Tag Archives: government employment

Fiscal Drag Continues to Pull Down the Economy

Posted on by

Private employment, government employment, December 2010 to May 2012

A pair of disappointing reports, from this morning (June 1) and yesterday (May 31), indicate that the economy continues to grow only slowly, with consequent slow growth in employment and indeed a small rise in the rate of unemployment to 8.2% from 8.1% last month.  Posts on this blog in January, on GDP growth and on employment, had flagged that growth, which at that time appeared to be improving, could well fall back in 2012.  Unfortunately, that appears to be happening.  Cut-backs in government spending account for a major part of that disappointing growth.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, in its June 1 release this morning on employment, found that total US employment grew in May by a net 69,000 jobs, with an increase of 82,000 private jobs and a fall of 13,000 government jobs.  Based on the growth rate of the labor force over the ten year period of 2002 to 2012 (there is a good deal of fluctuation in monthly figures), the labor force is growing at about 83,000 workers per month on average.  Employment growth in May of just 69,000 jobs does not keep up with this, much less make a dent in the still high unemployment.

The figures released this morning were also disappointing in the revised numbers they showed for April.  Last month, the initial estimates were that April total employment had risen by 115,000 jobs, with private jobs growing by 130,000.  These were already not good, but the revised estimates issued this morning based on more complete data indicate total jobs in April grew by only 77,000 jobs, with private jobs growing by just 87,000 jobs.  With the May numbers of 69,000 and 82,000 for total and private jobs, respectively, we now have two months of disappointing job growth.  Unless the May numbers are significantly revised when more complete data becomes available, we cannot say that this is only a one month fluke.

As one can note from these numbers, private job growth has been consistently above total job growth.  That is because government continues to cut back on the number of workers it employs, despite assertions by Mitt Romney and other Republicans that government has been growing.  The graph above shows the monthly changes in employment of both private and government employees over the last year and a half, where one sees that government employment has been falling in all but two of these months.  Note that the government figures in the graph are for total government, including at the state and local level.  But the underlying figures show that the fall has been in employment both at the federal and at the state and local levels.

This steady fall in government employment depresses overall job growth, and adds up over time.  Between January 2009, when Obama was inaugurated, and May 2012, total government jobs fell by 607,000.  In contrast, over January 2005 and May 2008, the comparable period in Bush’s second term, total government employment rose by 743,000.  If government employment had been allowed to grow as much during the Obama period as it had during the Bush period, the difference would have been an additional 1.35 million jobs.   This difference alone would have brought the unemployment rate down from the current 8.2%, to just 7.3%.  But one would expect with the still depressed economy, with unemployment high, that increased government employment would have spurred some private job growth.  Assuming conservatively a multiplier of two (i.e. there would be one additional private job for each additional government job, to produce what the now employed government workers will spend on), the unemployment rate would have dropped to just 6.5%.

That is, had government employment been allowed to grow during the Obama period by as much as it had during the comparable Bush period, unemployment would have dropped to 6.5%.  With full employment generally considered to be in the range of 5 to 6% currently, this would have brought employment most of the way to full employment.

The other disappointing report was on estimated GDP growth in the first quarter of 2012, released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis on May 31.  This was the regular first revision of the initial estimate of GDP growth that had been released a month ago.  The initial estimate of GDP growth in the first quarter of 2012 was discussed in a posting on this blog in April.  The initial estimate was that GDP had grown at a 2.2% annualized rate in the first quarter.  This estimate has now been revised downward to 1.9%.

The revision is not large, but is not in a good direction.  And it is interesting to note that two-thirds of that downward change (0.2% points of the 0.3% points reduction) was due to a downward revised figure on government spending.  Government spending was already falling, and the initial estimate, discussed in the blog post cited above, was that it took 0.6% points away from what GDP growth would have been.  The revised estimate increases that reduction to 0.8% points of GDP.  Government spending on goods and services (for all government, including state and local) is estimated to have declined at an annualized rate of 3.9% in the first quarter, similar to the 4.2% rate fall in the fourth quarter of 2011.

