There’s a certain wonder at this insistence. America’s economy has a problem because there are as many people working in nail salons as there are in shipbuilding. The argument being that shipbuilding is high productivity, nail salon work low, therefore we’re all poorer by having these people working in a low productivity sector.

Hmm, the logic is appealing but not actually all that good.

Productivity is a crucial missing link in US growth. Q4-2017 productivity data was again disappointing: labour productivity was up just 1.1% year-on-year (y-o-y). It averaged only 1.3% in 2017 as a whole, while the five-year average is a lacklustre 0.8% (versus more than 3% in the early 2000s).

Sure, agreed, productivity rises are pretty much the only thing which will determine future standards of living.

It does not help that the US economy has tended to create a lot of low-skilled services jobs in recent years. A particularly striking illustration is the sharp rise in employment at nail salons. Nail-salon jobs have risen 9.7% per annum (p.a.) in the past three years, much more rapidly than total US employment growth (+1.7% p.a.), to reach 98,900 jobs as of last December. This is more than those employed in ship building (97,400; 3-year CAGR: -2.4% p.a.).

Ah, no, that’s not how it works. This is:

The provision of the Jones Act that requires ships to be built in the United States also raises costs. For example, the Congressional Research Service estimates that oil tankers built in the United States are about four times more expensive than those built abroad. An article by Brown Brothers Harriman reports that Matson Incorporated placed a $418 million order for two Jones Act ships, about five times what it would have cost to build the tankers in Asia and the contract price of $250 million for two vessels purchased by Philly Tankers AS was more than three times what comparable ships constructed in Vietnam would have cost.

American built ships are very much more expensive than those built elsewhere. American shipbuilding jobs are therefore of very low productivity compared to those in other countries. And no, we shouldn’t ignore trade when determining productivity.

If, given these numbers, we had absolutely no US shipbuilding jobs, all of that work done in Vietnam (just as an example) and then those same number of workers were off doing something else, we’d be richer. Yes, even if we were to look solely at the productivity numbers as complained about here. We’d get our ships, for less cash (ie, less of the output of other workers) plus we’d get the new stuff those ex-shipbuilders were making.

This is important. American shipbuilding makes the US poorer than buying them in from foreigners. We cannot therefore describe building ships in the US as being high productivity, something that makes us richer. Doesn’t work, does it?

But OK, that’s not a traditional approach. Let’s be more traditional. What is it that makes a certain line of work high productivity? Having fewer people being used to make the output. So, we would rather expect that we’ll have fewer people in those high productivity jobs. Because that’s what makes them high productivity, having few people in them.

Sure, we’d be delighted to have everyone working in high productivity lines of work. But we can’t extend that to asking that many work in one particular line – for doing so is the insistence that, lots of people doing it to supply us, it becomes a low productivity line of work.

Thus comparing the number in shipbuilding to those in nail bars doesn’t really work. In one view because that’s what high productivity work is, few people doing it. Then, entirely contrarily, we’d be better off with many fewer shipbuilders in the US because it’s not, with trade taken into account, a high productivity line of work.

6
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
SouthernerSpikeBaxter Basics MPjgh Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Spike
Member

Further, the American steel and aluminum industries have just gotten less efficient, as we need to count among the people producing a ton of metal those writing the regulations to keep Ford from buying Canadian inputs, even if Canada winds up with one of the hinted-at country-by-country exceptions.

PS – The Jones Act was recently waived for Puerto Rico in view of the hurricane damage. It got attention and a small campaign for total repeal, which fizzled.

jgh
Guest
jgh

It’s weird that whenever I discuss productivity with anybody they insist that the number of people used is not a factor in the P=O/I equation.

Baxter Basics MP
Guest
Baxter Basics MP

I dipped in here as a punter expecting some analysis of what was driving the expansion of people declaring themselves as working in nail salons.
I was disappointed on that front but the line “We’d get our ships, for less cash (i.e. less of the output of other workers) plus we’d get the new stuff those ex-shipbuilders were making.” makes up for it. That bit about cash representing the output of other workers is truly one for the ages

Spike
Member

Wouldn’t the answer to, What is driving the expansion of people…working in nail salons, be that more people want to get their nails done?

On “cash representing the output of other workers,” Dr. Walter E. Williams calls cash a “claim check on the efforts of others,” which we accumulate by giving others our efforts.

Southerner
Guest
Southerner

Three points. 1. Why isn’t there a simple job title to replace “people working in nail salons”? Something like “manicurists”? 2. Is the turnover of the manicure industry possibly growing at double digit percentages or close thereto? Possibly there’s an upswing in fashion which you, Tim, as a gentleman economist, would be able to detect through your knowledge of how to navigate the statistical arcana. 3. Manicurist sounds like the kind of occupation that the licensing-crazy Americans would like to control. Perhaps there has been a relaxation of requirements and to call oneself a manicurist one no longer needs a… Read more »

Southerner
Guest
Southerner

Three points. 1. Why isn’t there a simple job title to replace “people working in nail salons”? Something like “manicurists”? 2. Is the turnover of the manicure industry possibly growing at double digit percentages or close thereto? Possibly there’s an upswing in fashion which you, Tim, as a gentleman economist, would be able to detect through your knowledge of how to navigate the statistical arcana. 3. Manicurist sounds like the kind of occupation that the licensing-crazy Americans would like to control. Perhaps there has been a relaxation of requirements and to call oneself a manicurist one no longer needs a… Read more »