Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Your paycheck and inflation...

I am beginning to lean toward the idea of a gathering inflation storm. Or at least increased upwards pressure on prices. While I have always been a hawk on inflation, the idea of keeping our money sound may not be the be-all-and-end-all for prosperity in the US, or the globe.

One apparent reason is laying the blame for inflation largely at the feet of labor costs. No component of the price indexes watched by the Fed is more closely monitored than labor costs. When they begin to rise, the Fed usually acts to slow the economy.

The trouble is real wage growth - getting a raise, for example - is described as an increased labor cost, not a worker income boost. The governments not-so-subtle point of view bias is in favor of business owners - not business workers. This is the unwritten message of the "ownership society". While it sounds admirable and works for me, the quiet truth is if allowed to come to full fruition, passive returns from owning "things" (houses are a good example) will be how most wealth is accumulated, not by working.

The result is for most Americans, our government is trying really hard to make sure you don't get ahead. To be sure, this is not done deliberately (I think) but dispassionately to protect the value of money.

To begin with, I'm not sure this emphasis on labor costs is warranted. I'm not alone.
No matter what standard econometric models might suggest, the empirical cyclical evidence indicates that labor cost inflation is not a consistent predictor of cyclical upturns in inflation. In fact, a fair amount of asymmetry exists in the cyclical behavior of the growth rates of the ECI, AHE, and ULC when compared with inflation cycles. All three series lead consumer price inflation at peaks, and lag it at troughs. [More]
One problem is when you have some factors you can measure easily and accurately, and some you can't (like the effect of immigrant labor) you zero in on those you can see.

One thing that is certain, is this focus on control of labor costs has coincided with stagnant wage growth for the vast majority of Americans.
Wages have been flat or declining on average for 5 years now. As the Financial Times story points out, we have had 5 years of economic growth, but the amount the median American worker earns every week has fallen by 3.2 per cent, adjusted for inflation, since the start of the recovery in November 2001. For the first time ever, the real wages of American workers have declined through more than four years of strong growth. Calculations by NDN show that the average American earned $480 a week when President Bush came to office. Controlling for rising prices, the average American still earns exactly $480 today. So while the American economy has been growing, the incomes of most Americans have been standing still. [More]


I think this is the reason that good unemployment numbers don't generate the political enthusiasm that Republicans especially expect. No matter what the economy's overall performance is like, life at the individual level for most has not been all that exciting.

There is much more to this issue of course, and I will be trying to wrap my mind around it in the January issue of Top Producer, but for now contemplate this:

If rapid wage growth is inflationary, why isn't rapid profit growth? In other words, why is the return to capital a good thing and the return to labor a negative influence? Aren't more dollars chasing limited goods and services equal regardless of their source?

I'll be working on that one...

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

The difference in inflation resulting from rapid wage growth and rapid profit is due to the difference in goods and services being produced. Rapid wage growth may not be the result of increased productivity. Rapid profit growth results from more goods being produced from a given amount of capital. Therefore more dollars are not chasing a limited amount of goods and services but rather an expanded quantity of goods and services.

John Phipps said...

I tell ya, the woods are full of amateur economists like me...

Roger - higher profits can come from higher prices, not necessarily more goods being made. What really worries me is all these truisms I used to embrace and which seemed to logical on paper are somehow producing or at least failing to counter a system where the wealth is piling up in very few hands.

Brian: Nobody is more horrified to hear some of these things come out of my mouth than me, but I'm looking for some answers here.

Whether the Fed is deliberately keeping us down or not, the effect is the same. The concentration on wage growth is not my interpretation alone, several observers cited the recent wage reports as reasons for expecting interest rate increases.

I chose the real wage growth graph because it was about the first clear one I could come by - and if you do not question the numbers, should the link source matter? I cite stuff from all over the spectrum.

I'll try to find a longer period real earnings chart, but I seem to remember it's pretty flat as well.

But your comment about the uber-talented being the only ones getting ahead matches my concerns. I am less concerned about an ideology to explain it than an effective response.

