Sunday, May 5, 2013

China Services PMI Slows to Marginal Rate of Growth

Fresh on the heels of a report that shows China Manufacturing PMI barely Above Contraction comes news the Chinese service sector is following suit.

The Markit China Composite PMI shows Activity growth eases across both the manufacturing and service sectors in April.
Key Points

  • Composite data signals slower activity and new business growth in April
  • Total employment falls for first time since last October
  • Both input prices and output charges decline at the composite level

HSBC China Composite PMI™ data (which covers both manufacturing and services) signalled an expansion of output for the eighth consecutive month in April. However, the HSBC China Composite Output Index signalled only a marginal rate of growth, posting at 51.1. This was down from 53.5 in March, suggesting that the rate of expansion was the weakest since last October.

Behind the weaker expansion of total output was a slower rate of new order growth in April. Both the manufacturing and service sector posted modest rates of expansion that were weaker than in March. Overall, new order growth at the composite level was the slowest in seven months.

Backlogs of work decreased at service providers, but rose at manufacturers in April. That said, the rates of change were marginal in both sectors. At the composite level, backlogs of work declined for the third month in a row, though only slightly. Employment levels decreased across both the manufacturing and service sectors in April.

Although the rates of job shedding were only marginal in both cases, it was nonetheless the first time service providers had cut their staff numbers since January 2009 and was the first reduction in manufacturing payroll numbers since last November. Consequently, employment at the composite level fell slightly in April.
Signs that the global economy has stalled, if not in outright recession (I believe the latter) continue to mount.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Interactive Map of Food Stamp Usage; What Can Be Done to Curtail Usage?

Food stamp usage, now called SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) has dramatically risen under the Obama administration, so much so that Newt Gingrich dubbed Obama the "food stamp president". One in 15 now receives assistance. Yet usage varies widely from county to county.

A nice interactive map by Slate addresses the question How Many People Around You Receive Food Stamps?
In some parts of the country, as few as 1 in 20 people receive food stamps. In others, the figure is more than 1 in 3. Low-income households that meet SNAP eligibility requirements receive a payment card that can only be used to buy government-approved essential foods.

Due to the high unemployment rate, the Obama administration has also waived a 1996 job requirement—a rule that made finding a job or enrolling in job training a prerequisite for receiving SNAP benefits—for 46 states. Republican leaders are trying to reinstate the requirement to counteract the program’s escalating cost.

Click on the above link to see an interactive map by zipcode or county. I entered a few zipcodes to see the results

  • Vermilion County Illinois - My hometown of Danville, - 21%
  • Cook County Illinois - Chicago - 16%
  • Alexander County Illinois - East St. Louis - 34%
  • Wayne County Michigan - Detroit - 28%
  • Los Angeles County California - 9%
  • Tulare County California - 22%
 
What Can Be Done?

Some Republicans want to reinstate the rule that made finding a job or enrolling in job training a prerequisite for receiving SNAP benefits. That may unduly punsih kids on the program.

I suggest something more beneficial and more healthy as well. Sharply curtail what can be purchased under the program:

  • No soft drinks
  • No snacks
  • No crackers
  • No cakes or cookies 
  • No cake or cookie mixes
  • No frozen foods other than frozen orange juice
  • No candy
  • Limited amount of meat
  • No brand names of anything where store brands are available

For the sake of cleanliness, I would expand the program to allow purchase of generic soaps and cleaners.

The idea is to give people a strong incentive to get off the system, not punish those who cannot, and not punish children whose parents refuse to take the initiative.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Saturday, May 4, 2013

California’s State/Local Governments Confront $1.0 Trillion in Debt; Two Classes of Workers and the Result is Debt

This is a guest post by Ed Ring editor of Union Watch, a project of the California Public Policy Center.

California’s State/Local Governments Confront $1.0 Trillion in Debt

A study released earlier today by the California Public Policy Center entitled “Calculating California’s Total State and Local Government Debt” has estimated that state and local government debt is somewhere between $848 billion and $1.12 trillion. This is the first attempt we’ve ever seen by anyone to provide an estimate.

