HomePostTopic: Utah

Utah

Key Points

  • As of June, 35 states and D.C. have not recovered the number of lost jobs
  • The labor force has shrunk despite population growth.
  • Its stated goal of the Federal Reserve remains the same–to reduce inflation to its 2% target, meaning it will take steps to prevent the price level from coming back down. This bad policy goal will burden the working class and the poor and retired persons the most.

It may not matter if federal policy does not change.

We’ve seen some back-to-back encouraging news within the last few weeks. The Employment Situation Report for July showed that the United States finally recovered the number of its lost jobs from the start of the pandemic, and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rate for July was essentially zero. But digging a little deeper to put the news into perspective reveals real concerns that stagflation will not end anytime soon.

The States Who Are Driving the Job Recovery

On the jobs front, yes, it’s true we’ve recovered the number of lost jobs benchmarked to February 2020 before the drastic impact on the labor market from COVID-19. This indicates we’re on the mend, but the job recovery process has not been the “V” shape hoped for at the beginning of the pandemic, one that would have meant a robust job recovery. 

Two-and-a-half years later, the civilian non-institutionalized population base that feeds the labor force grew by 4.8 million. Our own ARIMA Model job forecast shows we are approximately 5.8 million jobs short of where we would have been had the pandemic not happened. 

But this is not the case for all 50 states. Astoundingly, four states—Montana, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming—have matched or nearly matched their pre-pandemic ARIMA Model forecasts, effectively eliminating any impact from the pandemic on the number of lost jobs. 

In the meantime, the national job recovery to pre-pandemic levels is driven probably by just 15 states who already recovered their number of lost jobs prior to the nation as a whole. These states are Utah, Idaho, Texas, Montana, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Arizona, South Dakota, Colorado, Arkansas, Indiana, and Nevada. 

As of June, the remaining 35 states and D.C. have not recovered the number of lost jobs. We have to wait another week before we know whether another state slipped onto the list of leading states that helped tip the balance for the national July data. 

According to our analysis, a common feature of the leading states is that they tend to have policies that value economic freedom more than the other states do. Incidentally, and for explanatory reasons and not for the purpose of getting political, all but three of the 15 leading states have given political control to the governor’s office and both chambers of the state legislature to the Republican Party.

Jobs Versus People Employed 

One problem with job data is that the dataset allows for double counting. If we want to count the number of people employed, it paints a different picture. 

The Current Population Survey shows the U.S. is still more than half a million workers short when compared to February 2020. In fact, we had fewer employed persons in July than March of this year, using seasonally adjusted data. 

The reason is that the labor force has shrunk despite population growth. This can be seen with the 62.1% labor force participation rate that is more than a percentage point below where it stood in February 2020.

This means that the 3.5% unemployment rate—which now matches its pre-pandemic level—is misleading. The shrinkage of the labor force is distorting the meaning of the metric.

Taken together on a national scale, jobs have recovered but the number of employed persons has not. This can mean only one thing. More people are working multiple jobs to make ends meet. 

Inflation versus the Price Level

July’s CPI ever-so-slightly decreased. It ticked down 0.2% at an annualized rate–a welcome change from the past 25 months. Just to keep this in perspective, the price level nonetheless increased 14.1% since the start of the pandemic. But there is no need to tell this to average consumers who have been feeling it in their pocketbooks. 

Disturbingly, the Federal Reserve shows no interest in doing something about the elevated price level–and who isn’t even discussing it. Its stated goal remains the same–to reduce inflation to its 2% target, meaning it will take steps to prevent the price level from coming back down. This bad policy goal will burden the working class and the poor and retired persons the most.

 

stagflation

“Disturbingly, the Federal Reserve shows no interest in doing something about the elevated price level–and who isn’t even discussing it. Its stated goal remains the same–to reduce inflation to its 2% target, meaning it will take steps to prevent the price level from coming back down. This bad policy goal will burden the working class and the poor and retired persons the most.”

“Disturbingly, the Federal Reserve shows no interest in doing something about the elevated price level–and who isn’t even discussing it. Its stated goal remains the same–to reduce inflation to its 2% target, meaning it will take steps to prevent the price level from coming back down. This bad policy goal will burden the working class and the poor and retired persons the most.”