The reduction in government demand for goods and services leads to a reduction in GDP in present circumstances since unemployment is high, there is substantial excess capacity, and hence goods and services produced for sale to government will not come from goods and services that could be sold elsewhere.  There is plenty of capacity to produce whatever people demand, and the problem is there is no demand for additional goods and services to be sold elsewhere.

This fall in government spending, especially in the last half year (i.e. the fourth quarter of 2011 and the first quarter of 2012), can explain a large part of the recent slow growth.  As noted above, the revised GDP estimates indicate that the fall in government spending in the first quarter of 2012 subtracted 0.8% points from what GDP growth would have been.  There was a similar 0.8% point reduction in the fourth quarter of 2011.

But far from simply not falling, government spending will grow in a normally growing economy.  Hence the basis of comparison should not be to zero government spending growth, but rather something positive.  One comparison to use would be the growth seen during the Bush administration.  Over 2001 to 2008, government spending growth on average accounted for 0.42% points of GDP growth at an annualized rate.  Keep in mind that this spending growth is for all government, not simply federal spending (which was high), but also state and local government spending.  Also, government spending in the GDP accounts is for direct goods and services only, and excludes spending via transfers (such as Social Security).

Finally, government spending growth in periods such as now, when unemployment is high and there is excess capacity, will have a multiplier impact, for the reasons discussed above.  A reasonable and conservative multiplier to use would be a multiplier of two.

The table below summarizes the impact of these assumptions for what growth would have been in 2011Q4 and 2012Q1:

      Annualized growth rate of GDP 2011Q4 2012Q1
GDP Growth Observed 3.0 1.9
GDP Growth if Government had not contracted 3.8 2.6
GDP Growth if Government had grown at the Bush rate 4.2 3.1
GDP Growth if Government had grown at the Bush rate, with a multiplier of two 5.5 4.3

GDP growth as actually happened was at a 3.0% rate in the fourth quarter of 2011 and 1.9% in the first quarter of 2012.  Had reductions in government spending not taken away 0.8% points from these growth rates in each of these two periods, growth would have been 3.8% and 2.6% respectively.  But this implicitly places government spending growth at zero.  Had government been allowed to grow as it had between 2001 and 2008 during the Bush terms, growth would have been 4.2% and 3.1% even with no multiplier.  With a multiplier of two, the rates would have been 5.5% and 4.3% respectively.

Such growth rates of about 5% on average is what the economy needs if it is to recover.  At 2% or so, growth is insufficient to create sufficient demand for labor to bring down unemployment on a sustainable basis, as we have just seen in the report this morning.  And a 2% growth rate is so modest that it is vulnerable to shocks, such as from Europe (where Germany and the EU still have not addressed what needs to be done to resolve the Euro crisis), or from a spike in oil prices (should the Iran situation blow up, literally), or even from swings in inventories (as discussed before in this blog).

With government contracting as it has, despite the high unemployment and excess capacity, fiscal drag is acting as a severe constraint on economic growth.  There is a not a small danger that growth could slip back to negative rates, and that is not good for an incumbent President in an election year.

Private Job Growth Under Obama: Recovery, in Contrast to the Fall Under Bush

Posted on by

Cumulative Private sector employment growth by months from inaugurations, Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I

Cumulative Government sector employment growth by months from inaugurations, Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I

[Update on February 2, 2013:  A more recent analysis of these issues, with these charts now covering the full first term of Obama, is available here.]

A.  Introduction

Mitt Romney and Republican Party leaders have repeatedly and emphatically asserted that Obama and the policies of his administration have been terrible for private sector job growth, and that voters should therefore bring back the Republicans and their policies.  Indeed, Romney has said his campaign is all about jobs.  At the same time, they’ve asserted that government and its bureaucrats have exploded during the Obama years, with this holding back private sector job growth.

