Labor Day Highlights the Need for American Restructuring

The world has changed!

Of course, entrenched interests fight the change.

An instance is the United States Postal Service:  we heard over the weekend that the Post Office faces the possibility of bankruptcy.

The high profile cause of this situation: email.

The cause that gets a lesser play is the position of the labor unions connected with the Postal Service.  The Postal Service is the nation's second-largest civilian employer, after Wal-Mart. As of 2011, it employed 574,000 personnel, divided into offices, processing centers, and actual post offices.  The employed are served by four major labor unions, the National Association of Letter Carriers being the largest. 
 
Offices have continued to be kept in existence in spite of declines in business and expenses, including wage and pension costs, have continued to grow relative to the services provided.  Now however, cuts are being proposed: proposed cuts include eliminating Saturday mail delivery, closing up to 3,700 postal locations and laying off 120,000 workers — nearly one-fifth of the agency’s work force — despite a no-layoffs clause in the unions’ contracts.  

In terms of the labor situation, Steven Greenhouse writes in the New York Times that “decades of contractual promises made to unionized workers, including no-layoff clauses, are increasing the post office’s costs. Labor represents 80 percent of the agency’s expenses, compared with 53 percent at United Parcel Service and 32 percent at FedEx, its two biggest private competitors. Postal workers also receive more generous health benefits than most other federal employees.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/business/in-internet-age-postal-service-struggles-to-stay-solvent-and-relevant.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1)

There are, of course, many different plans that are being floated around relating to what can be done to “save” the post office.  But these plans all point to one thing…the U. S. Postal Service must be restructured.  It cannot go on as it has been going on.

Resistance is expected: “The post office’s powerful unions are angry and alarmed about the planned layoffs. “We’re going to fight this and we’re going to fight it hard,” said Cliff Guffey, president of the American Postal Workers Union.”

This is just one high-profile example of what is going on all over America. 

The world has changed.

Entrenched interests reject the fact that they must change as well.

Let me just point out three major changes that are impacting the work force these days which have, I believe, massive implications for the future re-structuring of the United States economy.

First, the majority of labor unions no longer reside in the manufacturing sector.  Most employees that belong to labor unions work in the public sector.  The public sector, as we know, has vastly over extended itself, fiscally, in many areas of the country.  The existing economic problems connected with slow economic growth, high rates of under-employment, and a depressed real estate market have put government finances in these areas in bad straits.  Existing relationships are being re-worked as these governments try to get themselves back in control of uthe situation.

The relative growth rates in manufacturing employment dropped off beginning in the 1970s, and now growth in the public sector is seemingly dropping off.  This is a re-structuring problem.

Second, there has been a demographic shift in the workforce.  As reported in ‘The Slow Disappearance of the American Working Man,” (Bloomberg Businessweek, August 29—September 4, 2011) “The (economic) downturn has driven the share of men who have jobs lower than any time since World War II.”

“The economic downturn exacerbated forces that have long been undermining men in the workplace,” and “the impact has been greatest on moderately skilled men, especially those without a college education,” and African-American men and Hispanic men. 

This is another re-structuring problem related to the changes in technology and the changes that have taken place in education: “college graduation rates essentially stopped growing for men in the late 1970s,” whereas “women continued to pursue college degrees in greater numbers and have been more responsive to the changing economy in other ways.”

Third, the last fifty years has also seen a tremendous shift in American employment from the manufacturing sector to the financial sector.  The credit inflation created by the United States government has underwritten the finance industry and resulted not only in growing institutions but also in more and more innovation leading to the greater horizontal diversification of financial institutions.

The example of this is four of our large commercial banks: GE Capital, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and ALLY (formerly GMAC).    GE Capital has $606 billion in assets and is bigger than all but seven U. S. banks.  It now finds itself regulated by the Federal Reserve where the Office of Thrift Supervision formerly regulated it.  But more, important is that GE Capital recently provided 40 percent of the profits of its parent company General Electric.  (Before the financial collapse, the contribution of GE Capital reached 75 percent of GE earnings.)   This shows how manufacturing has given way to finance in the United States.

The re-structuring of the American economy is going to have to take place over the next ten years or so.  This “fix” cannot be achieved through short-run solutions. 

In fact, short-run solutions will only exacerbate the situation.  This, of course, is what most of the economic policy of the last fifty years has done for the United States economy.  The credit inflation of this period has built up the financial sector of the economy relative to the manufacturing sector.  The credit inflation has also supported the growth of the public sectors as the inflation in real estate prices supported the government tax base and open capital markets allowed even small governmental units to expand their expenditures.  Finally, much of the economic policy of the government during this fifty years was aimed at putting people back into the jobs they had lost during periods of slow economic growth.  This “Keynesian” approach to the government’s economic policy had an unfortunate impact on male employment, especially those with a lesser education, because the jobs these people were put back into were jobs that were becoming less and less important in the economy.

The times have changed.  Employment practices must change to meet the needs of the modern world. 

Re-structuring is never easy and we can expect a lot of pain in the process.     

Jobs and Skills: the Current Mismatch

For at least 18 months, I have been arguing that the United States economy is going through a transition period that is more than just a cyclical slowdown and recovery. My argument has been that the economy is going through a period of restructuring that will take an extended amount of time to work out all the changes that are necessary.