Fiscal and Regulatory Policy

The Federal Reserve does not stand alone with its bad policy. Congress and the Administration are just as guilty, if not more so.

Excessive fiscal spending also drives up the price level. Worse, increasing business taxes will pull  resources from businesses. These resources are needed to produce goods and services that we all use and enjoy. It also enables these very same businesses to pay workers and compensate investors, and it leads to more economic growth and prosperity. Likewise, more excessive regulatory restrictions have similar negative effects on people and the economy.

Increasing business taxes and regulating businesses even more at this time will not help keep prices down. Rather, a good portion of these higher costs will be passed onto consumers.  And they will be passed on to consumers to the degree that individual businesses are able to do so. If businesses can’t pass all or even some of those costs on to consumers, then they will be forced to make more difficult decisions, such as cutting back on the number of employees or suspending pay raises to employees. Profits will clearly suffer that may cause a few businesses to scale back or exit the industry altogether. These consequential actions all aggravate stagnation. Add in the price increases and we get more stagflation, not less.

Unfortunately, the President just signed into law the erroneously named Inflation Reduction Act that will do nothing about inflation, but it will hike business taxes and increase regulations that will only worsen the economic situation. 

Congress and the Administration need to start following the lead from the states who are doing it right. Only pro- growth policies relying on innovation and production organically sprouted from within the economy will help us out of this mess, and it won’t work if politicians think that means taking money from successful businesses or imposing new mandates on others or picking the winners and losers in the economy.



 

In The News

There is new proof government-imposed shutdowns prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic have done more harm than good. A better choice would have been to keep the economy open so people stay connected to work and targeting resources to vulnerable populations.

A new meta-analysis from Johns Hopkins University underscores this truth, revealing that lockdowns in America and Europe during the first pandemic wave in spring 2020 only reduced the death rate by 0.2% on average. Researchers concluded that lockdowns “have had little to no public health effects” while imposing “enormous economic and social costs” and should be “rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”

While businesses were shuttered, people were forced to stay home, and schools remained closed, the unintended social and economic consequences were clear: rising unemployment, learning loss among students, spiking rates of domestic violence, and a pandemic-level rise in drug abuse and overdoses. All of that social and economic devastation yielded a minimal impact on health-related suffering due to COVID-19.

The new research from Johns Hopkins mirrors our own findings in a recent nationwide study, which found that overreaction by states did substantial damage without much benefit in reducing the effects of the pandemic.

The research shows a statistical correlation between how severe state governmental actions were in shutting down their economies and negative impacts on employment more than a year after the pandemic began. This was the case even after controlling for a state’s dependence on tourism or agriculture, population density, and the prevalence of COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations.

Our research found no correlations between the severity of shutdowns imposed by state governments and the rate of reported COVID-19 hospitalizations or deaths. States like Hawaii, New York, California, and New Mexico that imposed harsher economic restrictions generally have greater job losses even today than those states that were less harsh, such as South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Utah.

For example, New York was 10.2% below its trajectory in October 2021 while Nebraska was just 2.4% below.

The bottom line is that while policymakers were likely working in good faith to do their best in a challenging situation, it’s crucial we learn from these past mistakes so that we don’t repeat them. And make no mistake about it — those mistakes have driven untold amounts of human suffering during the past two years.

The worst part is that the government-imposed shutdowns created even more barriers for people who were already struggling. Every American was impacted, of course. These interventions created challenges and burdens for the middle and upper classes, but for our poorest communities they were outright damaging.

Protecting the rights and opportunities of workers to earn a living is obvious. Equally important are the psychological benefits that come with the dignity of work. And there are socio-economic benefits from work that positively impact everyone, such as building social capital and gaining skills, which are especially important for those in marginalized communities who were most impacted by the shutdowns.

As the states look for a long-term strategy to deal with the pandemic, it is paramount that they consider the empirical evidence and not impose burdensome restrictions — such as business closures, stay-at-home orders, school closures, gathering restrictions, and capacity limits — on economic activity that have proven to do more harm than good.

Instead, policies need to be crafted more carefully to expand opportunities for the poor and preserve jobs in an open economy in which entrepreneurs can solve problems while taking measures when necessary to protect vulnerable populations.

These are the policies that should have been done all along to avoid the severity of the shutdown recession and the effects on lives and livelihoods thereafter. Let’s not make another mistake when so many are already suffering.