But as the figures above show, private sector jobs have recovered under Obama, reversing the freefall that was underway as he was taking the oath of office, while government employment has contracted sharply.  In contrast, private jobs were stable when George W. Bush took office, but then started to fall and fall sharply, while government jobs rose.  By 38 months into his first term, there were 2.4 million fewer private sector jobs in the US economy than on the day Bush was inaugurated.  Yet Romney repeatedly lambasts Obama for his jobs record, while he argues for bringing back the policies of Bush.

They figures show the cumulative change in private and in government jobs between January of the year the Presidents were inaugurated, to the March that was 38 months (a little over three years) later.  The March date 38 months later was chosen as that is the most recent date for which data is available for Obama.  The data all come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  The graph on government jobs is similar in presentation to that used by Paul Krugman in a posting on his blog yesterday.  The government jobs issue was also reviewed in a posting on this blog site over four months ago, which noted the collapse in government jobs during the Obama years (while they grew under Bush), and discussed how this has hurt overall job growth in the economy.

B.  Private Sector Jobs

Private sector jobs were falling rapidly in the period leading up to Obama’s inauguration in January 2009, as has been discussed before in this blog (see in particular the figure at this posting).  While the pace of decline was turned around almost immediately (within three months of Obama taking office), the number of private sector jobs continued to decline in Obama’s first year.  But jobs in the private sector then began to grow, and by March 2012 (the most recent figure available) they are almost back to where they were when he took office.  While this represents a growth of over 4 million private jobs over the past two years, the hole was a deep one.  The economy was hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs per month at the end of the Bush administration.  One would have of course wanted a more rapid recovery from this deep hole, but Republican opposition in Congress has blocked the measures that would have been needed to get this done (such as further stimulus).

But while one would have wanted a more rapid recovery from the 2008 economic collapse, contrast the record of Obama with that of George W. Bush in the first term of his administration.  Private jobs were growing in the final months of the Clinton administration, and were flat in the first two months of the Bush administration.   But they then began to fall (with the fall well underway before the September 11 attacks, so one cannot blame them).  The steady decline in private sector jobs continued for two and a half years, and at the trough there were 3.4 million fewer private jobs than when Bush took office.  They then began a slow recovery, but by 38 months into his term there were still 2.4 million fewer private jobs than when Bush took the oath of office.   Yet Romney and his economic advisors (most of whom held high positions in the Bush administration) advocate bringing back the policies of Bush.

The graph also shows private job growth for similar periods in the Clinton administration and in the administration of the elder George Bush.  Under the Democratic administration of Clinton, there was steady and strong private sector job growth throughout the period being followed here (and indeed throughout his two terms).  Under the Republican administration of the elder George Bush, there was some, but weak, private job growth in his first year and a half in office, but then private jobs fell, so that by 38 months into his term they were close to where they had been when he started.  Put another way, after one year in office up to the point 38 months into their respective terms, private jobs rose by over 4 million under Obama, but fell by 1.4 million under the elder Bush.

C.  Government Jobs

The story commonly told about growth in government jobs under the different Democratic and Republican administrations is also a false one.  Total government jobs have fallen during the Obama term, but grew sharply during the terms of both Bush administrations.  They also grew during the Clinton period, although by less than in either of the two Bush terms.  (Note that the sharp spike, and then after a few months a reversion to the previous trend, at a little over a year into both the Obama and first Bush administrations, is due to temporary hiring for the decennial census.)  Keep in mind that government employment in the US is mostly state and local government employment, with federal employment only a small share (13% currently).  But under Obama, non-defense federal employment has fallen as well (discussed in this blog posting).

