At last week’s Jobs Summit, President Obama said he’ll consider any good idea to create jobs. I heard him say it, and I believe him. His speech yesterday at the Brookings Institution offered some decent, standard approaches, including more infrastructure spending and tax breaks for small businesses. The President would be well-served to cast his policy net a bit wider. Since the Great Recession began, the economy has shed an astounding 7.3 million private-sector jobs – and based on the last two recoveries, businesses could continue to cut back their labor forces for another year or longer. The President and Congress can create more government jobs whenever they like, for example by giving states an additional $50 billion or so targeted to jobs. But finding the right lever to get private companies to hire more people than they would otherwise is a lot harder.
The most direct and sensible approach is to somehow reduce the costs of hiring for companies. The unsurprising catch is that the incentives required to get them to hire a million or more new people, whom otherwise they wouldn’t have hired, are very expensive. So, most serious jobs proposals would either drive up our already-mammoth deficits or require a significant new tax.
Most, but not all, because there is one approach I know of that wouldn’t cost taxpayers anything. The foreign subsidiaries of America’s multinational companies currently hold offshore an estimated $1 trillion in past earnings, because our tax laws defer the U.S. corporate tax on those earnings until the parent companies bring them back to the U.S. parent company. The challenge is to leverage these funds for job creation at home, by creating a strong incentive for them to bring back a share of those earnings tied to a requirement that they use the funds to finance new hires. It’s the closest thing to “found money” that this administration and Congress will ever find.
We actually tried this once before, in a fashion, and it worked reasonably well. In 2004, Congress slashed the corporate tax on such “repatriated” earnings for one year, from 35 percent to 5.25 percent, and IRS data show that it increased net inflows of those earnings by $312 billion, including $252 billion by U.S. manufacturers. The 2004 law also told companies they had to use the new funds they brought back to, among other things, finance new workers, new investment, or pay down domestic debt. Recent surveys found $73 billion of the repatriated earnings went to create or retain jobs, $75 billion for new capital spending, and $39 billion to pay down domestic debt. Here’s the free lunch: In the short run, the temporary program raised $34 billion in new federal revenues. And it may not even have reduced revenues over the long-term, or not by much, since without the tax break, most U.S. multinationals keep their foreign-source earnings abroad indefinitely, or at least until they can be used to offset domestic losses for tax purposes.
We can estimate what would happen if we tried this approach again. A recent analysis I did with AEI’s Aparna Mathur found that such a policy could bring back $420 billion in foreign-source income now held abroad. And if the program were targeted again in the same way as in 2004, it could mean $97 billion for new employment, or enough to create or save 2.6 million jobs over two years, as well as $101 billion for new capital spending, enough to produce long-term wage gains of 1.3 percent.
Skeptics will claim that most companies would use their repatriated funds in other ways, such as stock buy-backs; and since money is fungible, the government couldn’t stop them. Two academic studies built models which inferred that this happened last time; but there’s no real evidence that companies evaded the restrictions, and a recent academic survey suggests that most did follow the law. Even if some didn’t, we can tighten the restrictions this time. We could allow multinationals to bring back offshore earnings for one or two years and pay just 5 or 10 percent corporate tax on them here, so long as they use those funds only to create new, net jobs or increase their net investment. That means they would have to not only hire new people, but expand their overall workforces. It might just help businesses create between 1 million and 2 million new jobs while actually reducing the deficit, which seems like the kind of new idea the President is looking for.
Friday’s unemployment report of fewer jobs lost than expected surely beats the alternative, but that does not mean that the employment situation will improve significantly anytime soon. What it hopefully means is that things won’t get dramatically worse, although that certainly can’t be ruled out.
Calculated Risk, perhaps the most prolific chart maker and data analyst of all economics blogs, presents an analysis on the potential speed of the employment recovery. These estimates are based on Okun’s Law (an established relationship between GDP growth and job creation):
In the 2010 budget, OMB projects real GDP growth of 3.5 percent from the fourth quarter of this year to next, meaning that, if Okun’s law were still operable, we’d be somewhere in the mid to high 9 percent unemployment range at the end of next year. (The Federal Reserve sees similar numbers.)
