It's the Exports, Stupid!
PRESIDENT BUSH AND SEN. KERRY, take note: Jobs and job security are still at center stage in the view of the public, despite the financial markets' recent worries about inflation. And the central focus for a Bush or Kerry macroeconomic employment policy should be jobs related to exports -- based on the sheer number of lost jobs in this area.
Consider a few statistics. According to a little-known analytical measure computed monthly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), export-sensitive jobs -- for example, those in industries such as communications equipment, agricultural chemicals, and shipping -- peaked in March 1998.
By the time President Clinton left office in January 2001, the economy had lost 278,000 export-sensitive jobs; from the time George W. Bush took office through March 2004, the economy shed 1.61 million export jobs. Clearly, the slide that started under the Clinton presidency escalated under the Bush administration. But it is truly a bipartisan problem.
Between March 2001, when total payroll employment hit its last cyclical peak, and March 2004 (the latest available data), that employment number contracted by 1.96 million jobs. But here's the incredible statistic: The export-sensitive job contraction accounted for 1.56 million of the jobs lost -- or 79.9% of the total U.S. employment decline in that period. Yet export-sensitive jobs account for only about 5% of total payroll employment. Obviously, they have a disproportionate impact on the total job-loss number.
Without a doubt, the U.S. export-job reduction since 1998 was due, in part, to the post-Y2K cutback in high-tech upgrading, and was reinforced by the 2001 recession and global economic ripple effects from the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To a lesser extent, the strong U.S. dollar also hurt the economy's efforts to stem the loss of export business.
The irony is that John Kerry may not understand this, and if George Bush understands it, he isn't addressing it. The reason for the sluggish job-market growth is not that domestic growth isn't strong enough. It's that world growth isn't yet strong enough. Between the end of the U.S. business-cycle recession in November 2001 and March 2004, U.S. payroll employment jobs shrank by 323,000. However, in that same span, export-sensitive employment contracted by nearly three times that amount, 903,000 (gains in nonexport industries failed to make up export-sensitive industry declines), and it remains the primary drag on the labor markets.
Today, the story is changing, although the export-employment situation still is very weak. In February and March 2004, export-sensitive employment posted small increases of 3,000 jobs each month. February's export-job upturn -- however slight -- was the first gain since October 2000. And the uptick in export employment in March brought the first back-to-back monthly increase since August 2000.
Moreover, there are some positive precursors of more sustained improvement for export jobs. In its latest global economic outlook, the International Monetary Fund revised upward its expectations for real economic growth worldwide by about half a percentage a year for 2004 and 2005, to 4.6% and 4.4%, respectively. That's important, since global demand is the key driver of the U.S. export business. But can U.S. economic policy reverse the loss of nearly two million export jobs? This remains to be seen.
President Bush recently nominated Albert Frink Jr. as assistant secretary of commerce and, according to the New York Times, charged him with "reversing the precipitous drop in manufacturing jobs over the last three years." Frink has his work cut out for him, given that manufacturing-sector employment has been in a secular decline since 1979. Here, too, the most recent drop has its origin in export business. Hence, Frink should target export business if he is to be at all successful.
Similarly, Sen. Kerry, who promised 10 million new jobs over the next four years if elected, would have to address export demand promptly.
The BLS data are only rough measures; they include all industries that had at least 25% of 2001 employment tied to exports (including manufactured goods and transportation services). But maybe economist John Maynard Keynes provided the right degree of caution on the use of such a measure when he opined that he "would rather be vaguely right than precisely wrong."
These BLS data tell an important -- although largely overlooked -- economic story. They can help focus employment policy by making clear why the U.S. labor markets are restrained. George Bush, John Kerry and the investment community should all make sure to keep a close eye on those data.