As a consequence, “blunt-edge” efforts to stimulate jobs by means of the fiscal policy of the federal government will not achieve a great deal of success.

The reason for this in many cases is that the fiscal stimulus of the past 50 years has caused companies to keep aging physical capital in use and has resulted in these companies hiring people to perform jobs related to “legacy” technology.

The evidence I have provided for this is the increasing amount of unused capacity in the manufacturing realm and the growth in the number of employable Americans that are under-employed. To be under-employed, one is either unemployed, not fully employed and looking for full-time work, or discouraged and not seeking a job.

I have argued that this is not unlike the 1930s when the United States economy was going through a transition period in which jobs and employment were shifting from rural and agricultural areas to cities and industrial areas. The restructuring that took place accelerated during World War II and did not really calm down until the 1950s and 1960s.

Two reports came out toward the end of last week that support my claim of an economy that is in the process of restructuring. The first was an article by Motoko Rich that appeared in the New York Times on Friday July 2, with the title “Jobs Go Begging as Gap is Exposed in Worker Skills.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/business/economy/02manufacturing.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=motoko%20rich&st=cse) Rich writes that “Plenty of people are applying for the jobs. The problem, the companies say, is a mismatch between the kind of skilled workers needed and the ranks of the unemployed.” The subheading to the article reads that “Shifts in Manufacturing are Leaving Many as Unemployable.”

The second report came from the Labor Department on Friday, July 3. Although the unemployment rate declined in May to 9.5 % from 9.7% in April, this was because the labor force shrank as more people left the labor force than were added to payrolls: the labor force shrunk by 0.3% while the number of individuals employed dropped by only 0.2% (due to the loss in jobs connected with the collection of Census data).

The official statistics report that the “underemployment” rate has been in the 17% range for the past year or so. I estimate that, currently, about one out of every four or five individuals that are in the employable age group are under-employed. The reason is that there is a tremendous mis-match between what employers need to be competitive in the future and the pool of skills and experience that are available in the labor market. Products are being made differently now than they were several years ago and this trend will continue. The current downturn has provided additional justification for manufacturers to make the changes that they need to make.

Why do they need this added justification?

Well, over the past 50 years, every time there was a recession (and even in periods when there was not a recession), the federal government provided fiscal stimulus to get people “back-to-work.” Back-to-work, however, meant putting people back into jobs that they were in before the workers were laid off. This is what the government wanted to happen.

However, putting people back to work in “legacy” jobs did not contribute to modernization and improved productivity. It did increase employment and reduce unemployment which is what the federal government wanted to achieve.

Now, businesses can use the excuse of the extreme downturn in the economy to justify the changes in who is hired to meet the reality of changes in training, skill levels, and experience that have occurred. And, this transition will not be completed overnight.

We see the same thing in the use of physical capital in the United States. Since the 1960s, the capacity utilization of manufacturers has declined steadily. As with the increase in the underemployed, the employment of the physical capital in the United States has fallen over time.

In January 1965, American manufacturers were working at 89.4% of capacity. The next peak in manufacturing usage (capacity utilization is very cyclical) came in February 1973 at 88.8% of capacity. The following peaks were: December 1978 at 86.6% of capacity; January 1989 at 85.2% of capacity; December 1997 at 84.7% of capacity; and April 2007 at 81.7% of capacity.

Note that the troughs of the cycles in capacity utilization also fell since the 1960s. In December 1982, manufacturers in the United States worked at 70.9% of capacity and in June 2009, they worked at 68.2%. Currently, manufacturers are working at 74.1% of capacity.

In essence, businesses in the United States have been utilizing less and less human and physical capital over the past 50 years relative to the amounts of these productive factors that have been available. And, the policy makers just don’t seem to get it.

From Rich, in the article cited above, “Christina D. Romer, chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said the skills shortages reported by employers stem largely from a long-term structural shift in manufacturing, which should not be confused with the recent downturn. ‘I do think that manufacturing can come back to what it was before the recession,’ she said.” So, manufacturing will return to the new, lower level of capacity utilization that was achieved at its previous peak level, roughly 82% of capacity. And, this is good?

My guess is that capacity utilization will hit, maybe, 80% at the next peak. We are still talking about 20% of the manufacturing capital of the United States being underemployed, right in line with the 20% to 25% of employable labor in the United States being underemployed.

The fiscal stimulus proposed by “fundamentalist” Keynesian economists will not do the job. Additional, “blunt-edge” governmental expenditures may alleviate some of the current worker distress, but at the cost of postponing the adjustments that need to be made to restructure the economy, the restructuring that is now going on.

The problem with the “fundamentalist” Keynesian view is that it is constructed from a short term perspective. The basic attitude is that which is attributed to Keynes: “In the long run we are all dead.” This approach leads to a focus on only “current” problems. What is not explicitly stated is that we will deal with the longer-term problems when they become current problems.

The difficulty with this: the longer-term problems may require a different “medicine” than did the short-run problems.

Well, one could argue that the longer-term problems have become current. The short-term solution of forcing many companies to continue to employ people in “legacy” jobs and to continue to use “legacy” plant and equipment has resulted in higher and higher rates of worker under-employment and lower and lower rates of manufacturing capacity utilization.

Just more of the same does not seem to be an adequate answer.