Having said that, many leading economists, including NDN’s Rob Shapiro and the Director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers, have argued that Okun’s law has broken down, making the relationship between GDP growth and employment weaker, which means these projections may be - sadly - optimistic.
Mark Thoma, who has a new blog, ponders a "new normal" (read: higher) unemployment rate. He points to something both NDN and Thoma have been writing about: concerns of higher structural unemployment.
I expect structural unemployment to be higher than it was, particularly in the next few years. We had too many resources in housing, finance, and automobile production, and it will take time for the economy to make the necessary structural adjustments. When this is combined with continuing globalization, as well as the higher savings rate and correspondingly lower consumption expected from households in the future, both of which cause structural change within the economy, the expectation is that the new target rate of unemployment will rise above the 4 percent level it was at before the recession.
Exactly how much it will rise and for how long is hard to say. A 5 or 6 percent rate, or even somewhat higher is certainly imaginable, but getting it right is important. If policymakers target an unemployment rate that is too low, they risk causing inflation (one reason for the high rate of inflation in the 1970s is that the Fed targeted a 4 percent unemployment rate when the actual rate of normal unemployment was much higher due to structural and demographic change). If they target a rate that is too high, then they risk having people be unnecessarily unemployed in the economy.
He goes on to point to a few ideas of how to deal with this - worker training and extended unemployment benefits among them. With unemployment at 10 percent, there are massive challenges involved in bringing that level back to "normal," but, as we craft economic policy going forward, it is important to understand that we're not going back to what we had, and policy must be responsive to the new economic realities.
NDN believes this structural change, as well as the structural changes that have de-linked GDP and wage growth, represent the great governing challenges of the day. For years we've pointed to a three part agenda to deal with these issues. This agenda includes containing health care and energy costs, accelerating innovation, and investing in infrastructure and skills, all steps that will have to be taken to create broad based prosperity in the 21st century economy.
TNR's Zubin Jelveh covers an element of something I wrote about last week - political attacks on the stimulus for being a negative factor on growth. Unfortunately, this attack comes from a conservative economist who should know better.
The WSJ says the International Energy Agency sees good news in that oil demand will remain relatively low, even as growth picks up. Generally, growth is associated with higher oil prices, which can be economically troublesome (or worse), but this time efficiency policies are saving the day. Renewed growth with low energy prices is just what the doctor ordered.
And David Leonhardt writes that, even as bad as things look, we just don't know that the economy won't boom again soon. He says an economy transforming innovation we don't know about could come along soon, which is a fair point. So let's do the things we know encourage innovation: upgrading worker skills, R&D funding, creating competition, valuing IP, and more. (All of these are especially applicable to climate-friendly technologies.)
Statement from Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, Chair of NDN’s Globalization Initiative, on new economic data released by the Commerce Department:
“While this week’s news on the economy growing in the third quarter is welcome, most of those gains came from the President’s stimulus, so we’re still a long way from a self-sustaining recovery. And today’s news of falling personal incomes last month and a sharp downturn in consumer spending shows how hard this recession has been for most Americans,” said Shapiro, former Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs in the Clinton Administration. “These developments come on top of what happened to most people in the last expansion – when their wages stagnated even as the economy was growing. Political leaders in Washington shouldn’t let wishful thinking cloud their planning for 2010 – the economy still needs help, and the American people need a government prepared to make serious long-term investments in their future prosperity.”
Via Calculated Risk, here’s what Council of Economic Advisors Chair Christina Romer had to say last week in testimony before the Joint Economic Committee about how the stimulus has and will impact growth in the near term:
In a report issued on September 10, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) provided estimates of the impact of the ARRA on GDP and employment. ...
These estimates suggest that the ARRA added two to three percentage points to real GDP growth in the second quarter and three to four percentage points to growth in the third quarter. This implies that much of the moderation of the decline in GDP growth in the second quarter and the anticipated rise in the third quarter is directly attributable to the ARRA.
Fiscal stimulus has its greatest impact on growth around the quarters when it is increasing most strongly. When spending and tax cuts reach their maximum and level off, the contribution to growth returns to roughly zero. This does not mean that stimulus is no longer having an effect. Rather, it means that the effect is to keep GDP above the level it would be at in the absence of stimulus, not to raise growth further. Most analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009. By mid-2010, fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to growth.
