Trump and NAFTA
Trump will have to fight the most powerful interests of corporate America to end NAFTA, which he now threatens to do. Any study of NAFTA since its inception in 1993 finds direct benefits to the growth of U.S. Domestic Production(GDP), not to mention the benefits to Canada and Mexico. It is unnecessary to cite studies since there are many and they all find benefits.
In the initial years NAFTA eliminated thousands of jobs. The U.S. textile industry nearly disappeared after NAFTA. In North Carolina, for example, there were 288 thousand jobs in 1990 in textile mills and apparel manufacturing. By the end of 2016 it was 42 thousand. Across the country these same industries had 1.629 million jobs in 1990; by 2016 it was 359 thousand. In the cut and sew industry alone jobs dropped from 749 thousand in 1990 to only 105.8 thousand by 2016.
Much of the NAFTA related job loss occurred before NAFTA generated a significant increase in trade along with new production and investment. Over the 24 years of NAFTA new trade related production expanded U.S. GDP and generated replacement jobs. Whether the new jobs generated because of NAFTA are more than jobs lost because of NAFTA is irrelevant to the current Trump demand. Current NAFTA trading does support U.S. establishment employment in 2017, which guarantees killing NAFTA will cut jobs and do noticeable harm to employment.
Corporate America will not be happy to see an end to NAFTA, but the job loss will be a minimal concern in NAFTA matters. They have always had the money and clout to get their way, but corporate nerves do get frayed with Trump bluster. If Trump cared about the working class and acted as a leader, he would ignore the NAFTA fight and work to change the horrendous federal personal income tax that bores down so heavily on wage earners. He would work to revise and enforce the Fair Labor Standards Act to raise the minimum wage and guarantee overtime pay for all and a few more.
If corporate America cared about the working class and acted as leaders who cared about Americans, they would acknowledge Congress and President Clinton did them a favor with NAFTA back in 1993 and then support sharing some of the benefits with the working class.
By now, the end of 2017, Trump policies all demand and intend to destroy something - Obama Care, climate accords, Iran nuclear deals, TPP, NAFTA, – except taxing, spending and Federal Reserve policy keep going on as before. He hasn’t destroyed the economy … yet.
Monday, October 16, 2017
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Minimum Wages in Seattle
“Minimum Wage Increases, Wages, and Low-Wage Employment: Evidence from Seattle.” Ekaterina Jardim, Mark C. Long, Robert Plotnick, Emma van Inwegen, Jacob Vigdor, Hilary Wething, National Bureau of Economic Research, June 2017
In yet another study of the minimum wage six authors tell readers they intend to evaluate the wage, employment and hours effects of a first and second phase in of the Seattle Minimum wage ordinance. The first phase raised the minimum wage from $9.47 an hour to $11.00 an hour on April 1, 2015. The second phase raised the wage from $11.00 an hour to $13.00 an hour on January 1, 2016. They analyze “employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate.”
The paper’s opening sentence starts with the standard obsessions economists always cite against minimum wages: “Economic theory suggests that binding price floor policies, including minimum wages, should lead to a disequilibrium marked by excess supply and diminished demand.” Economists predict a raise in the minimum wage will reduce employment of those earning a wage lower than the minimum wage. The see cause and effect as part of their doctrine.
They conclude the first phase effect was smaller than the second phase, which second phase caused a decrease in hours worked in low wage employment by 9 percent while the wage of low-wage workers’ was about 3 percent so that the cost of this wage hike outweighed its benefits for these workers. They conclude the minimum wage hurts low wage labor because hours lost makes a loss bigger than the gain from higher wages.
People leave jobs and lose jobs for many reasons, especially in low wage employment where turnover rates can be high. If the Seattle minimum wage causes employers to decrease employment, it could be useful to go out and ask these low wage employers if they recently off employees and was that because of the higher minimum wage. Typically Economists resort to analysis using large data sets filled with severe shortcomings like the Seattle study I review here.
Their data set comes from Washington’s Employment Security Division, which is produced as part of national Unemployment Insurance(UI) system administered by each state. Old timers refer to it as ES 202 data, or just “the 202” data. It is compiled and used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in their benchmark revision of the Current Employment Survey.
ES 202 data is reported by single or multi establishment within county and Metropolitan Statistical areas coded by industry using the governments North American Industry Classification System(NAICS). Public reports of the data have monthly employment and payroll totals, but there are no occupations reported and names of employers or employees remain suppressed and confidential.
The authors inform readers that the Employment Security Division provided them the total hours worked in addition to the employment and payroll totals. Further the Employment Security Division partitioned the Seattle-Bellevue-Evertt Washington Metropolitan Division data to break out Seattle as a special and private favor to them, perhaps from their connection with the University of Washington. Because their data is a special favor and confidential the authors were required to sign a document promising not to release the data under threat of legal action against them. Therefore no one else gets to look at the data; they provide only a summary of aggregated data by quarter in their Table 3 on page 45.
They state “This unique data set allows us to measure the AVERAGE wage paid to each worker in each quarter. We compute an hourly wage rate as total quarterly payroll divided by quarterly hours worked, which corresponds to average hourly earnings. They call these numbers a realized hourly wage rate. Therefore they use an average wage of thousands of employees, an amount no one actually earns. Actual wages paid to employees will be above and below the average.
In addition their data excludes those working at establishments with more than one location. These include a variety of chain stores and franchise restaurants in Seattle and the surrounding county and metropolitan areas. Seattle’s minimum wage for a business with 500 or more employees such as McDonald’s or Costco was $13.50 an hour during the time when smaller single establishment business had an $11 an hour minimum wage. The employees included in the study had a strong incentive to move out of small business and into the large businesses excluded from the study.
In addition they define low skill employment as those working with an average hourly wage rate of $19 an hour or less. While they give an excuse for doing this, they do so without knowledge of the occupations of the employees included in the sample or the skills, experience or education needed in the unknown occupations that justify such a decision. An establishment with an average wage of $19 an hour will have many earning wages above $19 an hour, which could be occupations that need college degree skills.
In their methodology at page 16 the authors admit the hazards of their partition at $19. They write “The proxy for low-skilled employment will produce accurate estimates of the impact of minimum wage increases to the extent that a wage threshold accurately partitions the labor market into affected and unaffected components.” Their partition comes at an AVERAGE wage causing some who work with an actual wage above $19 an hour to be included in the below $19 partition while others will be in the below $19 partition who have wages above the $19 partition. There can be no assurance the 9 percent decline in total hours they cite ever worked an hours below the minimum wage or lost their job because of it.
Further they state “[The threshold wage] will overstate employment reductions if the threshold is set low enough that the minimum wage increase causes pay for some work to rise above it. This concern is particularly relevant given previous evidence of "cascading" impacts of minimum wage increases on slightly higher-paying jobs.” The previous evidence of “cascading impacts” comes from several Neumark and Wascher studies and a book, one of which is reviewed on this link at
http://americanjobmarket.blogspot.com/2017/10/minimum-wages-in-seattle.html. The cascading impact terminology refers to people who lose their below minimum wage job, but rather than be out of work they apply for and find work at a higher wage.