This Article Originally Appeared in Real Clear Policy 

homeless no job

Is there any reason not to cheer? Georgia’s unemployment rate dropped to 4.1 percent in May. 

Here are three reasons why this looks good for Georgia. 

First, the unemployment rate is declining, giving optimism that the economy is bouncing back from the pandemic.

Second, there were only two periods in recorded history when Georgia’s unemployment rate was this low or lower. Starting from 1976—the extent of available data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on unemployment rates for the states—the first period was between October 1998 and July 2001 when the rate reached as low as 3.4 percent. This period occurred after the long economic expansion of the 1990s. 

The other period—from April 2018 to the start of the pandemic—just occurred with Donald Trump in the White House. During this period, Georgia broke its best record by achieving 3.3 percent.

Third, Georgia’s rate is the 16th lowest in the country, beating out 34 other states. For comparison, the United States as a whole has a rate of 5.8 percent rate, considerably higher than Georgia’s.

 

 

But wait. Is the unemployment rate artificially low?

While optimism is merited, it is important to put the unemployment numbers in perspective.

Unemployment percentages do not capture those who do not participate in the labor force. According to the BLS, anyone not employed who had not actively looked for a job during the prior four weeks is not part of the labor force. Therefore, any person temporarily not looking for work is not accounted for when the BLS calculates the official unemployment rate. Especially now with all the repercussions of the pandemic, all those potential workers who have been sitting on the sidelines for the last four weeks are simply not counted.

The behavior of labor force participation is a loose link for unemployment numbers. Normally, when economic times are good, sidelined workers and even retirees come back into the labor force, which can push the unemployment rate up. When times are bad, the opposite happens. Workers drop out of the labor force, artificially lowering the unemployment rate.

During the depth of the pandemic, and as expected, the labor force participation rate in Georgia dropped—to 59.4 percent to be precise, compared to 62.9 percent just prior to the pandemic. In terms of real people, there were an estimated 260,575 fewer workers participating in the labor force—who were not counted among the unemployed, to emphasize the point. Participation bounced back some to 61.7 percent, but still there are 40,934 fewer workers in the labor force.

Other ways to measure it

BLS’s U-6 labor underutilization metric is another way to shed light on unemployment. It adds to the unemployed those discouraged and other “marginally attached” workers as well as part-time workers wanting full-time work but cannot find it. 

Nationally, the U-6 rate hit a historic high of 22.9 percent in April 2020 representing 36.3 million people. It has since dropped to 10.2 percent representing 16.5 million people. However, in the months prior to the pandemic, the rate was at historic lows—in fact, as low as 6.8 percent. Obviously, while 10.2 percent is far better than 22.9 percent, it is significantly worse than 6.8 percent, representing a difference of 5.3 million workers.

Unfortunately, monthly U-6 data is not available for the states, making any comparison difficult. The BLS currently publishes only experimental U-6 state data averaged over a year’s time.

More useful for the states is the Nonfarm Employment estimates from BLS’s Current Employment Statistics survey. Only two states—Utah & Idaho—have caught up with employment from where they were in February 2020 before the pandemic hit. In contrast, the U.S as a whole is still 5% behind. Georgia ranks 16th among the states and is 4.0 % behind. Hawaii (-14.8%), New York (-9.6%), and Nevada (-8.6%) are the three states furthest behind. 

If we use standard economic ARIMA Model time-series forecasting to estimate where employment would have been absent the pandemic, no state is back on track. The United States is 6.8% behind, and Georgia ranks near the middle in 27th place at −6.1%. Utah and Idaho lead the pack being the furthest ahead, while Hawaii, Nevada, New York, California, and Massachusetts trail the pack.

Observations on state differences and policies

In viewing the differences in employment among the states, the more rural states appear to be doing better. The states more dependent on tourism appear to be doing worse. State governments that implemented less severe lockdowns appear to be doing better. To test these observations, we will be running regression analyses to tease out any correlations. We will post the results when completed.

In the meantime, it is important for government to adopt policies that will help businesses to rebound and make it easier for startups. The goal should be not to just lower unemployment but also to bring those sidelined workers back into the labor force.


Erik Randolph is the Director of Research at the Georgia Center for Opportunity.

Subscribe

* indicates required

Subscribe

* indicates required
Donate