In layman’s terms, when first comes online, it adds GDP growth that wouldn’t have otherwise occurred. Then, after a time, it props the economy up at a level it wouldn’t have otherwise seen. (Romer says we’ve seen the first part, and are about to see the second part.) Here’s the thing, when the economy isn’t growing on its own but is being propped up at a higher level than it otherwise would have been due to stimulus, GDP growth will sit at basically zero. That doesn’t mean the stimulus isn’t working – the economy is producing more than it otherwise would have.
This also means that the stimulus going offline is a “drag” - or has a negative effect - on growth as that government spending is no longer in the economy. What it doesn’t mean as that it’s making the economy worse, and it’s worth inoculating against that misunderstanding of the GDP data that will inevitably arise. Rather, it will have as measurable a positive effect on the economy in the short term and will jumpstart sustained growth (at what level is still an open question). And the investments in the elements of sustained growth – infrastructure, smart grid, energy, education, R%D, etc – will continue to pay off for many years to come.
Via Mark Thoma, Atlanta Fed Senior VP and Research Director David Altig weighs in on the high likelihood of a jobless recovery. He brings to light an interesting number on the permanence of job losses, and the whole post is a good round up what will be a very scary subject:
The percentage of employee separations labeled permanent is at a recorded high.
Underneath the usual total unemployment numbers are the reasons an individual is unemployed: You are on temporary layoff; you quit your job; you have reentered the labor market and have yet to find a job; or you are entering the job market for the first time and have yet to find a job. Or, finally, you have been permanently separated from your previous employer, who has no expectation of hiring you back.
The last category is the dominant reason for unemployment at this time. That might not seem surprising, but it actually is. Never, in the six recessions preceding the latest one, did permanent separations account for more than 45 percent of the unemployed. The current percentage stands at 56 percent as of September and appears to be still climbing:
As Dr. Rob Shapiro tells us, the concept of a jobless recovery is scary, but even worse is that the term may overstate the case. We could be in for what is technically a recovery in which the economy actually loses jobs.
Since last week's the freak-out about a weak dollar, cooler heads have responded. Paul Krugman led the way this week with a strong (targeted) critique of the idea, coming from regional Federal Reserve banks, that the Fed's Open Market Committee should make "an early return to tighter money, including higher interests rates." Krugman doesn't think that the raising rates makes sense at all:
After all, the unemployment rate is a horrifying 9.8 percent and still rising, while inflation is running well below the Fed’s long-term target. This suggests that the Fed should be in no hurry to tighten — in fact, standard policy rules of thumb suggest that interest rates should be left on hold for the next two years or more, or until the unemployment rate has fallen to around 7 percent.
Yet some Fed officials want to pull the trigger on rates much sooner. To avoid a "Great Inflation," says Charles Plosser of the Philadelphia Fed, "we will need to act well before unemployment rates and other measures of resource utilization have returned to acceptable levels." Jeffrey Lacker of the Richmond Fed says that rates may need to rise even if "the unemployment rate hasn’t started falling yet."
I don't know what analysis lies behind these itchy trigger fingers. But it probably isn’t about analysis, anyway — it’s about mentality, the sense that central banks are supposed to act tough, not provide easy credit.
And it's crucial that we don’t let this mentality guide policy. We do seem to have avoided a second Great Depression. But giving in to a modern version of our grandfathers' prejudices would be a very good way to ensure the next worst thing: a prolonged era of sluggish growth and very high unemployment.
Martin Wolf sees the dollar not as weakening, but as correcting itself in the wake of the financial crisis. Both he and Krugman point out that the reason the dollar’s value increased so much was because investors ran to it as the world melted down. Both think the correction is a good thing; Krugman because it means growing confidence in the stability of the global economy, while Wolf says:
The dollar's correction is not just natural; it is helpful. It will lower the risk of deflation in the US and facilitate the correction of the global "imbalances" that helped cause the crisis. I agree with a forthcoming article by Fred Bergsten of the Peterson Institute for International Economics that "huge inflows of foreign capital to the US facilitated the over-leveraging and underpricing of risk".* Even those who are sceptical of this agree that the US needs export-led growth.
