, all from the BLS (either from JOLTS or the CPS).  January figures are excluded as the BLS changes each January the population controls it receives from the Census Bureau for its CPS figures, without revising earlier estimates.  This can lead to an abrupt one-month change in January, making it not comparable to the changes found in other months.

The first three columns show the average monthly growth in 2021 in the adult population (117,000), in the labor force (192,000), and in the number of net new jobs (547,000).  Over the long term, the labor force cannot grow faster than the adult population, but it did in 2021 as the labor force participation rate rose in 2021 following the turmoil of 2020.  And the net number of new jobs could grow faster in 2021 than the increase in the labor force as the number of unemployed fell rapidly in this first year of the Biden administration.  But the economy is now at full employment, and unemployment will not be able to fall much further.  Thus over the longer-term one cannot expect the net number of new jobs to grow faster than the increase in the labor force, and one cannot expect the labor force to grow faster than the adult population (and indeed normally by substantially less, as not all adults choose to be part of the labor force).

In contrast to the figures seen in the first three columns, the average monthly number of workers hired is far higher.  So is the number of separations, and it is the relatively small difference between the number of workers hired into positions and those separated from them for whatever reason that equals the number of net new jobs in the economy.  The separations in 2021 mostly came from quits (70% of the total), with smaller numbers from layoffs or discharges and from the “other” category (where, as noted before, the BLS includes those choosing to quit due to retirement).

All this is consistent with a very strong labor market.  Workers are indeed resigning, but this is largely due to the opportunity to move to a more attractive, better paying, open job.  As we will discuss in the next section, relatively few are resigning to leave the labor force altogether.

C.  The Extent to Which the Labor Force Fell, and the Factors Behind It

As of February 2022, there were 592,000 fewer US residents in the labor force (in the seasonally adjusted figures) than there were in February 2020, just before the lockdowns due to Covid began.  This is not much:  Just 0.4% of the labor force.  But it is not a fair comparison.  The adult population grew over those two years, and thus one would expect that in normal circumstances, the labor force would also have grown.  The question is by how much.  For this one needs to construct some counter-factual scenario of what the labor force would have been (in normal circumstances) and compare that to what it in fact was (given the consequences of Covid) to see how much of a change there was.  Is there evidence here for a “Great Resignation”, of people leaving the labor force in high numbers?

A simple and reasonable counterfactual would be to assume the labor force (in a breakdown by individual groups based on gender and age) would have grown in the absence of the crisis at the same rate as their population.  Population growth is determined by long-term demographics.  That is, in this scenario it is assumed that the rates at which those in the individual demographic groups chose to be part of the labor force (the labor force participation rate) would have remained the same as what they were in February 2020.  Similarly, the rates of those choosing not to be part of the labor force would be the same as in February 2020 (it will simply be one minus the labor force participation rates), and similarly for the reasons given for not participating in the labor force (e.g. retirement, home or family care, full-time students, disability, and so on).  One can then compare changes in the labor force and in the numbers not in the labor force (by the reasons given for this), under a scenario where the participation rates in February 2022 were the same as they were in February 2020, to what they actually were in February 2022.

The households surveyed in the monthly CPS are asked, when they respond that they are not employed and have not been actively seeking a job, the major reason for why they are not in the labor force.  However, the BLS monthly report on the findings of that month’s CPS survey does not report these reasons.  The monthly report is already pretty long.  However, one can obtain these results from the CPS public-use micro data files on the CPS.  The results reported here come from those files (and were assembled by Mr. Steve Hipple of the BLS for this post).

The basic results for the whole population, and for men and all women separately, are summarized in this chart:

Had the participation rates remained the same as in February 2020, there would have been an extra almost 2.7 million workers in the labor force in February 2022.  The labor force would have been 1.6% higher than what it was.  While significant, I would not see this as qualifying as a “Great Resignation”.

[Technical note:  The calculations for those in the labor force and those not in the labor force (by reason) were worked out first for the most basic groups examined:  men and women, each in three different age groups of ages 16 to 24, 25 to 54, and 55 and above, for a total of six groups.  The aggregations for all men or all women, for both men and women in each age group, and for everyone together, were then calculated by summing over the relevant groups.]

Almost three-quarters of the 2.7 million reduction (2.0 million, or 73% of the total) reflected a higher share of adults choosing to retire.  This is consistent with the story that with the disruption in the last two years, coupled also with significant income supplements being provided to most households through the various Covid relief measures passed by Congress during the administrations of both Trump and Biden, a significant number of workers decided to retire earlier than they had previously planned.  It might be a year or two earlier, or possibly longer.  The implications of this are important, as it implies that the changes in the labor force will be temporary rather than permanent.  One more person retiring now, earlier than they had previously planned, means there will be one less person retiring at whatever that future date was to have been.

The second most important reason for leaving the labor force was to take care of home or family, with this accounting for 582,000 workers – 22% of the total reduction in the labor force in the scenario being examined.  This is also understandable in the context of the Covid crisis.  Many workers had to leave the labor force during the midst of the crisis to take care of school-age children when the schools were closed, but almost all schools are now once again open (albeit with some occasional disruption due to Covid outbreaks).  There might also have been a need to take care of family members who became sick during the crisis with Covid itself, and that might still have been a factor in February 2022 (as the Omicron wave subsided).  To the extent this has been Covid driven, these effects should also prove to be temporary as the Covid crisis recedes.

There are, in addition, a list of other possible reasons given in the CPS survey for not participating in the labor force (such as full-time studies as a student, disability, illness, and a catch-all “other” category).  In the aggregate the difference these made in the scenario being examined was small:  only 138,000 – or only 5% of the total reduction in the labor force in this scenario.