As I have suggested before people who lose their minimum wage job do not disappear, but begin looking for other jobs in other occupations with wages higher in the wage distribution. Forced to leave a sub-minimum wage job the newly unemployed increase the supply of labor in other occupations where they moderate wages in higher wage occupations and add to employment. The authors might recognize the millions of opportunities to move from low wage to higher wage employment by looking at wage distributions by occupation reported by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in their Occupational Employment Survey.
Their Summary of data in Table 3 supports this view. The table has three columns for total jobs, total hours and total payroll and a fourth column has computed average wages. The rows are for each quarter from the second quarter of 2014 to third quarter of 2016. The first column of each category has only those employers with employees that have an average monthly wage of $13 an hour or less. The second has only those employers with employees that have an average monthly wage of $19 an hour or less. The third set has an average monthly wage for all employers and employees.
These partitions allow a further partition into two additional columns through subtracting the less than $13 column from the less than $19 column, which leaves only those establishment employers with an average wage greater than $13 an hour and less than $19 an hour. Further subtraction leaves another column of only those employers with an average wage of $19 or more. Every employee and his or her employer is part of one and only one mutually exclusive column of the data.
These columns have the “cascading effects” but they show the benefit of the Seattle Minimum wage. In the second quarter of 2014 those working at establishments with an average wage less than $13 an hour total 39,807. By the third quarter of 2016 the total falls to 23,232, a loss of 16,575 working at establishments with an average wage less than $13 an hour.
Over that two year and one quarter period a low inflation rate combined with the higher minimum wage would tend to reduce people working at establishments that have an average wage below $13 an hour. Economists like to suggest that is a bad result caused by the minimum wage, but during the same period those working at establishments with an average wage above $13 and below $19 increased from 53,152 to 63,610, a gain of 10,548 jobs at above the minimum wage. Those working at establishments with an average wage above $19 increases from 199,681 to 249,675, a gain of 49,994 jobs. These are exactly what to expect if the minimum wage benefits low wage workers. In Seattle wage workers seek employment in other establishments in occupations that pay above the minimum wage.
In their 2008 book Neumark and Wascher Minimum Wages, cited by the authors in their Seattle study write on page 116, “. . . as we emphasized earlier in this chapter the potential for minimum wage increases to affect wages higher in the wage distribution is also important in assessing the effects of minimum wage policy.” It is. That is where the benefits of the minimum wage will be and that is where they are in Seattle.
This paper has no right to be a part of the public debate on minimum wages because it makes no attempt to persuade a general audience and cannot be read except by those with experience in the specialized terminology of the economics fraternity. It uses suppressed data and undefined insider terms from other studies such as region fixed effect, period fixed effect, treatment effect, idiosyncratic shock among other terms.
Business predictably opposes an increase in the minimum wage. It raises costs for businesses that depend on low wage employment and thereby pressures owners and managers to experiment with prices, jobs and work schedules. It might in some situations reduce long term profits, but that does not mean a higher minimum has no benefits to labor or the larger economy from those who will have more buying power.
Academic economists work under pressure to confirm market theory. When they do what is good for their career, the news media and the public seize on the conclusions and nothing else. They evaluate the conclusions based on academic credentials not the credibility of the work.
In Seattle I read the mayor and city council ignored the hecklers and went ahead with the next phase of their minimum wage program; they raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour. If I could get the suppressed employment data I could determine the benefits to labor and the economy I predict will continue.
In yet another study of the minimum wage six authors tell readers they intend to evaluate the wage, employment and hours effects of a first and second phase in of the Seattle Minimum wage ordinance. The first phase raised the minimum wage from $9.47 an hour to $11.00 an hour on April 1, 2015. The second phase raised the wage from $11.00 an hour to $13.00 an hour on January 1, 2016. They analyze “employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate.”
The paper’s opening sentence starts with the standard obsessions economists always cite against minimum wages: “Economic theory suggests that binding price floor policies, including minimum wages, should lead to a disequilibrium marked by excess supply and diminished demand.” Economists predict a raise in the minimum wage will reduce employment of those earning a wage lower than the minimum wage. The see cause and effect as part of their doctrine.
They conclude the first phase effect was smaller than the second phase, which second phase caused a decrease in hours worked in low wage employment by 9 percent while the wage of low-wage workers’ was about 3 percent so that the cost of this wage hike outweighed its benefits for these workers. They conclude the minimum wage hurts low wage labor because hours lost makes a loss bigger than the gain from higher wages.
People leave jobs and lose jobs for many reasons, especially in low wage employment where turnover rates can be high. If the Seattle minimum wage causes employers to decrease employment, it could be useful to go out and ask these low wage employers if they recently off employees and was that because of the higher minimum wage. Typically Economists resort to analysis using large data sets filled with severe shortcomings like the Seattle study I review here.
Their data set comes from Washington’s Employment Security Division, which is produced as part of national Unemployment Insurance(UI) system administered by each state. Old timers refer to it as ES 202 data, or just “the 202” data. It is compiled and used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in their benchmark revision of the Current Employment Survey.
ES 202 data is reported by single or multi establishment within county and Metropolitan Statistical areas coded by industry using the governments North American Industry Classification System(NAICS). Public reports of the data have monthly employment and payroll totals, but there are no occupations reported and names of employers or employees remain suppressed and confidential.
The authors inform readers that the Employment Security Division provided them the total hours worked in addition to the employment and payroll totals. Further the Employment Security Division partitioned the Seattle-Bellevue-Evertt Washington Metropolitan Division data to break out Seattle as a special and private favor to them, perhaps from their connection with the University of Washington. Because their data is a special favor and confidential the authors were required to sign a document promising not to release the data under threat of legal action against them. Therefore no one else gets to look at the data; they provide only a summary of aggregated data by quarter in their Table 3 on page 45.
They state “This unique data set allows us to measure the AVERAGE wage paid to each worker in each quarter. We compute an hourly wage rate as total quarterly payroll divided by quarterly hours worked, which corresponds to average hourly earnings. They call these numbers a realized hourly wage rate. Therefore they use an average wage of thousands of employees, an amount no one actually earns. Actual wages paid to employees will be above and below the average.
In addition their data excludes those working at establishments with more than one location. These include a variety of chain stores and franchise restaurants in Seattle and the surrounding county and metropolitan areas. Seattle’s minimum wage for a business with 500 or more employees such as McDonald’s or Costco was $13.50 an hour during the time when smaller single establishment business had an $11 an hour minimum wage. The employees included in the study had a strong incentive to move out of small business and into the large businesses excluded from the study.
In addition they define low skill employment as those working with an average hourly wage rate of $19 an hour or less. While they give an excuse for doing this, they do so without knowledge of the occupations of the employees included in the sample or the skills, experience or education needed in the unknown occupations that justify such a decision. An establishment with an average wage of $19 an hour will have many earning wages above $19 an hour, which could be occupations that need college degree skills.