Positive government job growth during the Obama period, similar to that seen during the two Bush administrations, would have helped spur the recovery.  But federal support which would have saved the jobs of teachers, police, and others has been blocked by Republican opposition, while cuts at the state and local level have been driven not only by deficit concerns but also by ideology.  Indeed, prominent Republican governors such as Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Chris Christie in New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio, Rick Perry of Texas, Rick Scott of Florida, and others, have celebrated their slashing of state and local government employment, often while cutting taxes at the same time.  The job cuts have been unprecedented.

D.  Conclusion

The Republican stories on jobs are myths, and not consistent with the facts.  Private sector jobs have recovered under Obama, and have grown by over 4 million jobs once the downturn Obama inherited was stopped.  One would have hoped for a faster recovery, but further efforts to spur the recovery have been blocked by Republican opposition in Congress.  And the story should be compared to that in the first term of George W. Bush, where there were 2.4 million fewer private sector jobs than when he took office, at the comparable point in his term.

The story told about government job growth under the different administrations is also false.  Government jobs have been slashed sharply (mostly at the state and local level) during the Obama period, which has hurt the economic recovery.  In contrast, government jobs grew significantly under both Bush administrations, and grew but by somewhat less during the comparable Clinton period.  Positive government job growth during the Obama period, had it happened, would have helped spur the economic recovery.

Mitt Romney’s Economic Policy Address: Full of Factual Errors

Posted on by

On March 19, Mitt Romney presented at the University of Chicago a (mercifully short) policy address that laid out his criticisms of Obama’s economic policies (see here for a transcript).  The primary theme was that under Obama, high taxes and an overbearing regulatory burden have stifled “economic freedom” and that “The Obama administration’s assault on our economic freedom is the principal reason why the recovery has been so tepid”.

Romney’s address is interesting as it illustrates well how even such carefully prepared addresses in the current Republican campaign have been replete with factual errors.  A listener to such presentations will normally presume that the speaker will have gotten their facts right, and they will distinguish factual statements with statements of opinion.  The listners may or may not agree with the opinions, but they will normally give the speaker the benefit of the doubt on factual statements.  Unfortunately, political discourse in this Republican campaign has degenerated to the point where numerous statements, carefully prepared and presented as fact, are simply not true.  But by repetition, it is not surprising that many in the American public have become confused into thinking such statements are true when they are factually wrong.

Perhaps the most basic and glaring of the factual inaccuracies in Romney’s speech (and a cornerstone of his argument in the speech) is his statements that taxes (and tax rates) have risen under Obama.  But federal taxes have been repeatedly cut under Obama, at a total cost to the budget of close to $1.5 trillion (as estimated by the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget):

Tax Cuts Signed Into Law by Obama
Date Signed Amount ($b)
A.  Tax Provisions in 2009 Stimulus Package 2/17/09 $420.0
B.  2010 Tax Cut Package 12/17/10 $880.9
C.  2012 Payroll Tax Cut Extension 12/23/11 and 2/22/12 $115.5
D.  Other – Various Dates in 2009 and 2010 various $64.2
TOTAL $1,480.6

$1.5 trillion in tax cuts is not small, and one would think hard to ignore, yet Romney asserts that big tax increases under Obama have stifled the recovery.  And in addition to the $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, there has not been a single tax increase under Obama.

In large part because of these policy actions cutting taxes, federal government revenue during the Obama presidency has been the lowest of any presidency since 1950.  Between 1951 and 2008, government revenues varied between a low of 16.1% of GDP and a high of 20.6%, and averaged 18.0%.  Revenues were 17.6% of GDP in 2008, the last year of Bush.  During Obama’s term, the share was 15.1%, 15.1%, 15.4% and a projected 15.8% for 2009 to 2012, respectively.  Yet Romney condemns increases in taxes as stifling the recovery.  It would be more accurate to say that major cuts in taxes have not led to a strong recovery.