In terms of the gender breakdown, more women than men left the labor force in the given scenario (1.7 million women vs. 1.0 million men) even though the share of the labor force made up of women (47% in 2022) is less than the share made up of men (53%).  The shares of this due to more entering retirement or for taking care of home or family are broadly similar between men and women, which is perhaps surprising.  Indeed, the share reporting that they are not in the labor force due to home or family care was somewhat higher for men (25.2% of their total) than for women (19.4%), but it is not clear whether such differences should be considered significant.  The underlying data comes from surveys, there will be statistical noise, and these figures are all based on changes between what the February 2022 levels were and what they would have been in a scenario where we assume the February 2020 participation patterns had remained.

The figures broken down by age group were:

The largest single cause leading to lower participation in the labor force (in the scenario where prior patterns would have remained) was an increase in the share of retirees among those aged 55 and above.  This accounted for 1.5 million workers, which was 3.9% of adults in this age group.  Surprisingly (at least to me) was that there was essentially no difference in this age group of those who were not in the labor force due to home or family care.

Among prime-age workers (ages 25 to 54) there were roughly similar shares among those no longer in the labor force who gave as their reason retirement or for home or family care.  The total number no longer in the labor force (relative to the scenario being examined) was also relatively small for this 25 to 54 age group, at just 0.9% of the population in the age group.  The share no longer in the labor force in the group aged 55 and above was substantially higher, at 3.1% of the population of that age group.  This is as one would expect when the primary factor behind those leaving the labor force was early retirement.

The share of the youngest age group (ages 16 to 24) no longer in the labor force fell by 2.6%, but primarily here for reasons lumped into the “all other” category.  The largest single factor here was full-time studies, but this accounted for just 144,000 of the 414,000 (about 35%) in this “all other” category.  One should also note that while there is a small number in the “retired” category (19,000), this is probably just a reflection of the fact this is a survey.  Respondents do not always fully understand the nature of the questions or may have been in some unusual circumstance that does not fit in well with any of the listed possible responses.

Graphically, how much of a difference has it made?  Not much.  In terms of the labor force participation rates, one has for men and for women, as well as overall:

And by age group, as well as overall:

The “X” on each category shows where the labor force participation rates would be had the February 2020 rates (for the underlying groups of men or women by each age group) continued to hold.  There was certainly a large shock to the system at the start of the pandemic, with the lockdowns that suddenly became necessary in March 2020.  There was then a partial bounceback, followed by a leveling off but with a continued but slow recovery to the earlier patterns of participation rates.  While still not fully back to what they were, the difference is now relatively modest.

This return to previous patterns in the participation rates is likely also to continue.  With the single most important factor (almost three-quarters of the total) being people retiring earlier than what they had planned (or to be more precise, earlier than in the observed pattern in prior years, before the pandemic), the labor force numbers should be expected to return to their previous path in a few years.  As noted before, if some worker retires a year or two earlier than they had earlier planned, then there will be one less retirement in a year or two (as that worker is already retired).  This is consistent with the observed slow return to previous labor force participation rates.

D.  Conclusion

The number of workers quitting their jobs has been high.  But the quits are not a reflection of workers dropping out of the labor force.  Rather, quits have been high as workers quit one job to move to another job – more attractive and likely better paying.  Hires have also been exceptionally high.  And despite the high rate of hiring, employers could not keep up and the number of open jobs they have been seeking to fill has grown.  While some workers have left the labor force during the disruptions of the Covid pandemic, about three-quarters of this (as of February 2022) stemmed from a somewhat higher share of workers choosing to retire.  But unless there has been a permanent change in retirement patterns (and there is no indication that there has been), decisions during the pandemic to retire earlier than previously planned will be self-correcting.

The high level of quits reflects, rather, an extremely strong labor market.  Indeed, the number of net new jobs created in 2021, the first year of the Biden administration, came to 6.7 million – the highest in any one year in US history.  (To be fair one should also note that the fall in the number of jobs in the US in 2020, the last year of the Trump administration, was also the highest in US history.  Thus the Biden record was made possible by the low starting point.)  With this strong labor market, workers have more of an opportunity to move to jobs that can make better use of their talents.  And they have taken advantage of this opportunity, which will be a boost both to the workers and to productivity in the economy as a whole.

The November Jobs Report Was Actually Quite Solid: One Should Not Expect More Going Forward

A.  Introduction

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its regular monthly “Employment Situation” report, for November 2021, on Friday, December 3.  The report is always eagerly awaited.  It provides estimates for the net number of new jobs created in the most recent month, as well as figures on the unemployment rate, certain wage measures, and much else.

The initial reaction to the report by the media was negative.  Net job growth, estimated at 210,000 in the month, was viewed as disappointing.  This was down from 546,000 net new jobs in October, and was well below Wall Street expectations (based on a survey of Wall Street firms by Dow Jones) that the figure for November would come to 573,000.  While it was noted that the unemployment rate also fell – to just 4.2% – the negative reaction contributed to a significant decline in the stock market that day, with the S&P 500 index, for example, down by over 2% at one point.

But the November jobs report was actually pretty solid.  In this post, we will look at what was reported and some factors to take into account when examining such figures.

B.  Monthly Job Gains in 2021

The chart at the top of this post shows the current BLS estimates of monthly net job growth this year, starting in February to cover the period of Biden’s presidency  The estimates are based on a survey of establishments by the BLS, that asks (along with much else) the number of employees on their payroll as of the middle week of each month.  Hence the January numbers would have been for before Biden’s January 20 inauguration.  The news reports following the release by the BLS of the November jobs report were often accompanied by charts such as this one, with the November figure showing a substantial reduction in the number of net new jobs compared to what was seen in earlier months.  The question of interest is whether this was significant.