In their methodology at page 16 the authors admit the hazards of their partition at $19. They write “The proxy for low-skilled employment will produce accurate estimates of the impact of minimum wage increases to the extent that a wage threshold accurately partitions the labor market into affected and unaffected components.” Their partition comes at an AVERAGE wage causing some who work with an actual wage above $19 an hour to be included in the below $19 partition while others will be in the below $19 partition who have wages above the $19 partition. There can be no assurance the 9 percent decline in total hours they cite ever worked an hours below the minimum wage or lost their job because of it.
Further they state “[The threshold wage] will overstate employment reductions if the threshold is set low enough that the minimum wage increase causes pay for some work to rise above it. This concern is particularly relevant given previous evidence of "cascading" impacts of minimum wage increases on slightly higher-paying jobs.” The previous evidence of “cascading impacts” comes from several Neumark and Wascher studies and a book, one of which is reviewed on this link at
http://americanjobmarket.blogspot.com/2017/10/minimum-wages-in-seattle.html. The cascading impact terminology refers to people who lose their below minimum wage job, but rather than be out of work they apply for and find work at a higher wage.
As I have suggested before people who lose their minimum wage job do not disappear, but begin looking for other jobs in other occupations with wages higher in the wage distribution. Forced to leave a sub-minimum wage job the newly unemployed increase the supply of labor in other occupations where they moderate wages in higher wage occupations and add to employment. The authors might recognize the millions of opportunities to move from low wage to higher wage employment by looking at wage distributions by occupation reported by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in their Occupational Employment Survey.
Their Summary of data in Table 3 supports this view. The table has three columns for total jobs, total hours and total payroll and a fourth column has computed average wages. The rows are for each quarter from the second quarter of 2014 to third quarter of 2016. The first column of each category has only those employers with employees that have an average monthly wage of $13 an hour or less. The second has only those employers with employees that have an average monthly wage of $19 an hour or less. The third set has an average monthly wage for all employers and employees.
These partitions allow a further partition into two additional columns through subtracting the less than $13 column from the less than $19 column, which leaves only those establishment employers with an average wage greater than $13 an hour and less than $19 an hour. Further subtraction leaves another column of only those employers with an average wage of $19 or more. Every employee and his or her employer is part of one and only one mutually exclusive column of the data.
These columns have the “cascading effects” but they show the benefit of the Seattle Minimum wage. In the second quarter of 2014 those working at establishments with an average wage less than $13 an hour total 39,807. By the third quarter of 2016 the total falls to 23,232, a loss of 16,575 working at establishments with an average wage less than $13 an hour.
Over that two year and one quarter period a low inflation rate combined with the higher minimum wage would tend to reduce people working at establishments that have an average wage below $13 an hour. Economists like to suggest that is a bad result caused by the minimum wage, but during the same period those working at establishments with an average wage above $13 and below $19 increased from 53,152 to 63,610, a gain of 10,548 jobs at above the minimum wage. Those working at establishments with an average wage above $19 increases from 199,681 to 249,675, a gain of 49,994 jobs. These are exactly what to expect if the minimum wage benefits low wage workers. In Seattle wage workers seek employment in other establishments in occupations that pay above the minimum wage.
In their 2008 book Neumark and Wascher Minimum Wages, cited by the authors in their Seattle study write on page 116, “. . . as we emphasized earlier in this chapter the potential for minimum wage increases to affect wages higher in the wage distribution is also important in assessing the effects of minimum wage policy.” It is. That is where the benefits of the minimum wage will be and that is where they are in Seattle.
This paper has no right to be a part of the public debate on minimum wages because it makes no attempt to persuade a general audience and cannot be read except by those with experience in the specialized terminology of the economics fraternity. It uses suppressed data and undefined insider terms from other studies such as region fixed effect, period fixed effect, treatment effect, idiosyncratic shock among other terms.
Business predictably opposes an increase in the minimum wage. It raises costs for businesses that depend on low wage employment and thereby pressures owners and managers to experiment with prices, jobs and work schedules. It might in some situations reduce long term profits, but that does not mean a higher minimum has no benefits to labor or the larger economy from those who will have more buying power.
Academic economists work under pressure to confirm market theory. When they do what is good for their career, the news media and the public seize on the conclusions and nothing else. They evaluate the conclusions based on academic credentials not the credibility of the work.
In Seattle I read the mayor and city council ignored the hecklers and went ahead with the next phase of their minimum wage program; they raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour. If I could get the suppressed employment data I could determine the benefits to labor and the economy I predict will continue.
Friday, September 8, 2017
Insulting Labor
Insulting Labor
The current United States Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, has proposed putting former President Ronald Reagan in the Department’s Labor Hall of Honor. Ronald Reagan became president in January 1981 and so it was still early in his first term when the strike of the nation’s air traffic controllers union, PATCO, started August 3, 1981. The strike ended abruptly two days later when President Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 air traffic controllers. The firing ended, or busted, the union, which was decertified with little delay.
Many cite the failed PATCO strike as the date of an abrupt degeneration in U.S. labor relations. Reagan era strikes brought similar strikes with union defeats and failures at Phelps-Dodge in Arizona, to airline pilots, to Yale University support staff, at Hormel, at International Paper and others. Bush era strikes at Pittston Coal Co, A.E. Staley, Caterpillar and Bridgestone-Firestone were all defeats for organized labor.
It does not matter which side anyone takes in these disputes or that Reagan was the innocuous head of the Screen Actors Guild. Putting a management figure who crudely busted a union into a Labor Hall of Honor amounts to be a deliberate Trump style insult that ridicules and debases organized labor. Ronald Reagan was rigid and sanctimonious through the whole episode but I doubt even he would choose to show such contempt for the others in a labor hall of honor.
The current United States Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, has proposed putting former President Ronald Reagan in the Department’s Labor Hall of Honor. Ronald Reagan became president in January 1981 and so it was still early in his first term when the strike of the nation’s air traffic controllers union, PATCO, started August 3, 1981. The strike ended abruptly two days later when President Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 air traffic controllers. The firing ended, or busted, the union, which was decertified with little delay.
Many cite the failed PATCO strike as the date of an abrupt degeneration in U.S. labor relations. Reagan era strikes brought similar strikes with union defeats and failures at Phelps-Dodge in Arizona, to airline pilots, to Yale University support staff, at Hormel, at International Paper and others. Bush era strikes at Pittston Coal Co, A.E. Staley, Caterpillar and Bridgestone-Firestone were all defeats for organized labor.
It does not matter which side anyone takes in these disputes or that Reagan was the innocuous head of the Screen Actors Guild. Putting a management figure who crudely busted a union into a Labor Hall of Honor amounts to be a deliberate Trump style insult that ridicules and debases organized labor. Ronald Reagan was rigid and sanctimonious through the whole episode but I doubt even he would choose to show such contempt for the others in a labor hall of honor.
