Squaring the circle, packing your bags

In Britain, there are 28.89 million employed - 72.5% of the "people of working age"; median earnings approach £25,000.

In China, the average urban wage in 2006 was 1750 yuan per month, or (at today's exchange rate) slightly less than £2,000 per year.

_______

In Britain, there are 3 million homes where no-one works, with an average household benefit payment level of over £4,000 p.a. This doesn't factor in the cost of other benefits provided by the State, such as health and education. For example, State schooling costs something like £6,000 yearly per child.

In China, the official urban unemployment rate at the end of 2008 was 4.2%, or nearly 9 million people. This statistic does not include unemployed not eligible for benefits, or migrant workers - about 20 million out of 130 million migrants have no job. In industrialized Guangdong Province, for those who qualify, unemployment benefit for the first 24 months is 688 yuan per month, or £757 per year.

_____________

In Britain, the 27.5% of the "people of working age" that might be employed but are not, number approximately 10.96 million.

In China, estimates Eric Janszen of iTulip, there are 20 million officially unemployed and the real tally should be 40 - 50 million.

_______________

China has over 1 billion people and is desperate for land, and natural resources such as wood, water and arable soil. Despite restrictions on family size, her population continues to increase, largely because her people are getting to live longer (and will one day incur the high additional costs of growing old). She has industrialized at high speed and has built a massive skill base. She is continuing to acquire technological and scientific know-how, and is sucking in the world's steel and a panoply of key African and Australian minerals and rare earths. She sits on vast reserves of coal. The ruling Communist elite have not spent a long lifetime climbing the exceptionally dangerous slippery pole in their country, to see their beloved nation sink into chaos and their equalitarian beliefs defeated.

You are a British (or American) politician. You know all the above - or your handlers will tell you just before you go on "Question Time" or some other grill-the-pol show. (1) What will you say to your voters? (2) What private plans will you make for yourself, your family and your friends?

The world is flat - or is it? Is Leamer right about Friedman?

Thomas Friedman's book, "The World Is Flat" is a best-seller - Wikipedia summary here. Friedman's related website is here - I think the photograph of the author is interesting, for those who like to read faces.

Last year, Edward Leamer reviewed Friedman somewhat snippily here. Gosh, I wish people could be more succinct. As Byron wrote of Coleridge, "I wish he would explain his explanation". Still, I guess Leamer has to fly the flag for critical scholarship.

The issue is important: does globalization threaten America's standard of living? Free traders say no. But have a look at Figure 6 on page 33 of Leamer, showing global income distribution in 1980, when US per capita GDP was 4 times the world average. That's quite some inequality, and if they were two very different levels of water in the same canal, opening the lock between them would see wealth gush from A to B.

So as barriers to trade are coming down, why hasn't this happened? Leamer says (p.34), "Much of the difference in GDP per capita among countries comes from the greater amounts of physical and human capital in the West, which advantages aren’t going to go away any time soon."

I'm not so sanguine. As regards human capital, I think the East is very keen indeed to increase its investment in education and training, and isn't hampered by notions of equality of outcome for its students. As to industrial capital, we are watching a vast sucking-in of resources, right down to our iron manhole covers, by China and other emerging economies; but also (particularly in China) we see a rapid and determined acquisition of slowly-accrued Western intellectual capital.

I think the catch-up process would be even faster in China if their industries observed patent and copyright more scrupulously, so they weren't almost wiping out each other's profit margins in their domestic market; and financial capital will accumulate far more rapidly when Chinese manufacturers get to keep more of the foreign buyer's price, instead of losing most of the profit to shippers, distributors, marketers and advertisers. If I were Chinese, I'd be looking at those areas for the training of my bright young people; and I bet they are.

Figure 7 on page 35 compares global income distribution in 1980 and 2000. The rich have done fine, the middle earners have made almost no progress, the poor are gradually rising. But when you think about it, maybe the middle is progressing: Western industrial workers are losing their jobs and looking for work in less well-paid service industries, while new industrial jobs are being created abroad. James Kynge ("China Shakes The World") says he sees heavy industry taking over on the Chinese coast, and labour-intensive light industry being forced inland. The move from low-skilled to higher-skilled labour in China is certainly a progression, matched by downward movement in the West. I wonder what the higher end of the graph will look like in another 20 years, when the Chinese have their own armies of industrial tycoons, company VPs, economics professors, investment analysts and marketing experts? I bet they're quite content to watch their coolie-work go to even poorer countries, as long as it doesn't happen too soon in the game.