A number of factors should be taken into account.  One is simply that there is substantial month to month variation, as seen in the chart.  This may be in part due to fluctuations in the economy, but may also be due to idiosyncratic factors (such as how the weather was in the week of the survey) and to statistical noise.  The figures are based on surveys, and surveys are never perfect.  Examined in context, the change in the November figure from the prior month is similar to the changes seen in other months this year.  Indeed, it was less than in several.

There will, however, always be limitations with any single estimate, and in part for this reason the BLS provides in its published document a few different estimates for employment growth. The measure shown in the chart at the top is rightly considered the best one.  It is based on a monthly survey (called the Current Employment Statistics, or CES, survey) of business and other establishments (including government entities as well as non-profits such as universities and hospitals) – whoever employs workers.  The sample size is huge:  144,000 different businesses and government entities, at almost 700,000 different worksites.   The BLS indicates this “sample” covers approximately one-third of all such jobs in the US.

The numbers are specifically for nonfarm payroll jobs, and hence exclude those employed on farms (which is now small in the US – about 1.4% of workers based on figures from other surveys) and more importantly the self-employed (about 6% of the labor force).  Given the large sample size, and also recognizing that those in the sample include not only small firms but also large entities employing thousands of workers, statistical noise is limited.  However, even with such a large sample size, the BLS states that the 90% confidence interval on the month to month changes in employment is +/- 110,000.  At the more commonly accepted 95% confidence interval it would be wider.

Finally, the figures for the prior two months in each report are preliminary and subject to change as more complete data comes in.  The November report, for example, indicated the estimate of net new jobs in October had been revised up by 15,000, and for September by 67,000.  And the October report last month indicated that its earlier estimate for September had been revised up by 118,000.  That is, the initial estimate for September had been 194,000 net new jobs, but this was revised up a month later to 312,000 net new jobs, and then revised again in the estimates published this month to 379,000.  Such revisions are routine, and one should expect that the initial estimate for November of 210,000 net new jobs will likely be revised in the coming months as more complete data becomes available.  While the revisions can in principle be positive or negative, in an expanding job market (as now) they are likely to be positive.  

The figures in the chart are also seasonally adjusted.  This is done via standard algorithms that estimate the normal annual pattern of employment changes in any given month based on historical data.  Employment growth is normally higher in certain months of the year (such as June, following the end of the school year) and normally lower in other months (such as January).  Analysts will therefore usually focus on the seasonally adjusted figures to see whether certain trends are developing outside of the normal seasonal fluctuations.

This is indeed appropriate.  However, it is also worth recognizing that due to Covid, with the resulting lockdowns, opening-ups, quite prudent changes in consumer behavior due to the health risks from Covid-19 even with all the protective measures taken that can be taken, and the truly historic fiscal relief measures provided through the government budget to support households in the light of all these disruptions, seasonal patterns this year (and last) are likely to be not at all similar to what they have been historically.  It is therefore of interest also to look at the underlying employment estimates, before the seasonal adjustment algorithms are run, to see what those numbers might be saying.

The next section will look at this, along with other measures of the change in employment.

C.  Alternative Measures, and Long-Term Limits on What Employment Growth Could Be

As noted, the BLS makes available in its monthly Employment Situation report several measures of how employment is estimated to have changed in the month, in addition to the one discussed above.  These additional measures should not be seen as better measures (at least in normal circumstances) than the seasonally adjusted measure based on the findings from the huge CES survey of establishments.  Rather, it is best to see them as supplementary measures, or alternative measures, that together help us understand what may be going on in terms of employment. There is always uncertainty in any individual measure, as they are all estimates.  It is better to look at several, to see what the overall story might be.

The estimated change in employment in November (or, more precisely, the change in nonfarm payroll), based on figures from the CES survey of establishments, was 210,000 after seasonal adjustment.  But three alternative estimates for employment growth in November were far higher, as depicted in this chart:

In the CES estimate before the normal seasonal adjustment, the growth in net new jobs in November was 778,000.  This difference between the seasonally adjusted and non-seasonally adjusted figures is substantially greater than what one has normally seen for November.  Seasonal adjustment is complicated, but a simple average of the difference between the seasonally adjusted figures for November and the non-seasonally adjusted figures over the 20 years from 2000 to 2019, is 205,000.  But in November 2021 it was 568,000, suggesting something unusual.  If the November 2021 increase in the number of jobs was adjusted by 205,000 rather than the 568,000 estimated by the algorithms, then the “seasonally adjusted” change in the number of jobs would have been 573,000 (= 778,000 – 205,000).  This is exactly what the pre-release expectation was on Wall Street (as noted at the start of this post).  That it was exactly the same as the Wall Street forecast is just a coincidence, but the fact it was close at all might be significant.  It may be suggesting that the standard seasonal adjustment calculations, built from patterns historically seen for the month, might not have captured well the circumstances in this highly unusual year.

Quite separately, the BLS also has an employment measure from the monthly survey of households conducted by the US Census Bureau (with BLS input on what is asked), called the Current Population Survey (CPS).  This survey of a sample of 60,000 households is used by the BLS to determine how many are in the labor force (i.e. are working or are looking for work), whether they are employed (including self-employed and on farms), and thus the number unemployed (those in the labor force but not employed).  The BLS uses this to determine the unemployment rate, but to get to that they have to first estimate, based on this survey, how many are employed.