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
West Virginia Jobs 2016
West Virginia Jobs 2016
West Virginia lost 11 thousand jobs during the recession that ran from the fall of 2008 until spring of 2010, but recovered those losses by 2012 when statewide employment reached its high of 765.2 thousand jobs. However, since 2012 statewide employment has declined by 17.4 thousand jobs to 747.8 thousand jobs in 2016. Even though jobs recovered to their pre-recession totals, the recent decline leaves West Virginia with a 2.3 percent loss of statewide employment. That makes West Virginia one of nine states with a loss of jobs since the 2008-2010 recession. Only two states had a bigger percentage loss of jobs than West Virginia. Those losses came even though national employment increased from 132 million to just under 138 million jobs during the same years.
After reaching a statewide high in 2012, West Virginia had a decrease in jobs in the lumber and mining industries, construction, manufacturing, wholesale-retail trade, financial activities, and a combination of repair and maintenance services, personal services, and non-profit associations. By 2016 the combined loss in these sectors was 26.3 thousand jobs.
Health Care, Government, and private education offset some of the losses with 6.9 thousand new jobs. An additional 700 hundred jobs in transportation and warehousing, a hundred jobs in information services, 800 jobs in business and professional services, mostly support services, and 400 jobs in restaurants bring the total job gains to 8.9 thousand jobs for those industries with any new jobs. Combining the gains of 8.9 thousand with the losses 26.3 thousand accounts for the net loss of 17.4 thousand jobs.
The prospects for job growth remain poor.
Back in 1990 West Virginia had 34 thousand jobs in lumber and mining, mostly coal mining, which was 5.4 percent of statewide employment. It was still 34 thousand in 2012 but the total was down to 4.4 percent of statewide jobs. By 2016 only 20 thousand jobs remained with a 2.7 percent share of statewide employment. Almost all of the job loss in lumber and mining came in the last four years. The sudden loss of jobs makes the decline more noticeable, but a 2.7 percent share for lumber and mining keeps West Virginia well above the national percentage of 1.7 percent for these jobs. There are only 50.3 thousand coal mining jobs left in the entire United States and they continue to fall month to month. West Virginia will not be able to hold onto its current coal jobs, much less increase them.
West Virginia has a smaller share of statewide employment than the national economy in all but three industry sub-sectors: health care, government service for the federal, state, and local government, and repair, maintenance, and personal services. Combined these three industries have 43.8 percent of West Virginia employment. Combined health care and government service had a 1.5 percent increase in the share of statewide jobs from 2012 to 2016. Only three other sub sectors had any percentage increase – business support services, private education, restaurants – and their total increase was .7 percent less than half of the health care and government increase.
West Virginia continues to lose jobs in all the same sectors as the national economy, but does not generate more jobs in the sectors doing well in the national economy. For example, professional and technical services have 6.2 percent of national jobs, but only 3.3 percent in West Virginia. In the national economy professional and technical services provide a major source of new jobs adding 30 to 60 thousand jobs a month, but in West Virginia the total has remained at or below 25 thousand jobs for over a decade with no growth.
In the national economy leisure and hospitality, especially restaurants, provide a major source of new jobs. They are often low paid jobs, but the West Virginia economy has not been generating many low paid jobs. Leisure and hospitality have only 9.9 percent of statewide employment, a percent below the national average. Worse their 2016 employment in this sector has not budged above 74 thousand jobs in the last four years.
In the national economy administrative support services provide a major source of new jobs. Administrative support services have 6.3 percent of jobs in the national economy but only 4.6 percent in West Virginia. These are jobs at employment services, telemarketing bureaus, security and armored car services, janitorial services, landscaping and a few more. They were 32.4 thousand in 2012 that reached their statewide high in 2016, but still only 34 thousand jobs.
In the national economy government services have 15.4 percent of national employment, but 20.9 percent of statewide West Virginia employment. All three levels of government employment – federal, state, local – have higher shares in West Virginia than the national economy. In the national economy health care has 13.2 percent of national employment, but 15.4 percent of West Virginia jobs. With so many industries in decline new jobs in health care and government services elevate their relative importance to new heights.
Between 2012 and 2016 the Bureau of the Census reports West Virginia had a drop in statewide population of 25.5 thousand. Given the prospects for jobs, we might consider them the smart ones; they left. In a recent news story the Governor of West Virginia announced he was leaving the Democratic Party to join the Republicans. Soon after Trump came to cheer him on with a rant through his well worn list of personal grudges. He did not tell the crowd their only hope for new jobs and a better economy lies with health care and government service. A good policy for jobs would tax the rich to pay for infra structure construction and generate government service jobs, especially social services. Wild, miserable West Virginia.
West Virginia lost 11 thousand jobs during the recession that ran from the fall of 2008 until spring of 2010, but recovered those losses by 2012 when statewide employment reached its high of 765.2 thousand jobs. However, since 2012 statewide employment has declined by 17.4 thousand jobs to 747.8 thousand jobs in 2016. Even though jobs recovered to their pre-recession totals, the recent decline leaves West Virginia with a 2.3 percent loss of statewide employment. That makes West Virginia one of nine states with a loss of jobs since the 2008-2010 recession. Only two states had a bigger percentage loss of jobs than West Virginia. Those losses came even though national employment increased from 132 million to just under 138 million jobs during the same years.
After reaching a statewide high in 2012, West Virginia had a decrease in jobs in the lumber and mining industries, construction, manufacturing, wholesale-retail trade, financial activities, and a combination of repair and maintenance services, personal services, and non-profit associations. By 2016 the combined loss in these sectors was 26.3 thousand jobs.
Health Care, Government, and private education offset some of the losses with 6.9 thousand new jobs. An additional 700 hundred jobs in transportation and warehousing, a hundred jobs in information services, 800 jobs in business and professional services, mostly support services, and 400 jobs in restaurants bring the total job gains to 8.9 thousand jobs for those industries with any new jobs. Combining the gains of 8.9 thousand with the losses 26.3 thousand accounts for the net loss of 17.4 thousand jobs.
The prospects for job growth remain poor.
Back in 1990 West Virginia had 34 thousand jobs in lumber and mining, mostly coal mining, which was 5.4 percent of statewide employment. It was still 34 thousand in 2012 but the total was down to 4.4 percent of statewide jobs. By 2016 only 20 thousand jobs remained with a 2.7 percent share of statewide employment. Almost all of the job loss in lumber and mining came in the last four years. The sudden loss of jobs makes the decline more noticeable, but a 2.7 percent share for lumber and mining keeps West Virginia well above the national percentage of 1.7 percent for these jobs. There are only 50.3 thousand coal mining jobs left in the entire United States and they continue to fall month to month. West Virginia will not be able to hold onto its current coal jobs, much less increase them.
West Virginia has a smaller share of statewide employment than the national economy in all but three industry sub-sectors: health care, government service for the federal, state, and local government, and repair, maintenance, and personal services. Combined these three industries have 43.8 percent of West Virginia employment. Combined health care and government service had a 1.5 percent increase in the share of statewide jobs from 2012 to 2016. Only three other sub sectors had any percentage increase – business support services, private education, restaurants – and their total increase was .7 percent less than half of the health care and government increase.
West Virginia continues to lose jobs in all the same sectors as the national economy, but does not generate more jobs in the sectors doing well in the national economy. For example, professional and technical services have 6.2 percent of national jobs, but only 3.3 percent in West Virginia. In the national economy professional and technical services provide a major source of new jobs adding 30 to 60 thousand jobs a month, but in West Virginia the total has remained at or below 25 thousand jobs for over a decade with no growth.
