April 26, 2024

Economix Blog: Casey B. Mulligan: Growing Businesses Cut Payrolls, Too

DESCRIPTION

Casey B. Mulligan is an economics professor at the University of Chicago.

In many industries, sharp employment cuts during the recession cannot be attributed to a lack of demand.

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

The standard narrative of the 2008-9 recession and lack of recovery has been that the financial crisis, housing crash, excessive debt and other factors caused consumers to spend less, and businesses to invest less. With the private sector spending less, employers had a hard time selling their products, so they had to lay workers off, cut back on new hiring, or both.

As Paul Krugman put it, “Businesses aren’t hiring because of poor sales, period, end of story.”

Yes, consumer spending dropped sharply, as did business investment, in 2008 and 2009. But that observation does not tell us whether low employment is a result of low spending or if the reverse is true.

I agree that a few important industries, including manufacturing, home construction and much of the retail sector, did, and still do, suffer from significantly low demand. Those industries vividly illustrate the demand narrative — but they are only a minority of the overall private sector.

The lack-of-demand hypothesis is incorrect for a large fraction of the economy. The chart below illustrates output, revenue and employment from the United States wireless telecommunications industry (that is, cellphones). This industry has clearly not been suffering from a drop in customer demand.

Since 2007, the number of mobile connections has increased almost 20 percent, to 303 million from 255 million. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that consumer spending on mobile communications increased 15 percent (not inflation adjusted) over that time frame.

Bureau of Economic Analysis

Despite continued demand growth, employers in the wireless telecommunications industry sharply cut employment, at an even greater rate than employers in other industries. After growing 6 percent from 2005 to 2007, the industry’s employment had fallen 14 percent by 2010.

There is no way to blame that sharp employment drop on “poor sales.”

This pattern is not limited to the cellphone industry. Other industries sharply cut back their employment even while their revenues were falling little, if at all; the employment loss from such industries numbers in the millions.

To examine this issue more systematically, I used the industry economic accounts published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Industries can be examined at varying levels of detail: I divided the private sector into 21 industries and classified them according to the percentage change in their revenue between 2007 and 2009. The table below shows the results.

Bureau of Economic Analysis

In two of the industries, education and health care, revenues grew more than 2 percent (in fact, their increase was about 10 percent), and their employment increased, as is shown in the table’s top row. Five other industries summarized in the next row had a revenue increase but still sharply cut their employment. Four others had minor revenue declines and cut their hiring sharply, too.

The number of full-time equivalent employees declined 2.2 million in those nine industries combined, even though it seems that those industries had enough sales to maintain their employment. Something else motivated them to cut employment and motivated them to forgo an opportunity to hire some of the many workers laid off by declining industries.

As I wrote before much of the employment decline happened, I think “some employees face financial incentives that encourage them not to work, and some employers face financial incentives not to create jobs.”

That’s why even growing business are now getting by with substantially fewer employees.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=296cfb72f3723ac74e2f3501beb3d764

G.M.’s Earnings Triple in First Quarter

Earnings were higher than expected, and included $1.9 billion in one-time gains for the sale of G.M.’s ownership interests in the Delphi parts maker and the Ally Financial credit company. G.M. also took charges of $500 million related to its international operations.

Earnings were $1.77 a share, compared with 55 cents in the quarter a year ago. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected earnings of $1.73 a share.

Without the charges and gains, the automaker earned about $1.7 billion, its best quarterly performance in more than a decade. In the quarter a year ago, G.M. reported a profit of $865 million.

“We are on plan,” Daniel F. Akerson, G.M.’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. “G.M. has delivered five consecutive profitable quarters, thanks to strong customer demand for our new fuel-efficient vehicles and a competitive cost structure that allows us to leverage our strong brands around the world and focus on driving profitable automotive growth.”

G.M. said revenue in the quarter increased 15 percent to $36.2 billion , and it ended the quarter with $30.6 billion in cash reserves. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected revenue of $35.59 billion.

The company’s core North American operations, once a huge trouble spot, reported earnings before interest and taxes of $2.9 billion, compared to $1.2 billion a year ago.

It also reported pretax profits of $100 million in South America, and $500 million for its overseas unit in Asia. The company’s lone regional loss was recorded in Europe, where G.M. said it had a $400 million pretax loss.

The strong first-quarter earnings resulted from steadily improving vehicle sales in the United States, and a considerably lower debt load since G.M. emerged from its government-sponsored bankruptcy in 2009.

The earnings follow a $4.7 billion profit in 2010, the first profitable year for G.M., a Detroit automaker, since 2004.

G.M.’s sales in the United States increased 25 percent in the first four months of this year compared to the same period in 2010. The overall industry, by comparison, went up about 20 percent. But the company is still spending more than its rivals on incentives. In April, G.M. spent about $3,000 in incentives on each car and truck it sold, versus about $2,100 for the industry average, according to Edmunds.com   

The company has benefited from a better lineup of fuel-efficient cars and crossover vehicles in an environment where the national average for gasoline is almost $4 a gallon.

The new Chevrolet Cruze, for example, has been G.M.’s most successful entry in the compact car segment in years. G.M. has also transitioned away from large, seven-passenger S.U.V.’s to smaller crossovers like the Chevrolet Equinox.

Industry analysts said that G.M. gained sales early in the year with higher incentives but has since backed off costly rebates. “For G.M., the first quarter was good, but the second quarter should be better,” said Jessica Caldwell, an analyst with the auto-research Web site Edmunds.com. “G.M. has already dropped incentive spending below $1,000 a car for some models.”

The automaker has also reduced excess capacity in its assembly plants, and cut tens of thousands of jobs through buyouts and early retirements. Its break-even point in the United States has been lowered to about two million vehicles, a sales goal that it should achieve easily this year.

With Japanese automakers struggling to maintain inventory levels in the aftermath of the March 11 earthquake, G.M. is in position to make further gains in the American market. Its share in April was about 20 percent, more than a percentage point higher than the period a year earlier.

Automakers have reported a recent surge in sales, in part because of new improved models of small, fuel-efficient or alternative fuel vehicles. Earlier this week, automakers reported that car sales in April were up 18 percent from the month a year ago as the demand for compact and subcompact cars kept the industry on track for a slow but steady recovery from recession-era sales levels.

G.M.’s American sales rose 27 percent in April. Chrysler said its sales increased 23 percent and Ford reported a 16 percent increase.

The first quarter performance exceeded Ford’s $2.55 billion profit in the period. But G.M. is a much healthier and better positioned company than it has been for at least a decade. And given the quake-related troubles at Toyota, G.M. could retake the crown as the world’s largest automaker this year.

G.M.’s future performance will probably determine how soon the Treasury Department will sell more of its nearly 26 percent stake.

For several weeks the company’s stock has been below the $33-a-share initial public offering price, although on Wednesday it closed at $33.04. The Treasury Department will be permitted to sell some or all of its remaining 500 million G.M. shares beginning on May 22 — the day its lockup period expires after last fall’s public offering.

Going forward, Mr. Akerson said, G.M. was concentrating on cutting costs in its product development processes, primarily by reducing complexity in engineering and manufacturing new vehicles. “I won’t say the fruit is hanging low, but it’s within a fair reach for us,” he said during a conference call with analysts.

He also characterized this summer’s contract talks with the United Auto Workers as “critically important” to staying competitive with American factories operated by foreign automakers. He said that G.M., as well as the U.A.W. union, want to make “these negotiations a plus and not a negative.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8b862e3270be16001898f6e00a8092c8