The November estimates based on the CPS of net new employment were 1,136,000 for the seasonally adjusted figure and 831,000 for the figure before seasonal adjustment.  Why the seasonal adjustment led to a reduction in the job growth estimate from the CPS while it led to an increase in the job growth estimate from the CES is not clear (seasonal adjustment is complicated), but in any case, both figures are relatively close to the 778,000 estimate from the CES estimate before seasonal adjustment.  And all three are all well above the 210,000 seasonally adjusted estimate from the CES that we normally focus on.  Together they suggest that the 210,000 estimate, while usually the most reliable one, might in this case be on the low side.

I have also included in the chart four figures for what I have termed the “long-term limits” on what monthly job growth might be for an economy at full employment.  I included them on the same chart so that one can easily recognize the relative scale.

For an economy at full employment (with unemployment at frictional levels), employment growth cannot exceed the growth of the adult population.  And indeed it will be less, as not all adults (defined by the BLS as all those in the population at age 18 and above) will be in the labor force – some will be retired, some will be students in college, some will have voluntarily left the labor force to raise children or provide care for others, and for other reasons.  Examining what these limits are for the US will provide a sense of what monthly employment growth might be, on average, in the coming years.

First, on population:  Population growth is relatively steady and predictable.  For the ten-year period from November 2011 to November 2021, it averaged 180,000 per month in the US.  It will be similar to this in the coming years, and it sets a (very) crude upper limit on what job growth could be in a steady state.  But one can see even from this figure that it will not be possible to sustain forever monthly net new job growth of even 200,000.  There will not be that many new adults available each month.

But 100% of the adult population are not in the labor force.  As noted, some will be retired, some students, and so on.  The labor force participation rate (LFPR) is the ratio of those who choose to be in the labor force (employed or looking for employment) to the adult population.  In the November CPS figures, that LFPR was 61.8%.  If one assumes that it will remain at that rate, then the monthly growth in the labor force will not be 180,000 (the growth in the adult population) but 61.8% of this, or 111,000.  And if one assumes that unemployment will be something steady, at say 4% at full employment, then potential employment growth would be even less, at 107,000.

The implication is that if the labor force participation rate remains where it is now, one should not be surprised to see monthly figures on job growth of no more than roughly 100,000.  This follows by simple arithmetic.  It could be higher for some period (but not forever) if the labor force participation rate rises from the current 61.8%.  This is possible, and perhaps even likely in the very near term, but probably not for long.  The LFPR in fact rose in the November BLS report to 61.8% from 61.6% in the prior month.  It normally changes only slowly over time.  The disruption that followed from Covid-19 led to relatively wide swings at first, with the LFPR falling from 63.4% in January 2020 to 60.2% in April 2020 with the lockdowns.  But by June 2020 it was back to 61.4% and since has fluctuated in a relatively narrow range before rising the 61.8% of November 2021.

What no one knows is what will happen to the LFPR now.  It might rise a bit more, but the long term trend has been downward.  It peaked in the year 2000, with a steady increase up until then following from a rising participation rate of women in the labor force.  But since 2000 the participation rate for women has moved down, paralleling (but about 20% below) the slow downward trend seen for men since the mid-1950s.  (The factors behind this are discussed in some detail in this earlier blog post.)  It is due to this downward trend over the period of 2011 to 2021 that actual labor force growth over this period was just 67,000 per month (as depicted in the chart above) even though adult population growth was 180,000 per month over this same period.

The current 61.8% LFPR is in fact close to what a simple extrapolation of the trend since 2000 suggests it would be in November 2021.  While the LFPR has behaved unusually since 2016 (when it flattened out for several years and indeed then rose a bit until the start of 2020, before collapsing and then partially recovering in the spring of 2020 due to the Covid-19 crisis), it is now back roughly to what one would find by a simple extrapolation of the trend since the year 2000.

There may well be surprises in what now happens to labor force participation.  After the disruptions of the Covid-19 crisis, it may never revert to where it was just before the crisis.  Those who retired early may mostly choose to stay retired.  And many of those in low-paying jobs, particularly in cases of one spouse in a couple with young children, may have discovered during the Covid-19 crisis that one spouse dropping out of the labor force is not all that costly, and in a two-earner household they may be able to manage financially.

There is therefore a substantial degree of uncertainty on what will now happen to the LFPR.  If it goes up, with a substantial number of adults re-entering the labor force, there will be a transition period when the labor force (and hence the number employed) could rise by significantly more than the 107,000 per month that one would see at a constant LFPR.  Monthly changes in employment during this transition period could be substantial.  For example (and again, this is simple arithmetic), if the LFPR were to increase from the current 61.8% by one percentage point to 62.8% (which would put it back to where it was in much of 2016 through 2018), then the number in the labor force would increase by 2.5 million over what would follow from regular population growth.  Possible employment growth would be about the same 2.5 million if unemployment stays where it is now.  Thus there could be a transition period of five months during which employment could potentially grow by 600,000 per month (a fifth of the extra 2.5 million in the labor force under this scenario, on top of about 100,000 per month from natural population growth).  Or the transition period could be shorter or longer depending on the number of new jobs each month.

But the point is that even if the LFPR should rise, the impact would be a transitory one, after which one should expect employment growth each month of no more than 100,000 or so.  And as noted before, the trend over the last 20 years has been that the LFPR has been moving downward, not upward.

D.  Conclusion

The November jobs report was interpreted by many as disappointing, as the estimated number of net new jobs (based on the estimate normally used – and rightly so) was 210,000.  This was seen as low, and the stock market fell.  However, the report was in fact a pretty strong one, and analysts may have recognized this once they started to look at it more closely.  While one never knows with any certainty why the stock market moves as it does (and there will always be other factors as well), the S&P 500, after falling by over 2% at one point on December 3, started to recover partially by the end of the day.  And it then rose strongly on the next two trading days.