In the national economy leisure and hospitality, especially restaurants, provide a major source of new jobs. They are often low paid jobs, but the West Virginia economy has not been generating many low paid jobs. Leisure and hospitality have only 9.9 percent of statewide employment, a percent below the national average. Worse their 2016 employment in this sector has not budged above 74 thousand jobs in the last four years.
In the national economy administrative support services provide a major source of new jobs. Administrative support services have 6.3 percent of jobs in the national economy but only 4.6 percent in West Virginia. These are jobs at employment services, telemarketing bureaus, security and armored car services, janitorial services, landscaping and a few more. They were 32.4 thousand in 2012 that reached their statewide high in 2016, but still only 34 thousand jobs.
In the national economy government services have 15.4 percent of national employment, but 20.9 percent of statewide West Virginia employment. All three levels of government employment – federal, state, local – have higher shares in West Virginia than the national economy. In the national economy health care has 13.2 percent of national employment, but 15.4 percent of West Virginia jobs. With so many industries in decline new jobs in health care and government services elevate their relative importance to new heights.
Between 2012 and 2016 the Bureau of the Census reports West Virginia had a drop in statewide population of 25.5 thousand. Given the prospects for jobs, we might consider them the smart ones; they left. In a recent news story the Governor of West Virginia announced he was leaving the Democratic Party to join the Republicans. Soon after Trump came to cheer him on with a rant through his well worn list of personal grudges. He did not tell the crowd their only hope for new jobs and a better economy lies with health care and government service. A good policy for jobs would tax the rich to pay for infra structure construction and generate government service jobs, especially social services. Wild, miserable West Virginia.
Monday, July 24, 2017
State Health Care Employment 2016
State Health Care Employment 2016
Health care employment varies widely from one state to another. In the national economy establishment employment in health care has 19.1 million jobs, or 13.2 percent of national employment. California employs 2.183 million in the four health care sub-sectors of physicians services, hospitals, nursing and residential care and social services. California has the high while Wyoming is the low with only 24.8 thousand jobs working in the health care industry. The high percentage for health care in statewide employment is 17.3 percent in Massachusetts and the low 8.8 percent in Wyoming.
To allow for the enormous state population differences it is necessary to use employment per thousand population to compare state variation. Variations diminish but remain: California has 55.6 employed in health care per thousand population while Wyoming has 42.8 per thousand population and Massachusetts 90.5.
The high for health care employment per thousand population is 101 in the District of Columbia while the low is 39 in Nevada. There are 9 states with health care employment below 50 per thousand while 13 states have health care employment above 70 per thousand. The average is 61.3.
The five southern states - Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina – are among the nine low health care employment per thousand population states. The other four including Nevada are Utah, Wyoming and Hawaii.
The nine states above 70 jobs per thousand population have five of the six New England states – Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island – and also close by New York and Pennsylvania are above 70 per thousand population as well. However the remaining six show less connection to location or population. They are the District of Columbia and Delaware in the east and North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Minnesota in the mid-west.
There are 32 states and the District of Columbia that took the Obama Care Medicaid option and 19 states that did not. All five of the low health care employment southern states mentioned above did not take the Medicaid option. Florida, Virginia, Tennessee and Texas did not take the Medicaid option either. While their health care employment was above 50 per thousand population, they were below the average; all four were between 50 and 55 per thousand population.
The remaining ten states that did not take the Medicaid option are scattered geographically and show a moderate correlation with employment per thousand population. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the Medicaid option (Yes = 1, No = 0) and health care jobs per thousand population in the fifty states and the District of Columbia equals .36, where 0 means random variation and 1 predicts exact variation.
If we think of health care employment per thousand population as a measure of state effort and commitment to health care, then there are some good signs. Every single state and the District of Columbia have a higher health care employment per thousand population in 2016 than in 2007, the last full year before the 2008 to 2010 recession. All the states are doing better. Four states have an increase over 20 percent and 12 more had an increase of 15 to 20 percent. However, the correlation between health care per thousand population in 2007 and 2016 is high, .98, meaning roughly the same relative differences between the states continue now as they were in 2007. While it is certain the Medicaid option helps health care employment the effect so far appears modest. The differences suggest a difference of state preferences reflected through fifty-one varied political systems, although the result does not necessarily reflect the popular will. We know there is money in politics as well as health care.
Health care employment varies widely from one state to another. In the national economy establishment employment in health care has 19.1 million jobs, or 13.2 percent of national employment. California employs 2.183 million in the four health care sub-sectors of physicians services, hospitals, nursing and residential care and social services. California has the high while Wyoming is the low with only 24.8 thousand jobs working in the health care industry. The high percentage for health care in statewide employment is 17.3 percent in Massachusetts and the low 8.8 percent in Wyoming.
To allow for the enormous state population differences it is necessary to use employment per thousand population to compare state variation. Variations diminish but remain: California has 55.6 employed in health care per thousand population while Wyoming has 42.8 per thousand population and Massachusetts 90.5.
The high for health care employment per thousand population is 101 in the District of Columbia while the low is 39 in Nevada. There are 9 states with health care employment below 50 per thousand while 13 states have health care employment above 70 per thousand. The average is 61.3.
The five southern states - Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina – are among the nine low health care employment per thousand population states. The other four including Nevada are Utah, Wyoming and Hawaii.
The nine states above 70 jobs per thousand population have five of the six New England states – Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island – and also close by New York and Pennsylvania are above 70 per thousand population as well. However the remaining six show less connection to location or population. They are the District of Columbia and Delaware in the east and North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Minnesota in the mid-west.
There are 32 states and the District of Columbia that took the Obama Care Medicaid option and 19 states that did not. All five of the low health care employment southern states mentioned above did not take the Medicaid option. Florida, Virginia, Tennessee and Texas did not take the Medicaid option either. While their health care employment was above 50 per thousand population, they were below the average; all four were between 50 and 55 per thousand population.
The remaining ten states that did not take the Medicaid option are scattered geographically and show a moderate correlation with employment per thousand population. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the Medicaid option (Yes = 1, No = 0) and health care jobs per thousand population in the fifty states and the District of Columbia equals .36, where 0 means random variation and 1 predicts exact variation.
If we think of health care employment per thousand population as a measure of state effort and commitment to health care, then there are some good signs. Every single state and the District of Columbia have a higher health care employment per thousand population in 2016 than in 2007, the last full year before the 2008 to 2010 recession. All the states are doing better. Four states have an increase over 20 percent and 12 more had an increase of 15 to 20 percent. However, the correlation between health care per thousand population in 2007 and 2016 is high, .98, meaning roughly the same relative differences between the states continue now as they were in 2007. While it is certain the Medicaid option helps health care employment the effect so far appears modest. The differences suggest a difference of state preferences reflected through fifty-one varied political systems, although the result does not necessarily reflect the popular will. We know there is money in politics as well as health care.