Finally, what can replace the dollar? Unless and until China removes exchange controls and develops deep and liquid financial markets – probably a generation away – the euro is the dollar's only serious competitor. At present, 65 per cent of the world’s reserves are in dollars and 25 per cent in euros. Yes, there could be some shift. But it is likely to be slow. The eurozone also has high fiscal deficits and debts. The dollar will exist 30 years from now; the euro's fate is less certain.
…
The global role of the dollar is not in the interests of the US. The case for moving to a different system is very strong. This is not because the dollar's role is now endangered. It is rather because it impairs domestic and global stability. The time for alternatives is now.
It was an auspicious week for the touchy issues surrounding executive pay. One after another, President Obama’s pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, announced new restrictions for AIG executives; Goldman Sachs was reported to be putting aside $23 billion this year’s bonus pool, the largest anywhere, ever; and Elinor Ostrom from Indiana University shared the Nobel Prize in economics for her breakthrough work on how large companies organize themselves, often in ways that encourage executives to put their own financial interests before those of the shareholders.
Starting with Goldman, it’s obvious that a sheaf of annual bonuses each equal to 10 or 20 times what an average American earns in his or her entire lifetime, coming from a firm which recently received huge, direct and indirect taxpayer-funded assistance, is certain to spark outrage. That reaction isn’t misplaced, and there’s a sensible response to it based on the core tenets of capitalism which we will get to shortly. There are other serious matters at stake here, too. In particular, how does a financial services firm like Goldman Sachs earn such huge profits in difficult times? And since the operations of Goldman and a few others like it matter so much to the economy – which is why they got their federal assistance – how do the arrangements which produce such huge bonuses affect those operations and thereby the rest of us? The answers suggest that even as Goldman’s top executives and traders put away enough for a royal retirement, their decisions could lay the foundation for future financial turmoil that would leave the rest of us a lot poorer.
We didn’t need this latest and most conspicuous instance of greed at Goldman to know that the compensation provided to the uppermost echelons of American business is out of control. Since 1990, the pay of American CEOs has jumped from 90 times the average workers’ pay to 250 times – compared to 15 to 30 times for British, French and Japanese CEOs. Nobel Laureate Ostrom’s work helps us understand why: CEOs name their own top executives and strongly influence who ends up on their boards of directors – and consequently on the committees that set the terms for all of their compensation. How much they decide to pay themselves, therefore, is essentially limited by the intersection of their own avarice and any vestigial sense of shame they might have. And the shame is pretty easy to dispose of, since the terms of their compensation are rarely disclosed publically.
There’s a fascinating account of some of these pay packages in a current New Yorker article chronicling the efforts of Nell Minow and Robert A.G. Monks to reassert shareholder rights over these modern robber barons. Almost everywhere, most of the pay comes in stock or stock options, so they’re only liable for the 15 percent capital gains tax. (The Goldman executives who will claim stock bonuses worth tens of millions of dollars this year will report taxable “salaries” of less than $300,000.) And if the stock price falls under these executives’ leadership, their options contracts are often revised at a lower strike price. These packages may also include huge “retirement” bonuses for CEOs that leave voluntarily – like the one federal contractor Halliburton gave Dick Cheney when he left to run for Vice President – and even “retention bonuses” for executives who end up in prison. Then there are the extravagant perks. It took public divorce proceedings against GE’s Jack Welch for shareholders to find out that on top of the many hundreds of millions of dollars Welch received in stock and salary, his friendly board had also awarded him lifetime use of the company’s 737 and helicopters; lifetime floor seats for the Knicks and lifetime box seats for the Red Sox, Yankees and the Metropolitan Opera; exclusive lifetime use of a sprawling Manhattan apartment, including fresh flowers, dry cleaning service and even the tips for the doorman; and a catalog of lifetime golf and country club memberships. His and most other executive contracts also now include “gross-ups,” which means that the shareholders pick up federal and state taxes owed on the executives’ various perks.