There are reasons to believe the estimate of 210,000 net new jobs in November may have been low.  Seasonal adjustment factors mattered more than normally, and other measures of job growth were significantly higher.  But even at 210,000, analysts need to recognize that as the economy returns to more normal conditions, monthly job growth will likely be a good deal less than that.  While monthly job growth during Biden’s presidency from February to November has so far averaged over a half-million per month (588,000 per month to be more precise), this was only possible because the unemployment rate could come down.  But unemployment is now low – it reached 4.2% in November – and cannot go much lower.  If the labor force participation rate stays where it is now, possible employment growth will only be around 107,000 per month.  If the LFPR rises, then this could go up for some transition period, but that transition period is limited in time and when it is over employment growth will then have to revert to something close to 100,000.

What is more likely is that the LFPR will now return to the longer-term trend seen since it reached its peak in the year 2000, and will fall slowly over time.  Monthly employment growth would then be less, at something less than 100,000 per month (where how much less depends on the pace at which the LFPR falls).

Expectations have to be reset.  Other than during a transition period should the labor force participation rate rise above where it is now, monthly net new jobs growth of 100,000 per month or so is likely to be the limit of what one will see.  But that would be a good performance in an economy that remains at full employment.  Only if unemployment shoots up due to some future downturn could one then see – during a recovery from that downturn – something more.

Trump’s Economic Record in Charts

A.  Introduction

Donald Trump has repeatedly asserted that he built “the greatest economy in history”.  A recent example is in his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination to run for a second term.  And it is not a surprise that Trump would want to claim this.  It would be nice, if true.  But what is surprising is that a number of election surveys have found that Trump polls well on economic issues, with voters rating Trump substantially above Biden on who would manage the economy better.

Yet any examination of Trump’s actual record, not just now following the unprecedented economic collapse this year resulting from the Covid-19 crisis, but also before, shows Trump’s repeated assertion to be plainly false.

The best that can be said is that Trump did not derail, in his first three years in office, the economic expansion that began with the turnaround Obama engineered within a half year of his taking office in 2009 (when Obama had inherited an economy that was, indeed, collapsing).  But the expansion that began under Obama has now been fully and spectacularly undone in Trump’s fourth year in office, with real GDP in the second quarter of 2020 plummeting at an annualized rate of 32% – to a level that is now even well below what it was when Trump took office.  The 32% rate of decline is by far the fastest decline recorded for the US since quarterly data on GDP began to be recorded in 1947 (the previous record was 10%, under Eisenhower, and the next worst was an 8.4% rate of decline in the last quarter of 2008 at the very end of the Bush administration.

This post will look at Trump’s record in comparison to that not just of Obama but also of all US presidents of the last almost 48 years (since the Nixon/Ford term).  For his first three years in office, that Trump record is nothing special.  It is certainly and obviously not the best in history.  And now in his fourth year in office, it is spectacularly bad.

The examination will be via a series of charts.  The discussion of each will be kept limited, but the interested reader may wish to study them more closely – there is a lot to the story of how the economy developed during each presidential administration.  But the primary objective of these “spaghetti” charts is to show how Trump’s record in his first three years in office fits squarely in the middle of what the presidents of the last half-century have achieved.  It was not the best nor the worst over those first three years – Trump inherited from Obama an expanding and stable economy.  But then in Trump’s fourth year, it has turned catastrophic.

Also, while there is a lot more that could be covered, the post will be limited to examination of the outcomes for growth in overall output (GDP), for the fiscal accounts (government spending, the fiscal deficit, and the resulting public debt), the labor market (employment, unemployment, productivity, and real wages), and the basic trade accounts (imports, exports, and the trade balance).

The figures for the charts were calculated based on data from a number of official US government sources.  Summarizing them all here for convenience (with their links):

a)  BEA:  Bureau of Economic Analysis of the US Department of Commerce, and in particular the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA, also commonly referred to as the GDP accounts).

b)  BLS:  Bureau of Labor Statistics of the US Department of Labor.

c)  OMB Historical Tables:  Office of Management and Budget, of the White House.

d)  Census Bureau – Foreign Trade Data:  Of the US Department of Commerce.

It was generally most convenient to access the data via FRED, the Federal Reserve Economic Database of the St. Louis Fed.

B.  Real GDP

Trump likes to assert that he inherited an economy that was in terrible shape.  Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council and Trump’s principal economic advisor recently asserted, for example in his speech to the Republican National Convention, that the Trump administration inherited from Obama “a stagnant economy that was on the front end of a recession”.  While it is not fully clear what a “front end” of a recession is (it is not an economic term), the economy certainly was not stagnant and there was no indication whatsoever of a recession on the horizon.

The chart at the top of this post shows the path followed by real GDP during the course of Obama’s first and second terms in office, along with that of Trump’s term in office thus far.  Both are indexed to 100 in the first calendar quarter of their presidential terms.  Obama inherited from Bush an economy that was rapidly collapsing (with a banking system in ruin) and succeeded in turning it around within a half year of taking office.  Subsequent growth during the remainder of Obama’s first term was then similar to what it was in his second term (with the curve parallel but shifted down in the first term due to the initial downturn).

Growth in the first three years of Trump’s presidency was then almost exactly the same as during Obama’s second term.  There is a bit of a dip at the start of the second year in Obama’s second term (linked to cuts in government spending in the first year of Obama’s second term – see below), but then a full recovery back to the previous path.  At the three-year mark (the 12th quarter) they are almost exactly the same.  To term this stagnation under Obama and then a boom under Trump, as Kudlow asserted, is nonsensical – they are the same to that point.  But the economy has now clearly collapsed under Trump, while it continued on the same path as before under Obama.