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Ohio Jobs 2016
Ohio Jobs 2016
Ohio establishment jobs dropped from a high of 5.625 million in 2000 to 5.427 million in 2007 before the Bush recession cut employment further to 5.036 million in 2010 just as the recession came to an end. Ohio lost so many manufacturing jobs in the seven years from 2000 to 2007 it lost a statewide average of 197 thousand jobs a month even though national employment increased from 132 million to just under 138 million jobs during the same years. Note (1)
The recession ran from the fall of 2008 until spring of 2010, which makes 2007 the last full year before the 2008 to 2010 recession got started. The national establishment employment surpassed the pre-recession high in 2014. Ohio jobs finally climbed above its 2007 total in 2016 when jobs reached an average monthly total of 5.481 million, a total that surpasses pre-recession employment by 54 thousand jobs, or just 1 percent above 2007. Ohio ranks 39th in the percentage increase of statewide jobs above the pre-recession total. Nine states remain below 2007 totals. There were just 54 thousand new statewide jobs even though the Bureau of Census reports an increase in the Ohio population over 147 thousand.
National establishment employment reached 144.3 million in 2016, up 6.3 million jobs over 2007. The increase in national employment is a net increase because many industry sub sectors like manufacturing lost jobs. In Ohio, natural resources, construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, information services, financial activities, personal services, non-profit associations, and government services all lost jobs in the years 2007 to 2016. The total of jobs lost in these sectors equals 200.2 thousand. Since Ohio had a net increase of 54 thousand jobs, Ohio had 254.2 thousand new jobs in just a few sub sectors to offset the job losses.
To make up for job losses in declining industries assures that remaining industries will become especially important as a source of new jobs. Over the last two decades new jobs in the U.S. economy have come from a short list of industry sub-sectors and especially so in Ohio where new jobs came primarily from business and professional services, health care and leisure-hospitality.
Business and professional services have three components: 1. professional and technical services, 2. establishments that manage companies and enterprises, and 3. administrative and support services. In Ohio, two professional and technical services - computer design and related services and management and technical consulting – added 21.1 thousand jobs. The job gains in these two professional sub sectors offset job losses in other professional services like legal services, accounting and bookkeeping services, architecture and engineering services, and advertising and related services, which cut the net increase to 15.8 thousand professional jobs.
Management of companies and enterprises added 26.6 thousand jobs, an unusually large number. These are office jobs of holding companies and corporate, subsidiary and regional managing offices. In the national economy establishments managing companies make up 1.5 percent of employment, but 2.5 percent in Ohio. The 26.6 thousand new jobs raised the Ohio share of employment in this sub sector from 2.0 to 2.5 percent of statewide employment.
Administrative and support services including waste management added 11.5 thousand jobs, but 6.7 thousand of these jobs were in services to buildings and dwellings that includes janitorial services, landscaping, carpet cleaners and exterminators.
Health care added 107.6 thousand jobs primarily in physician services, hospitals and social services. Private school education added 22.3 thousand jobs and state and local government education another 4.4 thousand jobs. Leisure and hospitality added 50.2 thousand jobs, but with 75 percent of the jobs at restaurants: 37.3 thousand of 50.2 thousand jobs. Slightly 60 percent of new jobs in Ohio came from just two professional services, management of companies and health care. Including the jobs from leisure and hospitality adds another 20 percent. Add 8 percent more for private schools.
Those with college and professional degree skills specialized in computing, accounting, finance and health care have the best chance of finding self supporting work. Employment in health care tends to be widely dispersed geographically given the need for patients to visit doctors and clinics. Ohio has kept up well with health care employment and wisely took the Medicaid expansion. However, more and more of professional and technical services can be delivered electronically, which allows them to be produced and delivered from any other state. Electronic delivery of professional services puts the states in competition for these jobs. In the national economy professional and technical services make up 6.15 percent of jobs, but only 4.69 percent in Ohio in 2016. For the years from 2007 to 2016 Ohio ranks 30th for job gains in professional services among the fifty states and the District of Columbia.
The average annual growth rate of statewide establishment employment since 2007 comes to .11 percent, far below the national average. Jobs in services like retail, publishing, telecommunications, finance and real estate do poorly in the national economy, but they lag even more in Ohio. For those in Ohio with high school degree skills the options are few.
The limited number of service sectors generating a net increase of jobs significantly lowers prospects for statewide job growth. It guarantees that health care employment must grow for Ohio to have a statewide increase of jobs. Computer design and related service jobs in Ohio have 1 percent of statewide employment, up from .8 percent in 2007, but still only 59 thousand jobs. Computer design and related services have 1.5 percent of national employment. Otherwise restaurants will have to provide thousands of new jobs a year to maintain even modest job growth
The idea people can finish high school and find career employment or self-supporting work breaks down day by day while business has started complaining of labor shortages. Politicians suggest a few bromides, but they offer nothing to solve the dismal record of Ohio jobs.
--------------
Note (1) All job and employment number citations are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, Current Employment Survey. No exceptions.
Ohio establishment jobs dropped from a high of 5.625 million in 2000 to 5.427 million in 2007 before the Bush recession cut employment further to 5.036 million in 2010 just as the recession came to an end. Ohio lost so many manufacturing jobs in the seven years from 2000 to 2007 it lost a statewide average of 197 thousand jobs a month even though national employment increased from 132 million to just under 138 million jobs during the same years. Note (1)
The recession ran from the fall of 2008 until spring of 2010, which makes 2007 the last full year before the 2008 to 2010 recession got started. The national establishment employment surpassed the pre-recession high in 2014. Ohio jobs finally climbed above its 2007 total in 2016 when jobs reached an average monthly total of 5.481 million, a total that surpasses pre-recession employment by 54 thousand jobs, or just 1 percent above 2007. Ohio ranks 39th in the percentage increase of statewide jobs above the pre-recession total. Nine states remain below 2007 totals. There were just 54 thousand new statewide jobs even though the Bureau of Census reports an increase in the Ohio population over 147 thousand.
National establishment employment reached 144.3 million in 2016, up 6.3 million jobs over 2007. The increase in national employment is a net increase because many industry sub sectors like manufacturing lost jobs. In Ohio, natural resources, construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, information services, financial activities, personal services, non-profit associations, and government services all lost jobs in the years 2007 to 2016. The total of jobs lost in these sectors equals 200.2 thousand. Since Ohio had a net increase of 54 thousand jobs, Ohio had 254.2 thousand new jobs in just a few sub sectors to offset the job losses.
To make up for job losses in declining industries assures that remaining industries will become especially important as a source of new jobs. Over the last two decades new jobs in the U.S. economy have come from a short list of industry sub-sectors and especially so in Ohio where new jobs came primarily from business and professional services, health care and leisure-hospitality.
Business and professional services have three components: 1. professional and technical services, 2. establishments that manage companies and enterprises, and 3. administrative and support services. In Ohio, two professional and technical services - computer design and related services and management and technical consulting – added 21.1 thousand jobs. The job gains in these two professional sub sectors offset job losses in other professional services like legal services, accounting and bookkeeping services, architecture and engineering services, and advertising and related services, which cut the net increase to 15.8 thousand professional jobs.