Leamer admits (p.46): "The real bottom line: we do not know the breadth and intensity of global contestability of US jobs, and until we do, we will not have a real handle on the impact of global competition on the US workforce."

Why is he relaxed? See page 48:

"Finally, I want to comment on what I think is the big issue. It isn’t globalization or a flat world; it’s technology and the post- industrial labor markets.

The US is in the midst of a radical transformation from industrial to post-industrial society. Some of this transition is associated with the movement of mundane manufacturing jobs to low-wage foreign locations, but much of it comes from the dramatic changes in technology in the intellectual services sectors. The policy response to the globalization force is pretty straightforward: we need to make the educational and infrastructure investments that are needed to keep the high-paying non-contestable creative jobs here at home and let the rest of the world knock themselves silly competing for the footloose mundane contestable jobs."

Well, I don't think the rest of the world is quite as silly as that. I don't think Western education systems are geared to excellence, as once they were; so for that reason, as well as IPR enforcement issues, I don't think we can bank on using our intellectual property to sustain our global income differential. I don't think multinational businesses have, or feel they can afford, nationalistic sentiment. And whenever I read statements that start "we need to do x", I get the feeling that x isn't going to happen. Individuals will still make their stellar way, but I can't envision the West as a whole reclining in comfort in a "post-industrial" society.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Buffett on trade imbalances

Warren Buffett's 28 February 2007 letter to shareholders is available online, and makes educational and entertaining reading. Here's a pithy extract:

As our U.S. trade problems worsen, the probability that the dollar will weaken over time continues to be high. I fervently believe in real trade – the more the better for both us and the world. We had about $1.44 trillion of this honest-to-God trade in 2006. But the U.S. also had $.76 trillion of pseudo-trade last year – imports for which we exchanged no goods or services. (Ponder, for a moment, how commentators would describe the situation if our imports were $.76 trillion – a full 6% of GDP – and we had no exports.) Making these purchases that weren’t reciprocated by sales, the U.S. necessarily transferred ownership of its assets or IOUs to the rest of the world. Like a very wealthy but self-indulgent family, we peeled off a bit of what we owned in order to consume more than we produced.

The U.S. can do a lot of this because we are an extraordinarily rich country that has behaved responsibly in the past. The world is therefore willing to accept our bonds, real estate, stocks and businesses. And we have a vast store of these to hand over.

These transfers will have consequences, however. Already the prediction I made last year about one fall-out from our spending binge has come true: The “investment income” account of our country – positive in every previous year since 1915 – turned negative in 2006. Foreigners now earn more on their U.S. investments than we do on our investments abroad. In effect, we’ve used up our bank account and turned to our credit card. And, like everyone who gets in hock, the U.S. will now experience “reverse compounding” as we pay ever-increasing amounts of interest on interest.

I want to emphasize that even though our course is unwise, Americans will live better ten or twenty years from now than they do today. Per-capita wealth will increase. But our citizens will also be forced every year to ship a significant portion of their current production abroad merely to service the cost of our huge debtor position. It won’t be pleasant to work part of each day to pay for the over-consumption of your ancestors. I believe that at some point in the future U.S. workers and voters will find this annual “tribute” so onerous that there will be a severe political backlash. How that will play out in markets is impossible to predict – but to expect a “soft landing” seems like wishful thinking.

It's reassuring that Buffett thinks per-capita wealth will increase; this is an antidote to the most extreme doomsters. But it begs the question of how equitably that wealth will be distributed. The transfer abroad of industrial jobs leaves most of their former holders in less well-paid employment, while boosting the profits of large multinational companies (such as Wal-Mart, in which Berkshire Hathaway has close to a billion-dollar stake). From James Kynge's China book, it seems that the gap between America's rich and poor is widening, and the middle class is shrinking. Save and invest while you can.

Buffett is also enlightening on the future of newspapers in the electronic age, and the occasional bargains to be had in insurance. His firm has made money out of carefully-considered reinsurance (including for Lloyds of London) and derivatives. Berkshire Hathaway has gradually moved from being a "growth" to a "value" business, delivering returns increasingly from income earned, and insurance business helps. BH has made a profit from "super-cat" insurance in the past year, but Buffett warns that Hurricane Katrina wasn't the last nor the worst possible.

Note also the warning in the extract about the dollar. Recent falls aren't the end of the necessary decline - see to the Levy report referred to in my previous post.

Marc Faber: consumer spending to decrease

Seeking Alpha's Sunday review of fund manager stock suggestions reveals that Marc Faber expects consumer discretionary spending to decrease:

"He calls for a 10% correction by year-end, with emerging markets down 20%."

