Tag Archives: policy

Why Have Productivity and Profits Gone Up During Obama’s Term?

Posted on by

In the post immediately preceding this one (see directly below, or here), I noted that a glance at the economic data makes clear that productivity and profitability have both increased under Obama.  Hence, the argument made by Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates that onerous regulations imposed by Obama are the cause of disappointing job and output growth, is simply not correct.  If new regulations were such a problem, one would have expected productivity and especially profitability to have suffered, and yet both have improved.  Indeed, profitability has sky-rocketed.

For convenience, here is the basic graph again:

But this naturally then also raises the question of why productivity and especially profitability have gone up by so much under Obama.  Indeed, some might wonder whether Obama’s administration has deliberately favored profits at the expense of wages.

While a full analysis cannot be done here, I find no reason to jump to such a conclusion.  The path of profits is what one would expect over the last few years, with the sharp collapse in output at the end of the Bush Administration and then only a slow recovery with unemployment staying high.  There is the separate issue of the longer term trends, where profits have been growing as a share of National Income since about 1980 (for the last decade, see here, and for the underlying data and the longer term see the BEA data at here).  But the fluctuations over the last few years can be well understood in terms of the short term dynamics of the economic collapse and subsequent slow recovery.

Specifically, profits fell sharply in the economic downturn at the end of the Bush Administration, and started to to fall (per unit of production) as far back as 2006.  It is worth noting that housing prices peaked in the first half of 2006, and the economy began to slow after that.  A collapse in profits when the economy collapsed is as one would expect.

In response to the economic downturn, the Federal Reserve Board cut interest rates, ultimately to historically low levels of essentially zero for rates on risk-free assets.  Coupled with other aggressive Fed measures, as well as the TARP program to stabilize the banks (launched by Bush) and then the Obama stimulus program, the collapse was halted and the economy then started to grow in the middle of 2009.  Profitability then recovered.

The business response to the downturn was to lay off workers, as they always do in a downturn, and then later they invested in new machinery and equipment.  The investment was spurred in part by the low interest rates following from the Fed policies, and indeed the recovery in non-residential private fixed investment was surprisingly strong (see here).  Both these actions increased labor productivity, as shown in the diagram above.

But aggregate demand growth remained sluggish, despite the growth in private investment.   The downturn was due primarily to the bursting of the housing price bubble that the Bush Administration regulators had allowed to build up (or at least made no attempt to limit).  As housing prices collapsed, home owners became poorer and many ended up with mortgages that were larger than the now lower values of their homes.  Stock prices also fell, hurting retirement and savings accounts.  Coupled also with worries generated by high unemployment, households hunkered down to consume less and try to save more.  Private consumption stagnated.  And after the Obama stimulus plan was passed (helping to stop the free-fall in output and to turn around the economy), political pressures from the Republican Party and especially the Tea Party wing made it impossible for government to maintain a high enough demand to fill in the still large gap in aggregate national demand.

As a consequence, the recovery in growth was limited and unemployment has stayed high.    This has kept wages largely flat.  But labor productivity rose due to the large early lay-offs and later the growth in business investment.  With wages flat but labor productivity higher, unit labor costs fell.

In addition, there are non-labor costs (not shown in the diagram) which also fell.  The main component of such costs that fell was interest payments, which the Fed reduced to the maximum extent it could to try to spur the economy.

With both unit labor costs and non-labor costs down, profits rose and rose sharply.

Regulations Under Obama Cannot Be Blamed: Productivity and Profits Have Gone Up

Posted on by


The Republican Presidential candidates, and especially Mitt Romney, have repeatedly asserted that burdensome regulations imposed by the Obama Administration are to blame for the disappointing performance of the economy during the recovery, and especially the disappointing job performance.  The evidence points to the opposite:  productivity has in fact performed quite well and profitability has sky-rocketed.  If regulations were a problem, one would have expected productivity to have declined and profitability to have suffered, and they haven’t.

The disappointing performance of the economy in recent years can rather be attributed to slow growth in aggregate demand.  Households have had to scale back consumption after the housing bubble burst, while conservative fiscal policies forced by a Republican Congress have not allowed government expenditures to fill in the resulting gap.

