November 25, 2024

You’re the Boss Blog: Why Are Small Businesses Less Optimistic Than Big Ones?

Today’s Question

What small-business owners think.

In an article just published by The Times, Catherine Rampell notes that when it comes to optimism about the economy, there is a big gulf between small and large companies. Ms. Rampell reports that while measures of optimism for big companies now exceed prerecession levels, a recent survey from the National Federation of Independent Business found that expectations for business conditions six months from now were at their fourth-lowest level in nearly 40 years.

So why are small businesses so much more pessimistic?

The article offers a number of possibilities:

o Big companies have a larger global footprint and are benefiting from growth in places like China and India.

o Small businesses are more likely to be traumatized by the political confusion and uncertainty in Washington. “Politicians are uniformly quick to offer paeans to small businesses, but their actions have directly held back the sector, to the huge detriment of the economy,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomic Advisors.

o Owners who sell directly to consumers are concerned about the effects of recent tax increases, like the end of the payroll tax holiday, on their bottom lines.

o While commercial and industrial lending numbers from the Federal Reserve suggest that the credit market for small businesses is healing, many small business are still struggling to have their credit needs met.

The stakes would seem to be high for all businesses. “Until the small-business sector starts to feel better,” Mr. Shepherdson told Ms. Rampell, “the rest of the economy isn’t going to feel much better, either.”

How would you explain the gulf between small and large businesses?

Article source: http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/why-are-small-businesses-less-optimistic-than-big-businesses/?partner=rss&emc=rss

155,000 Jobs Added in December; Jobless Rate Is Steady at 7.8%

The job growth, almost exactly equal to the average monthly growth in the last two years, was enough to keep the unemployment rate steady at 7.8 percent, the Labor Department reported on Friday. But it was not enough to put a dent in the backlog of 12.2 million jobless workers, underscoring the challenge facing Washington politicians as they continue to wrestle over how to address the budget deficit.

“Job creation might firm a little bit, but it’s still looking nothing like the typical recovery year we’ve had in deep recessions in the past,” said John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics. “There’s nothing in the deal to do that,” he said, referring to Congress’s Jan. 1 compromise on taxes, “and nothing in this latest jobs report to suggest that. We’re a long way short of the 300,000 job growth that we need.”

If anything, the most visible debt-related options that policy makers are discussing could slow down economic and job growth, which, at its existing pace, would take seven years to reduce the unemployment rate to its prerecession level. The $110 billion in across-the-board federal spending cuts scheduled for March 1, for example, might provoke layoffs by local governments, military contractors and other companies that depend on federal funds.

A showdown over the debt ceiling expected in late February could also damage business confidence, as it did the last time Congress nearly allowed a default on the nation’s debts in August 2011.

“We may be seeing the calm before the storm right now,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomic Advisors, noting that a recent survey from the National Federation of Independent Business found that alarmingly few small companies planned to hire in the coming months. “Small businesses are wringing their hands in horror at what’s going on in Washington.”

A best case for the economy, many analysts say, would involve a swift and civil Congressional agreement that raised the debt ceiling immediately. It would also address the country’s long-term debt challenges, like Medicare costs, without sudden or draconian fiscal tightening this year.

Given the uncertainty over what Congress will do, estimates of the unemployment rate’s path this year vary wildly. The more optimistic forecasts for the end of 2013 predict that unemployment will fall to just above 7 percent, which would be considerably below its most recent peak of 10 percent in October 2009, but still higher than its prerecession level of 5 percent.

The job gains in December were driven by hiring in health care, food services, construction and manufacturing. The last two industries were probably helped by rebuilding after Hurricane Sandy.

Aside from the wild card of what happens in Washington, some encouraging trends in the economy — including the housing recovery, looser credit for small businesses, a rebound in China and pent-up demand for new automobiles — suggest that businesses have good reason to speed up hiring.

Congress’s last-minute deal to raise taxes this week will offset some of these sources of growth, since higher taxes trim how much money consumers have available each month.

President Obama’s proposals to spend more money on infrastructure projects and other measures intended to spur hiring are fiercely opposed by Republican deficit hawks. The fiscal compromise reached this week did include one modest form of stimulus, though: a one-year renewal of the federal government’s emergency unemployment benefits program. That program allows workers to continue receiving benefits for up to 73 weeks, depending on the unemployment rate in the state where they live, and stimulates economic activity because unemployment benefits are spent almost immediately.

The extension was a tremendous relief to the two million workers who would otherwise have lost their benefits this week.

“We woke up on Wednesday morning and saw the news and just said, ‘Thank God, thank God, thank God,’ and then went out and went food shopping because we knew we had money coming in,” said Gina Shadis, 56, of Newton, N.J.

Both she and her husband, Stephen, were laid off within the last 14 months from jobs they had held for more than a decade: she from a quality assurance manager position at an environmental testing lab, and he as foreman and senior master technician at an auto dealership. They are each receiving $548 a week in federal jobless benefits, or about a quarter of their pay at their most recent jobs.