Does Trump look better when examined in a broader context, using the record of presidents going back to the Nixon/Ford term that began almost 48 years ago?  No:

The best that can be said is that the growth of real GDP under Trump in his first three years in office is roughly in the middle of the pack.  Growth was worse in a few administrations – primarily those where the economy went into a recession not long after they took office (such as in the first Reagan term, the first Bush Jr. term, and the Nixon/Ford term).  But growth in most of the presidential terms was either similar or distinctly better than what we had under Trump in his first three years.

And now real GDP has collapsed in Trump’s fourth year to the absolute worst, and by a very significant margin.

One can speculate on what will happen to real GDP in the final two quarters of Trump’s presidency.  Far quicker than in earlier economic downturns, Congress responded in March and April with a series of relief bills to address the costs of the Covid-19 crisis, that in total amount to be spent far surpass anything that has ever been done before.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the resulting spending increases, tax cuts, and new loan facilities of measures already approved will cost a total of $3.1 trillion.  This total approved would, by itself, come to 15% of GDP (where one should note that not all will be spent or used in tax cuts in the current fiscal year – some will carry over into future years).  Such spending can be compared to the $1.2 trillion, or 8.5% of the then GDP, approved in 2008/09 in response to that downturn (with most of the spending and tax cuts spread over three years).  Of this $1.2 trillion, $444 billion was spent under the TARP program approved under Bush and $787 billion for the Recovery Act under Obama).

And debate is currently underway on additional relief measures, where the Democratic-controlled Congress approved in May a further $3 trillion for relief, while leaders in the Republican-controlled Senate have discussed a possible $1 trillion measure.  What will happen now is not clear.  Some compromise in the middle may be possible, or nothing may be passed.

But the spending already approved will have a major stimulative effect.  With such a massive program supporting demand, plus the peculiar nature of the downturn (where many businesses and other centers of employment had to be temporarily closed as the measures taken by the Trump administration to limit the spread of the coronavirus proved to be far from adequate), the current expectation is that there will be a significant bounceback in GDP in the third quarter.  As I write this, the GDPNow model of the Atlanta Fed forecasts that real GDP in the quarter may grow at an annualized rate of 29.6%.  Keep in mind, however, that to make up for a fall of 32% one needs, by simple arithmetic, an increase of 47% from the now lower base.  (Remember that to make up for a fall of 50%, output would need to double – grow by 100% – to return to where one was before.)

Taking into account where the economy is now (where there was already a 5% annualized rate of decline in real GDP in the first quarter of this year), what would growth need to be to keep Trump’s record from being the worst of any president of at least the last half-century?  Assuming that growth in the third quarter does come to 29.6%, one can calculate that GDP would then need to grow by 5.0% (annualized) in the fourth quarter to match the currently worst record – of Bush Jr. in his second term.  And it would need to grow by 19% to get it back to where GDP was at the end of 2019.

C.  The Fiscal Accounts

Growth depends on many factors, only some of which are controlled by a president together with congress.  One such factor is government spending.  Cuts in government spending, particularly when unemployment is significant and businesses cannot sell all that they could and would produce due to a lack of overall demand, can lead to slower growth.  Do cuts in government spending perhaps explain the middling rate of growth observed in the first three years of Trump’s term in office?  Or did big increases in government spending spur growth under Obama?

Actually, quite the opposite:

Federal government spending on goods and services did rise in the first year and a half of Obama’s first term in office, with this critical in reversing the collapsing economy that Obama inherited.  But the Republican Congress elected in 2010 then forced through cuts in spending, with further cuts continuing until well into Obama’s second term (after which spending remained largely flat).  While the economy continued to expand at a modest pace, the cuts slowed the economy during a period when unemployment was still high.  (There is also government spending on transfers, where the two largest such programs are Social Security and Medicare, but spending on such programs depends on eligibility, not on annual appropriations.)

Under Trump, in contrast, government spending has grown, and consistently so.  And indeed government spending grew under Trump at a faster pace than it had almost any other president of the last half-century (with even faster growth only under Reagan and Bush, Jr., two presidents that spoke of themselves, as Trump has, as “small government conservatives”):

The acceleration in government spending growth under Trump did succeed, in his first three years in office, in applying additional pressure on the economy in a standard Keynesian fashion, which brought down unemployment (see below).  But this extra government spending did not lead to an acceleration in growth – it just kept it growing (in the first three years of Trump’s term) at the same pace as it had before, as was seen above.  That is, the economy required additional demand pressure to offset measures the Trump administration was taking which themselves would have reduced growth (such as his trade wars, or favoritism for industries such as steel and aluminum, which harmed the purchasers of steel and aluminum such as car companies and appliance makers).

Trump has also claimed credit for a major tax cut bill (as have Reagan and Bush, Jr.).  They all claimed this would spur growth (none did – see above and a more detailed analysis in this blog post), and indeed such sufficiently faster growth, they predicted, that tax revenue would increase despite the reductions in the tax rates.  Hence fiscal deficits would be reduced.  They weren’t:

Fiscal deficits were large and sustained throughout the Reagan/Bush Sr. years.  They then moved to a fiscal surplus under Clinton, following the major tax increase passed in 1993 and the subsequent years of steady and strong growth.  The surplus was then turned back again into a deficit under Bush Jr., with his major tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 coupled with his poor record for economic growth.  Obama then inherited a high fiscal deficit, which grew higher due to the economic downturn he faced on taking office and the measures that were necessary to address it.  But with the economic recovery, the deficit under Obama was then reduced (although at too fast a pace –  this held back the economy, especially in the early years of the recovery when unemployment was still high).