傻瓜，问题在于出口
布什(Bush)总统和凯利(Kerry)参议员，请记住：尽管金融市场最近出现了通货膨胀隐忧，但就业和工作安全感仍是公众关注的核心。布什或凯利宏观经济就业政策核心的核心应是出口领域的就业问题，该领域的数字十分惊人。
根据美国劳工统计局(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS)每月计算的分析数据，出口敏感型工作数量－－比如那些通讯设备、农业化学产品和运输业－－1998年3月达到了顶峰。
到克林顿(Clinton)总统2001年1月卸任时，美国经济中减少了278,000个出口敏感型工作；从布什就任到2004年3月，美国经济中减少了161万个出口敏感型工作。显然，这类工作的减少是从克林顿时期开始的，在布什就任期间加剧了。但这的确是一个两党问题。
在整个非农就业人数达到上一个周期的顶点时的2001年3月和2004年3月（最近的数据截至于此）期间，美国减少了196万个工作。但看看这个让人难以置信的统计数据：出口敏感型工作的减少了156万，占这一时期美国就业减少总量的79.9%。然而出口敏感型工作仅占整个非农就业人数的5%。很明显，他们对整体失业数字的影响是不合比例的。
毫无疑问，从1998年开始至今的美国的出口敏感型工作的减少部分原因是千年虫问题后高科技升级投入的减少，2001年经济衰退以及911恐怖袭击给全球经济造成的影响更加剧了这类工作的流失。从更小范围来说，美元强势也对遏制出口业务减少起到了副作用。
具有讽刺意味的是，约翰?凯利(John Kerry)可能没有明白这个道理，而即便乔治?布什(George Bush)明白了这个，他也没有提出要解决它。就业市场增长缓慢的原因并不是美国国内经济不够强劲。问题是世界经济增长还不够强劲。从2001年11月份美国商业周期衰退的末期到2004年3月，美国的非农就业人数减少了323,000。但在同一时期，美国的出口敏感型工作减少的数量是它的近三倍，达到了903,000个（非出口行业的就业增长未能弥补出口敏感型工作的减少），它依然还是拖累就业市场的主要因素。
今天，情况正在发生变化，尽管出口相关就业形势依然疲软。2004年2月和3月，出口敏感型工作每月稍微增长了3,000。2月份出口相关工作的增长虽然很少，但却是自2000年10月来的第一次增长。3月份出口相关工作的增长则为2000年8月以来首次的月度连续增长。
此外，一些积极的迹象显示出口相关工作形势将继续改善。国际货币基金组织(International Monetary Fund, IMF)在其最新的全球经济前景报告中，将2004年和2005年的全球经济实际增长的预期提高了半个百分点，分别为4.6%和4.4%。这很重要，因为全球需求乃是美国出口增长的主要动力。但美国经济政策是否能扭转将近两百万出口相关工作丧失的局面？这还有待观察。
据《纽约时报》(New York Times)报导，布什最近任命了阿尔伯特?富林克(Albert Frink Jr.)为商务部助理部长，让他负责"扭转过去三年制造业工作的大量流失。"富林克的工作将是艰巨的，因为制造业的就业从1979年开始就一直在减少。而最近制造业就业的减少也源于出口行业。因此，富林克如果想取得全面成功就应该将工作重点瞄准出口业。
同样，凯利也必须立即著手出口需求的问题。他承诺如果当选，他将在未来四年创造1,000万个新的工作机会。
BLS的数据只是粗率的衡量，他们的数据包括了2001年就业中至少有25%和出口有关的所有行业（包括成品和运输服务）。但也许经济学家约翰?凯恩斯(John Maynard Keynes)对这种统计测量方式提出的警告在一定程度上是正确的，他表示他"宁愿（数据）大致准确，也不愿肯定错误。"
BLS的这些数据说明了一个被很多人所忽视的重要经济事实。他们能帮助人们弄清楚为什么美国就业市场如此紧缩，从而确定就业政策的重点。乔治?布什、约翰?凯利以及投资界应该密切关注这些数据。