Small wonder. If Californians understood that their local city councils, school districts, redevelopment agencies, special districts, county supervisors, and state legislators had managed to put them on the hook for over $80,000 of debt per household, they might vote down the next new taxation or bond measure that appears on the ballot. Imagine how much debt this equates to per taxpaying household.

Quoting from the study’s summary, here are the categories of government debt confronting Californians:

When, along with the $27.8 billion “Wall of Debt,” long-term debt incurred by California’s state, county, and city governments, along with school districts, redevelopment agencies and special districts are totaled, the outstanding balance is $383.0 billion. The officially recognized unfunded liability for California’s public employee retirement benefits – pensions and retirement health care – adds another $265.1 billion. Applying a potentially more realistic 5.5% discount rate to calculate the unfunded pension liability adds an additional $200.3 billion. All of these outstanding debts combined total $848.4 billion. By extrapolating from available data that is either outdated or incomplete, and using a 4.5% discount rate to calculate the unfunded pension liability, the estimated total debt soars to over $1.1 trillion.

According to a Wall Street Journal editorial from April 29th, 2013 entitled “Debt and Growth,” former White House economist Larry Summers is suggesting that “the U.S. should borrow even more money today because interest rates are low.” Summers is not alone. But hasn’t America heard this song already, and quite recently? What happened to all those homeowners who borrowed money because the payments were low, then suddenly realized they owed more money than they could ever hope to pay back?

There is cruel hypocrisy at work here. Low interest rates mean people saving for retirement cannot hope to amass a nest egg big enough to earn a risk-free return sufficient to live on. Yet the government worker pension funds engage in massive risk in a desperate attempt to earn 7.5% per year, so government workers can enjoy pensions that a private sector worker would have to save millions to match. If they fail to get that 7.5%, taxpayers make up the difference.
Hypocrisy abounds. Unions representing public educators train their members to teach their students that capitalism is the problem, that “corporate greed” is why their parents struggle to make ends meet. Yet without corporate profits, the pension funds – whose 7.5% per year annual earnings guarantee them an early retirement with an income that dwarfs what private workers get from social security – would implode.

As shown in the CPPC study, for every 1.0% the projected rates of return for the pension funds drop, the debt confronting Californians increases by $100 billion. The “official” estimate for this shortfall, acknowledged by the state controller, is $128 billion. If you drop that projected rate to 5.5%, add another $200 billion to the unfunded liability. Do you think that’s still too high? If those pension funds only earn 4.5%, add another $126 billion to the unfunded liability for pensions.
And why shouldn’t pension funds only earn 4.5% in today’s debt saturated, aging society, where 30 year treasury bills are offering a paltry 2.8%, and a 30 year fixed rate mortgage is down to 3.25%? With all this nearly free money around – courtesy of our government who spends far to much to borrow at any decent rate of interest – where on earth will CalPERS and the other pension funds invest their money with the expectation of getting 7.5% per year?

It’s important to emphasize that the CPPC study employed transparent logic, documenting all their assumptions. Just using the official numbers, California’s state and local governments still owe $648 billion, and of that amount, $265 billion or 41%, represents the officially recognized unfunded liability for government retiree health care and pensions.  Another $8.0 billion on top of that is for pension obligation bonds – and most of the data available is nearly two years old. By now, how many more of those have been issued by our financially crippled cities and counties? And how much more of the rest of this borrowing – that other $373 billion in bonds for myriad projects administered by countless government agencies – went to cover personnel costs, or pay “prevailing wages.”

California State/Local Government Debt – The Low Estimate:

As noted in the CPPC study, there is a case to be made for “good debt.” This is government investment in infrastructure such as roads, bridges, water treatment plants, aqueducts, ports, or to fund research into medicine, energy, agriculture, and other scientific endeavors. Government borrowing for infrastructure and scientific research  provides a return to taxpayers in the form of new amenities – ideally amenities that will lower the cost of living and improve the quality of life.
But you don’t have to be a raging libertarian purist to criticize the borrowing that has stuck California’s taxpayers on the hook for a cool trillion dollars.

