America's managers prefer a little more inflation
American companies are hiring again and employment is rising at last. Even so, after the robust (and largely unexpected) job growth of the first half of the year, there are still fewer people working than there were four years ago. And the paths of productivity, corporate profits and inflation have all diverged from what most people had come to expect.
Constructing a story that ties together the slow recovery of employment with high productivity growth, strong corporate profits and the anomalous behaviour of inflation yields two important lessons. First, the productivity burst is likely to be temporary, with growth returning to recent trends soon. Second, the relationship between inflation and employment growth is too unpredictable to be useful.
To understand these conclusions, look back to March 2001, when the US economy began slowing. Three years after a business-cycle peak, employment is normally up a few per cent, productivity has grown by between 5 and 10 per cent and corporate profits have increased by 25 per cent. This time, employment is down but productivity is up nearly 15 per cent and profits have gone up by close to 70 per cent.
The behaviour of inflation has been unusual too. When there is economic slack, inflation generally falls. But despite apparently high unemployment, US inflation is on its way up.
What ties these facts together is the behaviour of corporate managers, whose decisions are often obscured by the statistics economists watch so intently.
The accounting scandals of the past few years posed a challenge. The smoke and mirrors were gone, yet investors still wanted to see earnings growth. The need to make real profits and not just be profitable on paper forced companies to cut costs. This explains the fact that during the 2001 recession, productivity growth exceeded the extraordinary trend rate of the previous four years. But cost-cutting cannot go on forever, so we can be fairly sure that this performance will not continue, but will return instead to the recent 2?per cent trend.
The need to improve measured profitability cannot fully explain why employment failed to recover. Why were managers refusing even to rehire the temporary workers they had let go? The answer is that there was virtually no appetite for business growth.
To see why, turn to the behaviour of inflation. Until recently, inflation in the US was low and falling. But when average prices are steady, it means some prices are rising while others are falling. And over the past few years it was largely the prices of housing and medical care that were going up, while other prices were either flat or falling.
The mid-1960s was the last sustained period when American inflation was below 2 per cent. Forty years ago even the oldest of today's chief executives was in college. None has any experience with stable average prices. Theirs is a world with inflation.
Managers are willing to enlarge their businesses when they can foresee growth in earnings. When prices are stable or falling, it is difficult to predict revenue increases, so companies refuse to invest and refuse to hire. While employment stops growing, the need to show increases in profits does not, so managers press their existing workers to become more productive.
All of this may sound strange coming from an economist. Economic theory, after all, tells us that rational people do not get confused by inflation. But theory does not always match facts.
The story explains why economic models are doing such a poor job of forecasting inflation. After the experience of the late 1990s, this is not big news. Remember, this was when people thought the productive capacity of the economy was being strained to the point where it would lead to more inflation. Instead, inflation fell.
This time, labour market slack is not driving inflation down. Instead, hiring has restarted only after inflation has picked up. Since they can raise prices again, managers are forecasting growing revenues so they are willing to bring on new workers. Over the next few months, we should see a steady increase in both employment and inflation.
The relationship between economic slack and inflation is subtle. For price stability to be the basis for sustained economic growth, corporate managers will have to become comfortable with a world in which prices are just as likely to go down as they are to go up. If educating them turns out to be too difficult, it may be better to live with at least some inflation.
The writer is professor of international economics and finance at Brandeis University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research
美国经理人喜欢再多一点通胀
美国企业又开始招聘了，就业人数终于开始上升。但即便有今年上半年的强劲(而多半出乎意料的)就业增长，今天的就业人数仍然少于4年之前。而劳动生产率、企业利润和通涨率的发展曲线，也都偏离了多数人的预期。
把就业的缓慢复苏与劳动生产率的高速增长联系起来，再把强劲的企业利润与表现反常的通涨联系起来，可以得出两个重要的结论。首先，劳动生产率的爆发性增长可能是暂时的，其增长率有望不久回归近年的趋势线。其次，通涨率和就业增长之间的关系太不可预测，难以提供任何用处。
要理解这些结论，不妨把参照点放到2001年3月美国经济到达周期顶峰，刚开始走下坡路之时。通常而言，在商业周期顶峰过后三年，就业人数会有个位数的百分比增长，同时劳动生产率会提高5%至10%，企业利润会增长25%。而这一次，就业人数不增反减，但劳动生产率提高了几乎15%，企业利润猛增了将近70%。
通涨率的表现也不同寻常。大凡经济呆滞的时候，通涨率通常下降。尽管目前美国有明显的高失业率，通涨率却正在攀升。
贯串这些事实的线索是企业经理的行为，他们的决策往往被经济学家们所密切关注的统计数字掩盖了。
近年来，美国公司的会计丑闻曾经构成一个挑战。如今假象虽已消逝，投资者们还是希望看到盈利增长。为了实现真正的盈利(而不只是纸面上的盈利)，企业不得不削减成本。这就解释了这样一个事实：在2001年经济衰退期间，劳动生产率的提高速度，超出了之前四年本来就不同凡响的增长趋势线。但成本削减不可能一直持续下去，因此我们可以相当肯定的是，此种表现不会持续下去，劳动生产率的年增长率将回归近年2.5%的趋势线。
提高帐面盈利能力的动机，并不能完全解释为什么就业迟迟未能复苏。为什么企业经理们连他们原先解雇的临时工也不愿重新聘用？答案是，企业界对业务增长几乎没有胃口。.
要理解这里的因缘，就需要关注通涨的表现。直到最近，美国的通涨一直很低，而且有下降趋势。平均价格保持稳定，意味着有些价格在上涨，而另一些价格在下跌。在美国，近年来价格上涨的主要是住房和医疗服务，而其余价格不是持平就是在下跌。
美国经济持续增长而通涨率不到2%的上一个时期是在20世纪60年代中叶。40年前，纵使今天年龄最大的首席执行官们也在读大学。在他们当中，没有人对稳定的平均价格有切身体验。他们长期置身于一个通货膨胀的世界。
在有望实现盈利增长的情况下，企业经理们才愿意扩大企业经营规模。当价格稳定或下跌时，很难预计营业收入会有增加，因此企业不愿投资，也不愿聘用员工。而在另一方面，招聘活动固然停止了，但展现利润增长的需要并没有消失，因此，企业经理们只能迫使现有的员工提高劳动生产率。
一位经济学家说这些话，可能听上去让人觉得别扭。毕竟，按照经典经济学理论的说法，理性的人是不会被通涨蒙蔽的。但理论并不总是符合实际。
这也解释了为什么各种经济模型在预报通涨方面如此失败。20世纪90年代过后，这已不是什么大新闻。记得人们认为当时的情况是，美国经济的产能利用率已经如此之高，将带来更多通货膨胀。事实上，通涨率不升反降。
这一次，劳动力市场的不景气状况没有压制通涨。相反，企业只是在通涨率重新抬头之后才开始聘用员工。通涨使企业经理们又能够抬高价格了，因此他们正预报营业收入增长，并开始招募新的员工。今后几个月内，我们应当能看到就业和通涨的稳步增长。
经济呆滞与通货膨胀之间的关系是微妙的。要在稳定的物价基础上实现可持续经济增长，企业经理们就必须适应价格既可能上升也可能下跌的现实世界。假如对他们进行再教育难度太大的话，或许还是容忍少许通涨为好。
本文作者是布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)国际经济和金融教授，也是美国国家经济研究局(National Bureau of Economic Research)研究员。