These are all examples of what economists call the “agent-principal problem,” in which the interests of agents – they’re the executives – diverge from those of the principals, who here are the owners or shareholders. It’s pretty simple: They enrich themselves at the expense of the shareholders who they ostensibly work for – and those shareholders now include a majority of all Americans. The simple democratic answer to all this, derived directly from the essence of capitalism, is to empower the owners by requiring that boards disclose all aspects of the compensation package of senior personnel and subject the terms of those compensation packages to mandatory shareholder votes, every year.
Last week, I proposed this step on a CNBC business show. The other guest predictably squawked about government control – and then the moderators also tried to dismiss the idea as “impossible.” Come again? Shareholders vote every year on lots of measures – check out your proxy statements. And the mere threat that shareholders might publicly reject a CEO‘s payday should moderate the greed of at least some compensation committees. The House passed a weak version of this proposal recently – annual, “advisory” shareholder votes on compensation. The Senate should strengthen it with stricter disclosure requirements and an annual vote that actually decides the matter. Why, precisely, shouldn’t a company’s owners determine what their executives are paid? And does anyone think that Goldman’s shareholders, including strapped pension plans and charitable institutions, are eager to see $23 billion in potential dividends go to the firm’s top tiers?
This particular agent-principal problem also affects the rest of us, since the stock and stock options that make up most of these compensation packages are often tied to the short-term gains associated with an executive or trader’s work, without regard to the transactions’ long-term returns. So, hundreds of traders and executives at Goldman and other places on Wall Street have closed transactions and other deals that booked large paper profits this year – and will take home huge bonuses tied to them – but bear no consequences if those deals go sour next year or the year after and cost the shareholders billions. These arrangements directly encourage them to take on enormous long-term risks for their firms and owners, in pursuit of the short-term paper gains that generate their own bonuses. Since risk and return are closely related, these arrangements help explain how Goldman earned enough this year to dole out that projected $23 billion in bonuses. And by creating such strong incentives for risky investments on a large-scale, these same arrangements were a core element of the meltdown that nearly pushed the U.S. and global economies into a genuine Depression, and cost shareholders and taxpayers trillions of dollars.
To prevent a recurrence that could ruin almost everyone, these arrangements have to end. J.P. Morgan Chase has said it will include new “claw-back” provisions that would reclaim part of the bonuses when a deal’s long-term returns are less than expected. It’s a nice gesture, but it’s hardly enough. We need laws and regulations that directly limit the risk levels of the portfolios of institutions deemed “too large to fail,” and specific, claw-back guidelines from the SEC that all public companies will have to follow. The outstanding question is whether Congress has the cajones to force the country’s richest people and institutions to change the ways that made them so wealthy in the first place.
Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. Included in the legislation were provisions proposed in H.R. 2060, The Community College Technology Access Act, which would offer free computer training to all Americans through the nation’s community colleges. Sponsored by House Democratic Caucus Chair John Larson, H.R. 2060 was based on a 2007 NDN paper by Globalization Initiative Chair Dr. Robert Shapiro entitled Tapping the Resources of America's Community Colleges. These provisions are designed to increase worker skills in a 21st century economy in which facility with and connectivity to the global communications network are prerequisite for success. A companion bill, S. 1614, has been sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer.
"Community Colleges reach every corner of this country with over 1100 in urban, rural and suburban settings." Larson said. "The legislation we passed today takes a bold step to expand the mission of our community colleges – making them a hub for training our workforce by opening their doors to provide the public with the basic computer training skills our workers need to succeed in a modern economy. I would particularly like to thank NDN and Dr. Robert Shapiro, for their hard work and advocacy on this issue as well as Chairman George Miller for including our language in his legislation."
"I salute the House of Representatives and especially Chairman John Larson for passing legislation that taps the resources and technology of community colleges to provide America's workers with the information-technology skills they'll need to succeed in a very competitive U.S. and global marketplace, particularly during tough times," Shapiro said. "Tens of millions of Americans entered our workforce before computers and the Internet became so ubiquitous. Many of them now are in what should be their most productive and highest-earning years. As non-wired jobs become increasingly rare, Americans without solid IT skills will find themselves economically marginalized. This legislation will help millions more American workers thrive in our idea-based economy."
Some Rights Reserved 2008 - Present, NDN.