Because well more than half of the money owed has nothing to do with infrastructure, or research, or anything else that might pay dividends to society at large. Most of the money owed by California’s state and local government agencies is to pay unionized government workers rates of compensation that most private sector workers can only dream about. 

If you accept the CPPC study’s higher estimate, $1.12 trillion, $663 trillion is explicitly for public employee benefits, and countless additional billions in bond proceeds undoubtedly went to pay personnel costs.

As noted in last week’s editorial, “What If Every Worker Made What City of Irvine Workers Make?” if every worker and retiree in California enjoyed the total compensation packages enjoyed by a typical worker employed by the City of Irvine, it would be necessary to double California’s gross domestic product in order for enough money to exist to pay them. In other words, it’s impossible. But if you can’t afford something, borrow.

California State/Local Government Debt – The High Estimate:

The primary reason California’s state and local governments are inundated with debt is because there are two classes of workers in California – government workers and workers representing government contractors and public utilities, and the rest of us.

These unionized government workers can support an oppressive regulatory scheme, stifling development of land and energy, because they can afford to pay the artificially elevated prices, and higher taxes, that result from these policies.

There is a way out. As explored in our editorials “Bi-Partisan Solutions for California,” and “The Prosperity Agenda,” there is abundant land in California, and abundant energy resources. California should have the most affordable housing and the cheapest electricity in the U.S., instead of the most expensive. Public policies designed to encourage land development and energy development would decisively lower the cost to live in California, which would make public employee compensation reform a palatable option, even to those affected by it.

UnionWatch is edited by Ed Ring, who can be reached at editor@unionwatch.org

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Shinzo Abe Seeks Constitutional Changes for a More Militaristic, Authoritarian Japanese Society

Japan's prime minister Shinzo Abe has already taken steps to ruin the Yen, now he seeks constitution changes to suppress freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and to remake Japan into a more militaristic, authoritarian, society.

Please consider Japan PM's 'stealth' constitution plan raises civil rights fears
Shinzo Abe makes no secret of wanting to revise Japan's constitution, which was drafted by the United States after World War Two, to formalize the country's right to have a military - but critics say his plans go deeper and could return Japan to its socially conservative, authoritarian past.

Now he is seeking to lower the hurdle for revising the constitution as a prelude to an historic change to its pacifist Article 9 - which, if strictly read, bans any military. That would be a symbolic shift, loosening restrictions on the military's overseas activities, but would have limited impact on defense as the clause has already been stretched to allow Tokyo to build up armed forces that are now bigger than Britain's.

Sweeping changes proposed by Abe's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in a draft constitution would strike at the heart of the charter with an assault on basic civil rights that could muzzle the media, undermine gender equality and generally open the door to an authoritarian state, activists and scholars say.

"What I find strange is that although the prime minister is not that old, he is trying to revive the mores of his grandfather's era," said Ryo Motoo, the octogenarian head of the Women's Article 9 Association, a group devoted to protecting the constitution.

"I fear this might lead to a society full of restrictions, one that does not recognize diversity of opinions and puts restraints on the freedom of speech as in the past."

The LDP draft, approved by the party last year, would negate the basic concept of universal human rights, which Japanese conservatives argue is a Western notion ill-suited to Japan's traditional culture and values, constitutional scholars say.

With Abe's popularity high and the main opposition splintered, the LDP and smaller pro-revision parties appear to have a shot at winning a two-thirds majority in an upper house election in July. They already hold two-thirds of the lower house.
Sure to Rile China, Korea

These moves are sure to rile China and Korea. It also seems strange how quickly proponents of these changes forgot the lessons of World War II.

Tensions are already high over a disputed island chain in the East China Sea. Japan calls the chain Senkaku Islands, China refers to them as the Diaoyu islands.



The islands are nothing but uninhabited rocks in the middle of the sea, but energy resources surround the islands. With both China and Japan short on energy resources, the dispute is not insignificant.