It may well be the case that Obama would have preferred a better balance in the extensive tax cuts, and it is true that Obama has proposed selected tax increases (e.g. on those making more than $250,000, and a minimum tax rate on those making more than $1 million a year).  But these have not been enacted.  Yet Romney asserts that as a result of Obama, businessmen are facing a higher tax (as well as regulatory) burden, and that “those taxes and costs add up.  Businesses shut down.  Jobs disappear.  Entrepreneurs decide it’s too risky and too costly to invest and to hire.”

The other half of the Romney assertion (in addition to big tax increases), is that Obama has burdened businesses with stifling regulations.  Yet as has been noted before in this blog, productivity growth has in fact been quite strong during the Obama term.  Stifling regulations would have hurt productivity, yet multifactor productivity rose in 2010 by more than it had in any other single year since the data series began in 1987 (see here); labor productivity has increased in the current recovery at a pace similar to the highest it has in any recovery in the past four decades in the US (see here); and the increase in labor productivity under Obama while wages have been flat have in fact led to a sharp rise in profits of American businesses (see here).  None of this is consistent with Romney’s assertion that burdensome regulations under Obama have held back businesses.  Rather, businesses are not producing and employing more because there is not a demand for what they can produce (and profitably produce; see here).  And demand has been deficient in large part due to the reduction (not increase, as Romney asserts) in government demand (see here).

Romney supports his assertion that overbearing regulations under Obama have led to the slow recovery simply through several anecdotes.  But his choices of anecdotes are interesting, as the specific ones cited stem from cases that arose during the Bush administration.  Specifically, he asserts that over-reaching regulators “would have banned Thomas Edison’s light bulb”.  And then immediately says “Oh yeah, Obama’s regulators actually did just that.”  But actually, Obama’s regulators are enforcing a law passed and signed by Bush in 2007.  I assume that Romney would have complained even more loudly if Obama had chosen to ignore a law that is on the books, despite his constitutional requirement to enforce the laws.

Another example is of a case where the EPA was enforcing a law against development of land in a wetlands area, with Romney saying the regulators would not even allow the individuals to pursue a case in court against it.  But the Supreme Court in fact issued a decision on the case the same week as Romney’s speech in Chicago.  And most relevant is that the EPA originally moved to protect this wetland in 2005, in the first year of Bush’s second term.  This was not a case brought under Obama.  But Romney did not blame over-zealous regulators under a Republican administration.

Romney also makes the claim that the federal government has exploded under Obama, with 140,000 new federal employees hired.  But the figures on federal government employment issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (as part of their statistics on employment in all of the main sectors) shows that federal government employment only rose by about 30,000 between January 2009 and February 2012 (a total increase of 0.9% over a period of more than three years, or 0.3% per year).  Furthermore, if one excludes an increase of 60,000 in civilian Defense Department workers, federal government employment in fact fell by 30,000 over this period.  It appears that Romney is quoting a figure on federal employment that excludes US Postal workers, even though the official statistics of the BLS includes them.  Even if one makes this selective choice of what statistics to cite, an increase of 140,000 federal workers (excluding postal workers), is an increase at a rate of only 2.2% per year.  This is not an explosion.  And Romney ignores the sharp reductions of state and local government workers in recent years.  Total government workers (state and local, as well as federal) have fallen by 580,000 over this period, contributing directly to a substantial share of the unemployed.

Romney also criticizes Obama on some more substantive points, on which differences of opinion are fair.  Specifically, he criticizes the Dodd-Frank bill that changes regulation of the financial sector, which Obama signed into law, and he criticizes changes in regulation of oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  On matters such as these, there can be substantive differences, and political campaigns should center on such issues.  However, I would have thought it would be clear that after the biggest financial meltdown in US history, caused by absence of regulation to control the risks that built up in the financial system in the housing bubble, that better and smarter financial regulation was needed.  And after the Deepwater Horizon off-shore oil platform blew up in 2010, with loss of life and almost 5 million barrels of oil released to the sea, that better regulation of such drilling activities was needed.  Romney and other political figures may disagree, but that is what elections are for.