“It has just been such a traumatic time,” Ms. Shadis said. “You wake up in the morning with shoulders tense and head aching because you didn’t sleep the night before from worrying.”

More than six million workers have exhausted their unemployment benefits since the recession began in December 2007, according to the National Employment Law Project, a labor advocacy group.

Millions of workers are sitting on the sidelines and so are not counted in the tally of unemployed. Some are merely waiting for the job market to improve, and others are trying to invest in new skills to appeal to employers who are already hiring.

“I have a few prospects who say they want me to work for them when I graduate,” said Jordan Douglas, a 24-year-old single mother in Pampa, Tex., who is enrolled in a special program that allows her to receive jobless benefits while attending school full time to become a registered nurse. She receives $792 in benefits every two weeks, a little less than half of what she earned in an administrative position at the nursing home that laid her off last year.

Ms. Douglas calculates that her federal jobless benefits will run out the very last week of nursing school.

“This had to have been a sign from God that I had to do this, since it all worked out so well,” she said.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/business/economy/us-economy-adds-155000-jobs-jobless-rate-is-7-8.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Budget Cuts Raise Doubt on Course of Recovery

Economic conditions can determine the outcome of elections, and growth remains tepid and tentative just 18 months before voters decide if the president gets a second term.

The proposed federal spending cuts, which were decided late Friday, do not amount to much by themselves, about 0.25 percent of annual domestic activity. But they join a growing list of minor problems impeding growth, economists said, including higher fuel prices and bad weather, Europe’s creeping malaise and the effect of the Japanese earthquake.

The impact of those problems, combined with growing cuts in spending by federal, state and local governments, has led some experts who had forecast that the economy would expand by more than 4 percent in 2011 to retreat toward a 3 percent growth rate. And it raises the question of how many more small cuts the president can afford.

Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, a Chicago investment firm, said she had cut her forecast for 2011 to 3.3 percent, from 4.2 percent. And if growth falls below 3 percent, she said, “You’re just running on a treadmill. You’re not getting anywhere.”

There are reasons for optimism. The Federal Reserve and private forecasters say that the economy’s vital signs are getting steadily stronger. Factories are expanding production; people are buying more cars. Leading forecasters like the firm Macroeconomic Advisors of St. Louis to predict that growth will accelerate after the first quarter.

Moreover, supporters of the cuts say that reduced government spending will stimulate economic growth, not damp it — and that the president could be among the political beneficiaries.

As the government spends less it borrows less, and companies can borrow more. As the government collects less money in taxes, companies may increase spending and investment.

“This cut combined with other cuts in entitlement reform will give the economy and businesses and investors some positive news on the fiscal front in Washington,” said Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that favors even larger reductions in the federal spending.

There is also the potential that the budget deal will serve as a precedent for a broader deal on long-term spending. Economists say that such a deal would have immediate economic benefits, soothing the nerves of foreign investors who may be fretting about the government’s ability to confront its problems.

“I think the cuts are perfectly digestible in the context of the current expansion,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. “And if out of this process it appears that we’ve made a good step toward fiscal discipline and laid out a mechanism for the main event, then it could be a plus.”

Mr. Zandi warned this year that a Republican plan for about $60 billion in cuts would do significant damage to the economy. He said that his views had moderated not just because the parties agreed to make smaller cuts, but because of recent declines in unemployment, to 8.8 percent in March, and 12 consecutive months of private sector job growth.

But the International Monetary Fund took a bleaker view Monday, predicting that the American economy would expand by a lackluster 2.8 percent in 2011, and a barely better 2.9 percent in 2012.

The I.M.F., which provides financing to governments, said in its annual report on the world’s economic outlook that the United States was at risk of cutting government spending too quickly.

It said that the cuts proposed by the Obama administration for 2012 and 2013 “will be challenging to implement, especially in an environment of weak growth and unemployment.” Cuts should be made more gradually, it said.

The report also said the United States needs to increase exports and that, in turn, depended on the willingness of other nations to let their currencies float freely.

“It has to come from exports for the United States to be able to sustain growth,” said Olivier Blanchard, one of the authors of the report. “Something needs to happen in the rest of the world, and it is not happening, or it is not happening fast enough.”

The I.M.F. warned that the world economy was growing on an unsustainable basis because developed nations were borrowing too much and developing nations were relying on exports paid for with that borrowed money, rather than taking steps to build sustainable domestic consumption.

“We are warning the emerging market countries that they may be getting to the point where things are too good,” Mr. Blanchard said.

The Obama administration has made increasing exports a central tenet of its economic strategy, and it has pushed for efforts by the I.M.F. and other international bodies to loosen the monetary policies of nations like China.

Natalie Wyeth, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, said the administration also was committed to reducing the federal debt.

“We will meet our commitments to the G-20 in Toronto and look forward to working with Congress to establish a credible, multiyear path to ensure our fiscal sustainability while delivering strong economic growth,” Ms. Wyeth said.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=9ca26cb1ff3119132320c067197c3f58