Under Trump, in contrast, the fiscal deficit rose in his first three years in office, at a time when unemployment was low.  This was the time when the US should have been strengthening rather than weakening the fiscal accounts.  As President Kennedy said in his 1962 State of the Union Address: “The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining.”  Under Trump, in contrast, the fiscal deficit was reaching 5% of GDP even before the Covid-19 crisis.  The US has never before had such a high fiscal deficit when unemployment was low, with the sole exception of during World War II.

This left the fiscal accounts in a weak condition when government spending needed to increase with the onset of the Covid-19 crisis.  The result is that the fiscal deficit is expected to reach an unprecedented 16% of GDP this fiscal year, the highest it has ever been (other than during World War II) since at least 1930, when such records began to be kept.

The consequence is a public debt that is now shooting upwards:

As a share of GDP, federal government debt (held by the public) is expected to reach 100% of GDP by September 30 (the end of the fiscal year), based on a simple extrapolation of fiscal account and debt data currently available through July (see the US Treasury Monthly Statement for July, released August 12, 2020).  And with its momentum (as such fiscal deficits do not turn into surpluses in any short period of time), Trump will have left for coming generations a government debt that is the highest (as a share of GDP) it has ever been in US history, exceeding even what it was at the end of World War II.

When Trump campaigned for the presidency in 2016, he asserted he would balance the federal government fiscal accounts “fairly quickly”.  Instead the US will face this year, in the fourth year of his term in office, a fiscal deficit that is higher as a share of GDP than it ever was other than during World War II.  Trump also claimed that he would have the entire federal debt repaid within eight years.  This was always nonsense and reflected a basic lack of understanding.  But at least the federal debt to GDP ratio might have been put on a downward trajectory during years when unemployment was relatively low.  Instead, federal debt is on a trajectory that will soon bring it to the highest it has ever been.

D.  The Labor Market

Trump also likes to assert that he can be credited with the strongest growth in jobs in history.  That is simply not true:

Employment growth was higher in Obama’s second term than it ever was during Trump’s term in office.  The paths were broadly similar over the first three years of Trump’s term, but Trump was simply – and consistently – slower.  In Obama’s first term, employment was falling rapidly (by 800,000 jobs a month) when Obama took his oath of office, but once this was turned around the path showed a similar steady rise.

Employment then plummeted in Trump’s fourth year, and by a level that was unprecedented (at least since such statistics began to be gathered in 1947).  In part due to the truly gigantic relief bills passed by Congress in March and April (described above), there has now been a substantial bounceback.  But employment is still (as of August 2020) well below what it was when Trump took office in January 2017.

Even setting aside the collapse in employment this year, Trump’s record in his first three years does not compare favorably to that of other presidents:

A few presidents have done worse, primarily those who faced an economy going into a downturn as they took office (Obama) or where the economy was pushed into a downturn soon after they took office (Bush Jr., Reagan) or later in their term (Bush Sr., Nixon/Ford).  But the record of other presidents was significantly better, with the best (which some might find surprising) that of Carter.

Trump also claims credit for pushing unemployment down to record low levels.  The unemployment rate did, indeed, come down (although not to record low rates – the unemployment rate was lower in the early 1950s under Truman and then Eisenhower, and again in the late 1960s).  But one cannot see any significant change in the path on the day Trump was inaugurated compared to what it had been under Obama since 2010:

And of course now in 2020, unemployment has shot upwards to a record level (since at least 1948, when these records began to be kept systematically).  It has now come down with the bounceback of the economy, but remains high (8.4% as of August).

Over the long term, nothing is more important in raising living standards than higher productivity.  And this was the argument Trump and the Republicans in Congress made to rationalize their sharp cuts in corporate tax rates in the December 2017 tax bill.  The argument was that companies would then invest more in the capital assets that raise productivity (basically structures and equipment).  But this did not happen.  Even before the collapse this year, private non-residential investment in structures and equipment was no higher, and indeed a bit lower, as a share of GDP than what it was before the 2017 tax bill passed.

And it certainly has not led to a jump in productivity:

Productivity growth during Trump’s term in office has been substantially lower (by 3%) than what it was during Obama’s first term, although somewhat better than during Obama’s second term (by a cumulative 1% point at the same calendar quarter in their respective terms).

And compared to that of other presidents, Trump’s record on productivity gains is nothing special:

Finally, what happened to real wages?  While higher productivity growth is necessary in the long term for higher wages (workers cannot ultimately be paid more than what is produced), in the short term a number of other factors (such as relative bargaining strength) will dominate.  When unemployment is high, wage gains will typically be low as firms can hire others if a worker demands a higher wage.  And when unemployment is low, workers will typically be in a better bargaining position to demand higher wages.

How, then, does Trump’s record compare to that of Obama?:

During the first three years of Trump’s tenure in office, real wage gains were basically right in the middle of what they were over the similar periods in Obama’s two terms.  But then it looks like real wages shot upwards at precisely the time when the Covid-19 crisis hit.  How could this be?

One needs to look at what lies behind the numbers.  With the onset of the Covid-19 crisis, unemployment shot up to the highest it has been since the Great Depression.  But two issues were then important.  One is that when workers are laid off, it is usually the least senior, least experienced, workers who are laid off first.  And such workers will in general have a lower wage.  If a high share of lower-wage workers become unemployed, then the average wage of the workers who remain employed will go up.  This is a compositional effect.  No individual worker may have seen an increase in his or her wage, but the overall average will go up if fewer lower-wage workers remain employed.

Second, this downturn was different from others in that a high share of the jobs lost were precisely in low-wage jobs – workers in restaurants, cafeterias, and hotels, or in retail shops, or janitors for office buildings, and so on.  As the economy shut down, these particular businesses had to close.  Many, if not most, office workers could work from home, but not these, commonly low-wage, workers.  They were laid off.