Might war erupt if Japan makes the proposed constitutional changes and adds more to its military? I offer no timeframe, but it seems like destiny to me.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Friday, May 3, 2013

Obamacare Affects Part-Time Employment Yet Again; Nullification Bill Passes South Carolina House; Analysis of Healthcare Penalty Rates

Obamacare and Part-Time Jobs Yet Again

At a business level, the penalty for not offering a qualified healthcare plan is $2,000 per person, for companies that have more than 30 full-time employees. 

As I have discussed before, Obamacare is behind the surge in part-time employment as corporations have been cutting hours worked and hiring more part-time workers to make up the difference.

Part-time employment rose this month by a whopping 441,000 as private average weekly hours fell 0.2 to 34.4 hours and average weekly earnings fell from $824.52 to $821.13 due to fewer hours worked.

For details see Jobs +165,000, Part-Time Employment +441,000; Unemployment Rate 7.5%; Dow Tops 15,000

Nullification Bill Passes South Carolina House

A constitutional showdown may be coming up as South Carolina House passes bill making ‘Obamacare’ implementation a crime.
The South Carolina state House passed a bill Wednesday that declares President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be “null and void,” and criminalizes its implementation.

The state’s Freedom of Health Care Protection Act intends to “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.”

The measure permits the state Attorney General, with reasonable cause, “to restrain by temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction” any person who is believed to be causing harm to any person or business with the implementation of Obamacare.

Earlier this year in her state of the state address, Gov. Nikki Haley said that South Carolina does not want and cannot afford the president’s plan, “not now, not ever.”

“To that end, we will not pursue the type of government-run health exchanges being forced on us by Washington,” she said. “Despite the rose-colored rhetoric coming out of D.C., these exchanges are nothing more than a way to make the state do the federal government’s bidding in spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on insurance subsidies that we can’t afford.”
IRS the Enforcer

The court ruled Obamacare a tax because the IRS collects the penalty if people opt out of the system. The penalty will come on Federal income tax returns. Still, it will be curious to see precisely how this would be handled.

Analysis of Penalty Rates

Aside from South Carolina, who will opt out of the system, and what happens then? The answer involves a comparison of various penalty rates.

At an individual level, Fact Check notes the minimum penalty for not having insurance in 2014 is a mere $95. Government will probably waste far more than that attempting to figure out who has insurance and who doesn't.

For 2014 anyway, regardless of what South Carolina does or does not do, low income people will likely opt out across the board if their employer does not provide insurance.

The minimum penalty for 2015 will be $325 and for 2016 and beyond, $695 indexed per inflation.

Fact Check notes the tax is higher for higher incomes "But the penalty can never exceed the cost of the national average premiums for the lowest-cost bronze plans being offered through the new insurance exchanges called for under the law."

For a couple making $100,000, income thresholds might mean a combined penalty of about $2,000 compared to insurance costs of roughly $10,000 for family coverage based on models for state exchanges.

At upper income levels, healthy people may compare the cost of insurance with higher penalties and make the decision to opt out.

Here is an interesting point: "The law prohibits the IRS from seeking to put anybody in jail or seizing their property for simple refusal to pay the tax. The law says specifically that taxpayers “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty” for failure to pay, and also that the IRS cannot file a tax lien (a legal claim against such things as homes, cars, wages and bank accounts) or a “levy” (seizure of property or bank accounts)."

In addition to encouraging more part-time work, the law as written is begging for noncompliance regardless of what states like South Carolina do.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Jobs +165,000, Part-Time Employment +441,000; Unemployment Rate 7.5%; Dow Tops 15,000

Initial Reaction

The establishment survey showed a gain of 165,000 a reasonably good but not spectacular print. In contrast, the household survey showed a huge gain of 293,000 jobs.

Once again we see a huge surge in involuntary part-time employment of 278,000. Voluntary part-time employment rose by another 163,000.

Voluntary plus involuntary part-time employment rose by a whopping 441,000 jobs. Take away part-time jobs and there is not all that much to brag about. Indeed, full-time employment fell once again, this month by 148,000. 

The civilian labor force rose by 210,000 for a change, thus the actual number of unemployed only fell by 83,000 (293,000 - 210,000), enough to lower the unemployment rate 0.1 percentage points to 7.5%.