The chart above shows how labor productivity, unit labor costs, and unit profits have performed in recent years (for non-financial corporations), each indexed so that the 2005 average equals 100.  Labor productivity (in green in the chart) is the amount of output produced per unit of labor.  It was basically flat prior to Obama taking office, rising by just 2.2% total in those four years, but then jumped by 8.6% total in the subsequent 2 1/2 years.  If regulations imposed by Obama were a major hindrance, productivity would not have gone up like this.

But while labor productivity improved, labor compensation (not shown in the chart to reduce clutter) was basically flat.  Indeed, hourly wages in real terms have declined slightly since Obama took office (by 0.8% total).  This is consistent with a slack labor market, with high unemployment depressing wages.  With higher productivity and wages not increasing, the result was falling unit labor costs (labor costs per unit of output), as shown in blue in the chart.

What did shoot up after Obama took office was unit profits (profits per unit of output, in red in the chart).  This is much more volatile, but it is interesting to note that it peaked in the third quarter of 2006 and then fell sharply well before Obama took office.  If someone is to be “blamed” for this, it would have to be Bush.  Unit profits then reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009, as the recession came to an end, and then skyrocketed by over 75% up to the third quarter of 2011 (the most recent data available).  This is of course all consistent with what has been observed at the level of the aggregate National Income accounts, which was reviewed in an earlier post (see here) on this blog.

Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates assert that burdensome regulations under Obama have stifled the ability of business to make a profit, and with that, businesses have been unwilling to employ more workers.  But productivity has improved and profitability has soared.  The evidence simply does not support their assertions.

Republican Tax Plans: Part 2

Posted on by

In a post on December 26, I presented the average tax rates that would follow from the tax plan proposals of several of the main Republican candidates.  These were radical proposals, and would move America from the progressive tax structure it has always had (even under Reagan and Bush), to regressive taxes where the rich would pay at a lower rate than the middle class or (in the case of Cain) even the poor.

The calculations were done by the Tax Policy Center, a joint program of The Urban Institute and Brookings, and I simply presented their results graphically.  At the time of my December 26 post, the Tax Policy Center had only worked out (using their Microsimultation tax model:  see my earlier post) the implications of the proposals of Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich.  They have now (as of January 5) also worked out the implications of what Mitt Romney has proposed.  These tax rates are added in the diagram above (in brown).

As I noted in my earlier post, Romney’s proposals are in the same direction as those of Gingrich and Perry, but less extreme.  His plan would still lead to major reductions in the tax rates for the rich, especially the super-rich, although not to as low a rate as what Cain, Perry, and Gingrich have proposed.  And the overall tax rates would at least remain somewhat progressive, in contrast to the proposals of the others, but substantially less progressive than what they would be under either the current law (where the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire as currently scheduled) or even what they would be if the Bush tax cuts are extended.  Under Romney’s proposal, those earning less than $30,000 per year (the very poor) would in fact pay more than they would should the Bush tax cuts be extended, while those earning between $30,000 and $50,000 would pay the same as under Bush.  But above $50,000, the richer one gets the less one would pay under Romney’s plan compared to what one would pay under Bush (and even less compared to what one would pay should the Bush tax cuts not be extended).

With the lower tax rates under Romney, especially for the rich, overall tax revenues would of course fall.  The figures calculated by the Tax Policy Center indicate revenues would be $600 billion less under Romney’s proposal in 2015 alone.  The ten year loss (where ten year figures are what are being used in the fiscal deficit discussions) would be more than ten times this, i.e. more than $6 trillion.  Although a bit less than half the loss under the cannot-be-serious Gingrich plan (which would lose $1.28 trillion in 2015 alone, or a loss that could not be covered even if one cut all federal government discretionary expenditures to zero), Romney never indicates what he would do to make up for this $600 billion annual loss in revenues.  Yet he repeatedly states in his campaign that it is critical to cut the fiscal deficit.

Romney claims to be a good businessman, but a plan that cuts tax revenues by $600 billion a year, equal to close to half of all government discretionary expenditure (including the military), is not serious.