The sharp jump in average real wages in the second quarter of 2020 (Trump’s 14th quarter in office) is therefore not something to be pleased about.  As the lower-wage workers who have lost their jobs return to being employed, one should expect this overall average wage to fall back towards where it was before.

But the path of real wages in the first three years of Trump’s presidency, when the economy continued to expand as it had under Obama, does provide a record that can be compared.  How does it look relative to that of other presidents of the last half-century?:

Again, Trump’s record over this period is in the middle of the range found for other presidents.  It was fairly good (unemployment was low, which as noted above would be expected to help), but real wages in the second terms of Clinton and Obama rose by more, and performance was similar in Reagan’s second term.

E.  International Trade Accounts

Finally, how does Trump’s record on international trade compare to that of other presidents?  Trump claimed he would slash the US trade deficit, seeing it in a mercantilistic way as if a trade deficit is a “loss” to the country.  At a 2018 press conference (following a G-7 summit in Canada), he said, for example, “Last year,… [the US] lost  … $817 billion on trade.  That’s ridiculous and it’s unacceptable.”  And “We’re like the piggybank that everybody is robbing.”

This view on the trade balance reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economics.  Equally worrisome is Trump’s view that launching trade wars targeting specific goods (such as steel and aluminum) or specific countries (such as China) will lead to a reduction in the trade deficit.  As was discussed in an earlier post on this blog, the trade balance ultimately depends on the overall balance between domestic savings and domestic investment in an economy.  Trade wars may lead to reductions in imports, but then there will also be a reduction in exports.  If the trade wars do not lead to higher savings or lower investment, such trade interventions (with tariffs or quotas imposed by fiat) will simply shift the trade to other goods or other nations, leaving the overall balance where it would have been based on the savings/investment balance.

But we now have three and a half years of the Trump administration, and can see what his trade wars have led to.  In terms of imports and exports:

Imports did not go down under Trump – they rose until collapsing in the worldwide downturn of 2020.  Exports also at first rose, but more slowly than imports, and then leveled off before imports did.  They then also collapsed in 2020.  Going back a bit, both imports and exports had gone up sharply during the Bush administration.  Then, after the disruption surrounding the economic collapse of 2008/9 (with a fall then a recovery), they roughly stabilized at high levels during the last five years of the Obama administration.

In terms of the overall trade balance:

The trade deficit more than doubled during Bush’s term in office.  While both imports and exports rose (as was seen above), imports rose by more.  The cause of this was the housing credit bubble of the period, which allowed households to borrow against home equity (which in turn drove house prices even higher) and spend that borrowing (leading to higher consumption as a share of current income, which means lower savings).  This ended, and ended abruptly, with the 2008/9 collapse, and the trade deficit was cut in half.  After some fluctuation, it then stabilized in Obama’s second term.

Under Trump, in contrast, the trade deficit grew compared to where it was under Obama.  It did not diminish, as Trump insisted his trade wars would achieve, but the opposite.  And with the growing fiscal deficit (as discussed above) due to the December 2017 tax cuts and the more rapid growth in government spending (where a government deficit is dis-saving that has to be funded by borrowing), this deterioration in the trade balance should not be a surprise.  And I also suspect that Trump does not have a clue as to why this has happened (nor an economic advisor willing to explain it to him).

F.  Conclusion

There is much more to Trump’s economic policies that could have been covered.  It is also not yet clear how much damage has been done to the economic structure from the crisis following the mismanagement of Covid-19 (with the early testing failures, the lack of serious contact tracing and isolation of those who may be sick, and importantly, Trump’s politicizing the wearing of simple masks).  Unemployment rose to record levels, and this can have a negative impact (both immediate and longer-term) on the productivity of those workers and on their subsequent earnings.  There has also been a jump in bankruptcies, which reduces competition.  And bankrupt firms, as well as stressed firms more generally, will not be able to repay their loans in full.  The consequent weakening of bank balance sheets will constrain how much banks will be able to lend to others, which will slow the pace of any recovery.

But these impacts are still uncertain.  The focus of this post has been on what we already know of Trump’s economic record.  It is not a good one. The best that can be said is that during his first three years in office he did not derail the expansion that had begun under Obama.  Growth continued (in GDP, employment, productivity, wages), at rates similar to what they were before.  Compared to paths followed in other presidencies of the last half-century, they were not special.

But this growth during Trump’s tenure in office was only achieved with rapid growth in federal government spending.  Together with the December 2017 tax cuts, this led to a growing, not a diminishing, fiscal deficit.  The deficit grew to close to 5% of GDP, which was indeed special:  Never before in US history has the fiscal deficit been so high in an economy at or close to full employment, with the sole exception of during World War II.

The result was a growing public debt as a share of GDP, when prudent fiscal policy would have been the reverse.  Times of low unemployment are when the country should be reducing its fiscal deficit so that the public debt to GDP ratio will fall.  Reducing public dis-saving would also lead to a reduction in the trade deficit (other things being equal).  But instead the trade deficit has grown.

As a consequence, when a crisis hits (as it did in 2020) and government needs to spend substantial sums for relief (as it had to this year), the public debt to GDP ratio will shoot upwards from already high levels.  Republicans in Congress asserted in 2011 that a public debt of 70% of GDP was excessive and needed to be brought down rapidly.  Thus they forced through spending cuts, which slowed the recovery at a time when unemployment was still high.

But now public debt under Trump will soon be over 100% of GDP.  Part of the legacy of Trump’s term in office, for whoever takes office this coming January 20, will therefore be a public debt that will soon be at a record high level, exceeding even that at the end of World War II.

This has certainly not been “the greatest economy in history”.