That may reduce the monthly trade deficit for a while, but won't turn it into a surplus. China's ultra-low wage costs, combined with what seems to be very loose enforcement of intellectual property rights, are still set to hollow out Western industrial production of all kinds, as James Kynge's book makes abundantly and frighteningly clear.

It's all very well finding ways for individual investors to benefit, but if you haven't got spare money to invest, you can't back the winner in this unequal contest. Without some degree of prosperity, what real peace will our countries have? I'd like to see a credible national economic plan from our politicians.

US immigration and the poor (continued)

Altough immigration can keep down the living standards of poorer workers, it's not possible to undo what has happened so far, as this source reports:

President Bush defended the bill as a comprehensive approach that will fix what most Americans believe is a broken immigration system through which millions of illegal immigrants have entered the United States.

"If anybody advocates trying to dig out 12 million people who have been in our society for a while, you know, it's sending a signal to the American people that's just not real," Mr Bush said.

US poor getting poorer

Following my earlier comments on Alan Greenspan's enthusiasm for immigration, yesterday's Daily Reckoning gives Martin Hutchinson's view:

"The immigration bill brought forward and apparently likely to pass demonstrates an unattractive new political trend in the United States: the end of the classless society for which the U.S. has been famous [...] the rich really are getting richer in the US...the poor really are getting poorer [...]

The economic effect of large amounts of unskilled immigrant labour is very clear: it drives wage rates down to rock bottom levels [...] for the lower classes, it is hell...Instead of the well-paid factory jobs their fathers had, making physical products in which they could take pride, they are now reduced to competing with infinite numbers of illegal immigrants for personal service, retail and construction jobs that have not been mechanised or out-sourced.

Theoretically, they could get more education and turn themselves into brain surgeons or computer-aided designers; in practice, these possibilities merely make them mourn that they hadn't paid more attention in math class. Thus the social gulf grows ever wider."

Quick fix or cold turkey?

Alan Greenspan seems to think relaxing rules on immigration will help America. I think this is short-sighted.

If it's about keeping down wage costs, remember that low-paid workers also claim on a range of social benefits, and the people they are undercutting even more so. The last thing a country needs is a hereditary class of long-term unemployed.

If it's about skill shortages, highly-skilled foreign workers are getting harder to find: as emerging economies develop, they want the same people. My brother in America notes that over the years, his university has attracted fewer foreign mathematicians for this reason.

The quick-fix approach is not a lasting solution. Like the UK, America needs to improve education and vocational training. If times get tough and foreign workers go home, the USA's dependence on them could result in economic "cold turkey".

What is Alan Greenspan doing?

Recently, ex-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has been sounding warnings about the US economy and is now aware that his back-seat driver comments may affect the market (see end of this article). It must be irritating for Ben Bernanke to deal with a boat-rocker whom some blame for creating the problems that Ben now faces.

And what is Mr Greenspan now doing? One of his new roles is as an adviser to investment managers PIMCO - see here for their latest US report. The style of the report is an uncomfortable combination of stuffy and jazzy, but the substance is interesting. Here's a few extracted phrases:

Currently there's a "virtuous circle favoring capital at the expense of labor", which only "a global financial bubble popping of sorts, an accelerated decline of U.S. housing in the short run, or a U.S.-led trade policy reversal that could precipitate counter-attacks from Asian exporters" could stop;

there are "inflationary pressures" in the US and an "asset bubble";
if a housing slump hits the American consumer economy, "anti-trade [i.e. protectionist] legislation may or may not become a reality";

"The emphasis on emerging market currencies rather obviously suggests relative weakness of the U.S. dollar. We continue to believe that U.S. growth will descend towards the lower quartile of countries within a broad global composite. Such U.S. growth, despite relatively favorable demographic labor force trends spiked by immigration, will suffer due to reduced U.S. consumption and the need for higher savings. Even in the face of resistance by Chinese authorities vis-à-vis the Yuan and the Japanese via artificially low interest rates, this lower growth speaks to a weaker dollar and lower relative asset price appreciation in comparison to the rest of the world. PIMCO portfolios will therefore likely feature increasing international diversification in foreign currency terms.";

PIMCO thinks that "sustainable global growth with perhaps an early cyclical slowdown appears to be the likeliest outcome. Those who “own” this growth as opposed to those who lend to it will benefit."

Not hard to boil this down. But potentially rewarding for an alert and adventurous investor. And Mr Greenspan the poacher will act as your gamekeeper, if you go with PIMCO.