Management of companies and enterprises added 26.6 thousand jobs, an unusually large number. These are office jobs of holding companies and corporate, subsidiary and regional managing offices. In the national economy establishments managing companies make up 1.5 percent of employment, but 2.5 percent in Ohio. The 26.6 thousand new jobs raised the Ohio share of employment in this sub sector from 2.0 to 2.5 percent of statewide employment.
Administrative and support services including waste management added 11.5 thousand jobs, but 6.7 thousand of these jobs were in services to buildings and dwellings that includes janitorial services, landscaping, carpet cleaners and exterminators.
Health care added 107.6 thousand jobs primarily in physician services, hospitals and social services. Private school education added 22.3 thousand jobs and state and local government education another 4.4 thousand jobs. Leisure and hospitality added 50.2 thousand jobs, but with 75 percent of the jobs at restaurants: 37.3 thousand of 50.2 thousand jobs. Slightly 60 percent of new jobs in Ohio came from just two professional services, management of companies and health care. Including the jobs from leisure and hospitality adds another 20 percent. Add 8 percent more for private schools.
Those with college and professional degree skills specialized in computing, accounting, finance and health care have the best chance of finding self supporting work. Employment in health care tends to be widely dispersed geographically given the need for patients to visit doctors and clinics. Ohio has kept up well with health care employment and wisely took the Medicaid expansion. However, more and more of professional and technical services can be delivered electronically, which allows them to be produced and delivered from any other state. Electronic delivery of professional services puts the states in competition for these jobs. In the national economy professional and technical services make up 6.15 percent of jobs, but only 4.69 percent in Ohio in 2016. For the years from 2007 to 2016 Ohio ranks 30th for job gains in professional services among the fifty states and the District of Columbia.
The average annual growth rate of statewide establishment employment since 2007 comes to .11 percent, far below the national average. Jobs in services like retail, publishing, telecommunications, finance and real estate do poorly in the national economy, but they lag even more in Ohio. For those in Ohio with high school degree skills the options are few.
The limited number of service sectors generating a net increase of jobs significantly lowers prospects for statewide job growth. It guarantees that health care employment must grow for Ohio to have a statewide increase of jobs. Computer design and related service jobs in Ohio have 1 percent of statewide employment, up from .8 percent in 2007, but still only 59 thousand jobs. Computer design and related services have 1.5 percent of national employment. Otherwise restaurants will have to provide thousands of new jobs a year to maintain even modest job growth
The idea people can finish high school and find career employment or self-supporting work breaks down day by day while business has started complaining of labor shortages. Politicians suggest a few bromides, but they offer nothing to solve the dismal record of Ohio jobs.
--------------
Note (1) All job and employment number citations are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, Current Employment Survey. No exceptions.
Saturday, July 1, 2017
The Pathetic Case of Oklahoma Jobs
The Pathetic Case of Oklahoma Jobs
Oklahoma establishment employment reached a monthly average high of 1,677.8 million in 2015, but dropped to 1.652 million jobs in 2016. The annual rate of growth rate since 1990 is 1.2 percent, not great but not bad compared to the national average and other states. From 2000 to 2016 the annual rate of growth dropped to .59 percent, a fifty percent decline. Oklahoma jobs declined during both of the Bush recessions, which came after the first quarter of 2001 and the second recession after the third quarter of 2008. Jobs have recovered but it was 2013 before Oklahoma jobs reached their 2008 level.
Every county in Oklahoma voted for Trump. Since Trump promised jobs that might be one reason. While he has yet to follow through with any more than talk, the problem with Oklahoma jobs shows up in the most glaring fashion over the last four years from 2012 to 2016. Over those four years monthly establishment employment was up a grand total of 38 thousand jobs at a .58 percent growth rate. Downright pitiful.
Goods Production
Goods production includes mining and mining related jobs like oil drilling, construction and manufacturing. Mining had its largest employment in 2014 with 62.1 thousand jobs, but it was still less than 2 percent of statewide establishment employment. It dropped to 44 thousand in 2016. Construction added 7 thousand jobs from 2012 to 2016 while manufacturing employment dropped 7 thousand canceling the construction gains.
To be fair the decline in goods production employment over the last four years comes as part of a long term trend of more than two decades. Since 1990 goods production lost 4.3 percent of statewide employment; since 2000 it lost 2.5 percent. However the entire 2.5 percent loss came in the four years, 2012 to 2016.
The Service Industries with a net job loss from 2012 to 2016
Important parts of the Oklahoma service industry, representing slightly more than 30 percent of statewide employment, did poorly. Service industries did have a few more jobs, although a few services lost jobs over the four year period. The information services lost a thousand jobs. It has publishing including software and Internet publishing, broadcasting, telecommunications, data processing and a few more. The total of Oklahoma financial activities including banking, credit and real estate services added just one thousand jobs.
The combination of professional and business support services had a net increase of a 1 thousand jobs, an especially poor performance for a sector with just over 11 percent of statewide employment in 2012. Professional services has law firms, accounting firms, architecture and engineering firms, computer design and relation services, management and technical consulting services, advertising and related services, but these services added only 3 thousand jobs, which were offset by a loss of two thousand jobs in business support services. Professional services need people with college degree skills, but Oklahoma College graduates will have to leave Oklahoma to find these jobs.
The worst failure to create jobs comes with health care. Over the four year period 2012 to 2016 Oklahoma health care employment increased at an annual growth of .85 percent, when the national average over the same four years was 2.36 percent. Total health care job growth over the four years comes to just 7 thousand new jobs. Slightly less than half the jobs came in services that actually provide patient care: physicians services, outpatient care, hospital services, and nursing and nursing home care. The other half came in social assistance jobs mostly non-profit family services, community food and housing and emergency relief services.
If we combine the 15.1 percent of statewide employment in goods production jobs with the 31.5 percent of statewide jobs in information services, financial activities, business and professional services, private education and health care we have a combined loss of 7 thousand jobs for 46.6 percent of statewide employment.
The Service Industries with a net job gain from 2012 to 2016
The remaining 53.4 percent of statewide employment comes in wholesale and retail trade, leisure and hospitality, repair and maintenance services, personal services, non-profit associations, and government. Wholesale trade was up only a thousand jobs, but retail trade did well among services with 11 thousand new jobs. Transportation and warehousing added 5 thousand new jobs, but modal transportation did poorly: airlines lost a thousand jobs, trucking added only a thousand jobs.
Leisure and hospitality added 17 thousand jobs with 13.3 thousand of these jobs at full service and fast food restaurants. The highest annual growth rate in jobs for any Oklahoma industry over the four years came in full service restaurants: 2.63 percent, more than four times the statewide growth rate.
Repair and maintenance services, and personal services had no new jobs over the four years. Non-profit associations added a little over 4 thousand jobs and government had a net increase of 6.5 thousand jobs. It was a net increase because federal and state government jobs declined while local government employment was up almost 8 thousand job over the four years.