The Participation Rate was flat at 63.3%, a low dating back to 1979.

Duration of unemployment numbers showed a statistical anomaly this month. Unemployment in the 27 weeks or over category reportedly fell by 258,000 while unemployment for 15-26 weeks rose by 230,000. Color me very skeptical of these numbers.

The stock market was giddy over jobs, with the Dow topping 15,000 for the first time. Then again the stock market has generally been giddy over any news, good bad or indifferent.

April BLS Jobs Report at a Glance

  • Payrolls +165,000 - Establishment Survey
  • US Employment +293,000 - Household Survey
  • US Unemployment -83,000 - Household Survey
  • Involuntary Part-Time Work +278,000 - Household Survey;
  • Voluntary Part-Time Work +163,000 - Household Survey
  • Baseline Unemployment Rate -0.1 - Household Survey
  • U-6 unemployment +0.1 to 13.9% - Household Survey
  • The Civilian Labor Force +210,000 - Household Survey
  • Not in Labor Force -31,000 - Household Survey
  • Participation Rate +0.0 at 63.3 - Household Survey


Recall that the unemployment rate varies in accordance with the Household Survey not the reported headline jobs number, and not in accordance with the weekly claims data.

Quick Notes About the Unemployment Rate

  • In the last year, those "not" in the labor force rose by 1,604,000
  • Over the course of the last year, the number of people employed rose by 1,645,000
  • In the last year the number of unemployed fell from 12,686,000 to 11,742,000 (a drop of 859,000)
  • Long-Term unemployment (27 weeks and over) was 4,353,000 - a decline of 687,000 from a year ago
  • Percentage of long-term unemployment is 37.4%. Once someone loses a job it is still very difficult to find another.
  • 7,916,000 workers who are working part-time but want full-time work. A year ago there were 7,694,000. There has been no improvement in a year. This is a volatile series.


April 2013 Jobs Report

Please consider the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) April 2013 Employment Report.

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 165,000 in April, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 7.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, food services and drinking places, retail trade, and health care.

Click on Any Chart in this Report to See a Sharper Image

Unemployment Rate - Seasonally Adjusted



Month to Month Changes



click on chart for sharper image

Hours and Wages

Private average weekly hours fell 0.2 to 34.4 hours. Average hourly earnings rose $0.04 to $23.87. Average weekly earnings fell from $824.52 to $821.13 due to fewer hours worked.

Real wages have been declining. Add in increases in state taxes and the average Joe has been hammered pretty badly. For 2013, one needs to factor in the increase in payroll taxes for Social Security.

For further discussion of income distribution, please see What's "Really" Behind Gross Inequalities In Income Distribution?

BLS Birth-Death Model Black Box

The BLS Birth/Death Model is an estimation by the BLS as to how many jobs the economy created that were not picked up in the payroll survey.

The Birth-Death numbers are not seasonally adjusted, while the reported headline number is. In the black box the BLS combines the two, coming up with a total.

The Birth Death number influences the overall totals, but the math is not as simple as it appears. Moreover, the effect is nowhere near as big as it might logically appear at first glance.

Do not add or subtract the Birth-Death numbers from the reported headline totals. It does not work that way.

Birth/Death assumptions are supposedly made according to estimates of where the BLS thinks we are in the economic cycle. Theory is one thing. Practice is clearly another as noted by numerous recent revisions.

Birth Death Model Adjustments For 2012



Birth Death Model Adjustments For 2013



Birth-Death Notes

Once again: Do NOT subtract the Birth-Death number from the reported headline number. That approach is statistically invalid.

In general, analysts attribute much more to birth-death numbers than they should. Except at economic turns, BLS Birth/Death errors are reasonably small.

For a discussion of how little birth-death numbers affect actual monthly reporting, please see BLS Birth/Death Model Yet Again.

Household Survey Data



Decline in Labor Force Factors

  1. Discouraged workers stop looking for jobs
  2. People retire because they cannot find jobs
  3. People go back to school hoping it will improve their chances of getting a job
  4. People stay in school longer because they cannot find a job

Were it not for people dropping out of the labor force, the unemployment rate would be well over 10%. In addition, there are 7,916,000 workers who are working part-time but want full-time work. A year ago there were 7,694,000. There has been no improvement in a year. This is a volatile series.