BTW, I getting comments from USFR viewers for not being strongly against illegal immigration, so obviously I am an equal opportunity offender.

Oddly enough, I don't think we are swinging away from conservatism, but struggling to find it.

Bless your little heart with the TR reference.

"I would rather fail while daring greatly than be numbered among those gray and timid souls who neither suffer much nor enjoy much."

Anonymous said...

John,
I submit that merely raising prices to increase profits is not that easily done, otherwise we would all do it. Other factors to consider include competition, demand, elasticity of demand, supply, etc.
I am also concerned about the concentration of wealth, but as an amature economist coming out of the woods, I do not have a solution.

John Phipps said...

Roger: I meant no disparagement by the "amateur economist" remark. What I am finding difficult is the tools that worked for a economy based on producing stuff are less useful in an economy centered increasingly on services.

Item: The Chicago Tribune reported today (sorry, I can't hotlink in the comments section) that 5 investment firms were about to distribute $36 BILLION in bonuses to employees. (That is this year's corn crop and more)

How difficult is it for Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley to raise prices? Obviously not very, at least when the market is going up.

My point is the role of capital and labor are being redefined, and capital is winning. I do NOT aver capitalists are in the wrong, however, but that I need to figure how I fit into a world like this.

Anonymous said...

John,
I did not take offense at your "amateur economist" remark. I was just trying to be cute with my response. I think you have figured out very well how to fit into a world where you provide services (deliver information and entertainment) instead of, or in addition to, producing "stuff" (corn and soybeans).

John Phipps said...

Brian: You are arguing means, I am talking about ends. Two ends in particular:

1. Stagnant real wages: you offer excellent reason why this is so and how the Fed is not responsible. I am saying it is a problem and am looking for the multiple causes. I still believe keying inflation controls to labor costs contributes to this lack of growth.
2. Wealth and income concentration: CEO's make the same percentage of the gross income as previously, you assert. Why is that a fair measure and not the CEO-to-average worker wage ratio used more commonly? Why is it so much lower in Japan and the EU?

It may very well be that our wonderful economic system makes these developments inevitable, but others seem to be at least mitigating them.

Is there any level of maldistribution of income and wealth where you would support changes?

We've been here before and your reference to TR was insightful. The Gilded Age was marked by similar staggering inequalities. It too ended.

John Phipps said...

Brian: I hear echoes of Pangloss in you replies. You agree inequality is worrisome, but seem content to worry in this best of all possible worlds.

I do not begrudge the top their compensation, however, I do object to those who pull up the ladder after them.

Casual disregard for ensuring a mildly even income distribution is reassuring for all, since the guys at the bottom can plan and scheme to rise, and the guys at the top know that failure does not eject them permanently from paradise.

I have not mentioned protectionism, in fact I support libertarian approaches to our commerce. You seem to keep linking me to positions I have not espoused.

Income redistribution may be repugnant to lassez faire capitalists but without some form economies seem to gravitate to autocracy.

And I have come to believe there is a significant bias in the US for passive income and rent-seeking behavior The high income bracket doesn't receive mucho income from capital? Have a looky at capital gains tax receipts and how few pay them. Perhaps there is sweat on their intellectual brows but there is a reason for jokes about trust-funders as well.

One stated government goal is move as many of us as possible to this blessed state, via home ownership and mutual funds. I am less sanguine about all of us riding and few of us pushing.

Anonymous said...

Unlimited Earnings Potential - http://1greatfuture.com

Our company is rapidly growing and offers you an extraordinary income helping others succeed. The primary requirement is to follow up on client inquiries and point them in the right direction. It is stress free, rewarding and straightforward work.

For complete details: http://1greatfuture.com


(Please feel free to delete this post if you don't want it on your blog. Thanks for the informative blog and opportunity to post.)

pleasedconsumer said...

Hi Guys,

I found great site with consumer reviews and jokes...

Check it out - some of them really funny...

Consumer Reviews @ www.pissedconsumer.com

or check out Jokes Section
Consumer Jokes @ www.pissedconsumer.com

Regards,