What Would We Need for Persistent 5% Growth?
Wed, Jun 15, 0:23 AM ET, by Donald Marron
Last week, I argued that Governor Tim Pawlenty's aspiration for 5% economic growth over a full decade is implausible since the United States has achieved such steady growth only once since World War II. Over at Economics One, Stanford economics professor John Taylor offers a more positive take, defending the goal and offering a recipe for achieving it: 1% from population growth, 1% from employment growing faster than the population, and 2.7% from productivity growth. Add it all up and you get 4.7% growth, a bit short of Pawlenty's target but close enough for government work. That sounds great, and I hope it happens, regardless of who is president. But let's take a moment to kick the tires on Taylor's assumptions. Two seem fine: - His population growth assumption is perfectly reasonable. Indeed, it matches the estimate used by the President's Council of Economic Advisers in its most recent Economic Report of the President (Table 2-2).
- His productivity growth assumption is optimistic, but realistically so. Nonfarm productivity has grown at a 2.7% pace, on average, since 1996. Few analysts see that persisting. CEA forecasts assume 2.3%, for example. But the U.S. economy has demonstrated that 2.7% productivity growth is possible for a decade or more.
Three other assumptions are problematic. - Taylor uses a very optimistic assumption about how much employment growth can exceed population growth. Today, about 58% of the working age population has a job. That woefully low level ought to rise as the Great Recession recedes. Taylor assumes that we can boost that ratio back to its 2000 level of almost 65%. But 2000 was the tail end of a technology boom that lifted America's employment-to-population ratio to record heights. Since then, the working population has aged, so the employment-to-population ratio will be persistently lower even in good times. CEA thus forecasts that labor force changes will trim about 0.3% annually from potential growth in coming years. Getting the employment-to-population ratio back up to 65% thus won't happen unless we have an even bigger boom than the late 1990s delivered.
- Taylor assumes that workers will keep working the same number of hours that they do today. That sounds innocuous except for one thing: average hours have been declining. CEA estimates that trimmed 0.3% per year from potential economic growth from 1958 to 2007 and will trim another 0.1% per year from 2010 through 2021.
- Taylor assumes that the rest of the economy will enjoy the same productivity growth as the nonfarm business sector. In reality, the other parts of the economy – most notably government – are lagging behind. CEA estimates that slower productivity growth outside the nonfarm business sector trimmed 0.2% from potential economic growth from 1958 to 2007 and sees an even bigger bite, 0.4% annually, in the coming decade.
Taylor's scenario thus assumes that everything breaks right for the U.S. economy for a full decade, with remarkable job growth and remarkable productivity growth in the economy as a whole. Not impossible but, unfortunately, not likely either.
SDI Glossary: "Economics" Definition
SDI Glossary: "Recession" Definition
This Article's Word Cloud:
Economic
Pawlenty
President
Taylor
That
about
annually
assumes
assumption
assumptions
average
back
bigger
boom
business
coming
decade
economic
economy
employment
estimates
even
forecasts
from
growth
have
hours
level
more
most
nonfarm
optimistic
other
population
potential
productivity
ratio
remarkable
same
sector
since
sounds
take
than
that
thus
trimmed
will
working
year
More articles: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next »
|
RSS