Reality Check
Oklahoma ranks 45th in statewide job growth over the four years 2012 to 2016. While the monthly average increase was only 38 thousand jobs, the two metropolitan areas, Oklahoma City and Tulsa, had 53 thousand new jobs over the four years. That means the rural areas that make up the balance of state employment lost 15 thousand jobs. All of the 7 thousand new health care jobs were in Oklahoma City and Tulsa, the net change in health care in the rural balance of state was zero.
The state legislature has apparently cut state income taxes along with corresponding cuts in services, especially education. Nothing assures Oklahoma residents will return their tax cut to the Oklahoma economy; the poor job performance suggests these funds left the state. The state legislature also had the opportunity to bring in federal dollars with Medicaid expansion offered during the Obama administration. Additional health care spending would create jobs and health services for state residents, especially the rural poor, but the legislature threw them away. Oil exploration creates less than 2 percent of statewide jobs for the environmental dangers it creates.
Just over 45 percent of new jobs over the last four years came in Leisure and hospitality and almost 80 percent of those jobs came in restaurant occupations such as cooks, waiters, waitresses, and combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food. The later occupation, food preparation and serving workers, has the highest employment of all restaurant and food preparation jobs in the state of Oklahoma, 34,520. That is up from 28,650 in 2012, which equals a 4.77 percent annual rate of growth compared to the .58 percent rate for statewide employment mentioned above. These jobs have a median wage in Oklahoma of $18,080 as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its Occupational Employment files. It is the lowest median wage of 710 occupations reported for the state of Oklahoma; dead last.
Enough said.
Oklahoma establishment employment reached a monthly average high of 1,677.8 million in 2015, but dropped to 1.652 million jobs in 2016. The annual rate of growth rate since 1990 is 1.2 percent, not great but not bad compared to the national average and other states. From 2000 to 2016 the annual rate of growth dropped to .59 percent, a fifty percent decline. Oklahoma jobs declined during both of the Bush recessions, which came after the first quarter of 2001 and the second recession after the third quarter of 2008. Jobs have recovered but it was 2013 before Oklahoma jobs reached their 2008 level.
Every county in Oklahoma voted for Trump. Since Trump promised jobs that might be one reason. While he has yet to follow through with any more than talk, the problem with Oklahoma jobs shows up in the most glaring fashion over the last four years from 2012 to 2016. Over those four years monthly establishment employment was up a grand total of 38 thousand jobs at a .58 percent growth rate. Downright pitiful.
Goods Production
Goods production includes mining and mining related jobs like oil drilling, construction and manufacturing. Mining had its largest employment in 2014 with 62.1 thousand jobs, but it was still less than 2 percent of statewide establishment employment. It dropped to 44 thousand in 2016. Construction added 7 thousand jobs from 2012 to 2016 while manufacturing employment dropped 7 thousand canceling the construction gains.
To be fair the decline in goods production employment over the last four years comes as part of a long term trend of more than two decades. Since 1990 goods production lost 4.3 percent of statewide employment; since 2000 it lost 2.5 percent. However the entire 2.5 percent loss came in the four years, 2012 to 2016.
The Service Industries with a net job loss from 2012 to 2016
Important parts of the Oklahoma service industry, representing slightly more than 30 percent of statewide employment, did poorly. Service industries did have a few more jobs, although a few services lost jobs over the four year period. The information services lost a thousand jobs. It has publishing including software and Internet publishing, broadcasting, telecommunications, data processing and a few more. The total of Oklahoma financial activities including banking, credit and real estate services added just one thousand jobs.
The combination of professional and business support services had a net increase of a 1 thousand jobs, an especially poor performance for a sector with just over 11 percent of statewide employment in 2012. Professional services has law firms, accounting firms, architecture and engineering firms, computer design and relation services, management and technical consulting services, advertising and related services, but these services added only 3 thousand jobs, which were offset by a loss of two thousand jobs in business support services. Professional services need people with college degree skills, but Oklahoma College graduates will have to leave Oklahoma to find these jobs.
The worst failure to create jobs comes with health care. Over the four year period 2012 to 2016 Oklahoma health care employment increased at an annual growth of .85 percent, when the national average over the same four years was 2.36 percent. Total health care job growth over the four years comes to just 7 thousand new jobs. Slightly less than half the jobs came in services that actually provide patient care: physicians services, outpatient care, hospital services, and nursing and nursing home care. The other half came in social assistance jobs mostly non-profit family services, community food and housing and emergency relief services.
If we combine the 15.1 percent of statewide employment in goods production jobs with the 31.5 percent of statewide jobs in information services, financial activities, business and professional services, private education and health care we have a combined loss of 7 thousand jobs for 46.6 percent of statewide employment.
The Service Industries with a net job gain from 2012 to 2016
The remaining 53.4 percent of statewide employment comes in wholesale and retail trade, leisure and hospitality, repair and maintenance services, personal services, non-profit associations, and government. Wholesale trade was up only a thousand jobs, but retail trade did well among services with 11 thousand new jobs. Transportation and warehousing added 5 thousand new jobs, but modal transportation did poorly: airlines lost a thousand jobs, trucking added only a thousand jobs.
Leisure and hospitality added 17 thousand jobs with 13.3 thousand of these jobs at full service and fast food restaurants. The highest annual growth rate in jobs for any Oklahoma industry over the four years came in full service restaurants: 2.63 percent, more than four times the statewide growth rate.
Repair and maintenance services, and personal services had no new jobs over the four years. Non-profit associations added a little over 4 thousand jobs and government had a net increase of 6.5 thousand jobs. It was a net increase because federal and state government jobs declined while local government employment was up almost 8 thousand job over the four years.
Reality Check
Oklahoma ranks 45th in statewide job growth over the four years 2012 to 2016. While the monthly average increase was only 38 thousand jobs, the two metropolitan areas, Oklahoma City and Tulsa, had 53 thousand new jobs over the four years. That means the rural areas that make up the balance of state employment lost 15 thousand jobs. All of the 7 thousand new health care jobs were in Oklahoma City and Tulsa, the net change in health care in the rural balance of state was zero.
The state legislature has apparently cut state income taxes along with corresponding cuts in services, especially education. Nothing assures Oklahoma residents will return their tax cut to the Oklahoma economy; the poor job performance suggests these funds left the state. The state legislature also had the opportunity to bring in federal dollars with Medicaid expansion offered during the Obama administration. Additional health care spending would create jobs and health services for state residents, especially the rural poor, but the legislature threw them away. Oil exploration creates less than 2 percent of statewide jobs for the environmental dangers it creates.
Just over 45 percent of new jobs over the last four years came in Leisure and hospitality and almost 80 percent of those jobs came in restaurant occupations such as cooks, waiters, waitresses, and combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food. The later occupation, food preparation and serving workers, has the highest employment of all restaurant and food preparation jobs in the state of Oklahoma, 34,520. That is up from 28,650 in 2012, which equals a 4.77 percent annual rate of growth compared to the .58 percent rate for statewide employment mentioned above. These jobs have a median wage in Oklahoma of $18,080 as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its Occupational Employment files. It is the lowest median wage of 710 occupations reported for the state of Oklahoma; dead last.
Enough said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