Table 15 BLS Alternate Measures of Unemployment



click on chart for sharper image

Table A-15 is where one can find a better approximation of what the unemployment rate really is.

Notice I said "better" approximation not to be confused with "good" approximation.

The official unemployment rate is 7.5%. However, if you start counting all the people who want a job but gave up, all the people with part-time jobs that want a full-time job, all the people who dropped off the unemployment rolls because their unemployment benefits ran out, etc., you get a closer picture of what the unemployment rate is. That number is in the last row labeled U-6.

U-6 is much higher at 13.9%. Both numbers would be way higher still, were it not for millions dropping out of the labor force over the past few years.

Grossly Distorted Statistics

Given the complete distortions of reality with respect to not counting people who allegedly dropped out of the work force, it is easy to misrepresent the headline numbers.

Digging under the surface, much of the drop in the unemployment rate over the past two years is nothing but a statistical mirage. Things are improving, yet remain much worse than the reported numbers indicate.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Year of the Yuan?

Last month I received a lot of emails from readers regarding articles on a new currency relationship between Australia and China allowing direct convertibility of Australian dollars into Yuan.
In what may mark the beginning of a historic shift, Australia appears ready to bypass the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency and allow for the direct convertibility of the Australian dollar into the Chinese yuan.

“Reserve currency” is the term used to describe a currency that many governments hold significant amounts of in foreign exchange reserves.

By directly converting its currency into Chinese currency, Australia’s businesses will be able to cut costs and the inconvenience of changing foreign-currency earnings into dollars, thereby encouraging and accelerating even more business with China.
Year of the Yuan?

Two days ago RT had a similar story Year of the yuan: China's explosive currency goes global.
The Reserve Bank of Australia announced in April it will transfer 5 percent of its foreign currency reserves ($2.1 billion) into Chinese bonds, deepening ties with its Pacific neighbor and biggest trade partner, and reflecting a global shift to the yuan.

The move is an “important milestone in deepening our financial and economic linkages with China,” Australia’s Treasurer Wayne Swan said in an emailed statement to Bloomberg.

China and Australia are major trading partners, so an investment in Chinese currency reserves will benefit transactions between the two countries. Now, they can conduct business transactions directly from yuan to Australian dollar, cutting out the middle man, the US dollar or euro.

Significant Move?

Is this a significant announcement? No, not really. For starters, China's forex currency reserves are worth about $3.4 trillion. Are we are supposed to believe another $1-2 billion is significant?

End of US "Free Lunch"?

Is this the end of the US reserve currency free lunch? No, not really. People do not understand the reserve currency is more of a curse than a blessing. The US would love nothing more than China and Japan to stop buying treasuries. If they did, the Yuan and Yen would rise, and that is precisely what the Fed and Congress wants.

Function of Math

Third, and as I have explained on numerous occasions, currency reserves and trade patterns are a function of math.

For example, the US runs a trade deficit and Japan and China accumulate US dollar assets (typically US treasuries) as a result.

Australia Balance of Trade

Consider this balance of trade chart for Australia.

Australia Balance on Merchandise Trade with the United States Chart


In spite of a commodities slowdown (see Australia Manufacturing Collapses as Commodity Supercycle Stalls), Australia has an increasing trade surplus with China.

It is only logical for Australia to want to conduct business in Yuan and hold extra reserves in Yuan.

Australia is dumping US dollars. And everyone one else will too. So the story goes.

Really? No not really. These stories are hype from hyperinflationists and US dollar bears who do not understand simple trade math. Yet they get repeated over, and over, and over, and every time I receive a number of emails on it.

Will more trade be conducted in additional currencies? Yes, that is happening. Is this the beginning of end of the US dollar as world's reserve currency? Not a chance.

The Yuan is not convertible, China does not have huge highly liquid bond markets, the US has the largest economy on the planet, and no other country wants the curse that comes with having the world's reserve currency.

For further discussion, please see ...


Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com