Center for Business and Economic Research - Ball State University


CBER Data Center
Projects and
Publications
Economic
Indicators
Weekly
Commentary
County
Profiles
Community
Asset Inventory
Brownfield Grant
Writers' Toolbox
Manufacturing
Scorecard

About

Commentaries are published weekly and distributed through the Indianapolis Business Journal and many other print and online publications. Disclaimer

RSS Feed

Disclaimer

The views expressed in these commentaries do not reflect those of Ball State University or the Center for Business and Economic Research.

Recent

Questions from an Economic ForecastThe economic recovery is in the hands of vaccine distributors, not economic policymakers.

Stop Restricting Indianapolis GrowthIn the 21st century, a full 85 percent of the state’s population growth happened within the Indianapolis metro area.

Indiana’s Lagging Educational AttainmentFinancial security without a college degree is possible but not probable.

How This Recession Is UnfoldingIt appears now that we’ll end 2020 with a downturn that ranks in the top five to seven worst years since the 1920s.

View archives

Top Tags

jobs and employment 196
economics 162
economic development 120
taxes 117
education 116
finance 102
recession 91
budget and spending 72
state and local government 71
unemployment and the labor market 71
Browse all tags
Reporter / Admin Login

June 8, 2001

Bad News at the Bottom Line for the U.S. Economy?

Every corporate CEO knows that it takes more than a reputation to earn profits. How many times has a business periodical printed a splashy spread on an up-and-coming corporate star, only to later report his or her demise in a subsequent issue? No executive, no matter how trendy or glamorous, can survive very long without delivering what shareholders expect at the bottom line. 

What is the bottom line for the managers of the U.S. economy? That's harder to say, but you could make a very strong case that it should be productivity growth, or the improvement in how much we collectively produce per unit of labor. From the point of view of the entire economy, productivity growth is really the only way we can put more bread on all of our tables. When output per hour is rising more strongly, as it has been for the last several years, we can afford wage increases that increase our standard of living without having to pay them back in the form of inflation. 

And the reputation of the U.S. economy for productivity growth in recent years has been stellar. The information revolution that has been embraced by every industry from agriculture to space physics has brought about major changes in how we produce things. Indeed, groups in countries with more sluggish economies have been heard to call for adoption of the "American model" to jump start growth in their regions. 

But reputation alone can't deliver results. Since the fall of last year, the go-go spending of U.S. businesses on plant and equipment that was at the heart of the productivity boom abruptly fell. And the dismal performance of productivity measures since that time should be heeded as a loud warning that the inflation-proof growth of the U.S. economy can no longer be taken for granted. 

It's hard to overstate how bad the performance of productivity was in the first quarter of 2000 for the U.S. economy. For all businesses outside agriculture, output per hour fell at a 1.2 percent annual rate for the first three quarters of the year. Not only was this the first decline in productivity since 1993, but it comes following a year that saw a 4.3 percent improvement in output per hour. 

Meanwhile, compensation jumped up at a whopping 5.1 percent rate in the first three months of 2001. When combined with the fall in output that each worker produces, this means that labor's contribution in costs to each unit of output advanced at a blistering 7.0 percent rate. 

It is often felt that the productivity measures for manufacturing alone are more reliable, since output in the goods-producing side of the economy is easier to objectively measure. And here the news is even more dramatic. On the heels of 2000 when factory productivity surged by 6.9 percent, the first quarter of 2001 saw a 2.1 percent decrease.

Link to this commentary: https://commentaries.cberdata.org/471/bad-news-at-the-bottom-line-for-the-u-s-economy

Tags: economics, finance


About the Author

Pat Barkey none@example.com

Patrick Barkey is director of the University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research. He has been involved with economic forecasting and health care policy research for over twenty-four years, both in the private and public sector. He served previously as Director of the Bureau of Business Research (now the Center for Business and Economic Research) at Ball State University, overseeing and participating in a wide variety of projects in labor market research and state and regional economic policy issues. He attended the University of Michigan, receiving a B.A. ('79) and Ph.D. ('86) in economics.

© Center for Business and Economic Research, Ball State University

About Ball State CBER Data Center

Ball State CBER Data Center is one-stop shop for economic data including demographics, education, health, and social capital. Our easy-to-use, visual web tools offer data collection and analysis for grant writers, economic developers, policy makers, and the general public.

Ball State CBER Data Center (cberdata.org) is a product of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. CBER's mission is to conduct relevant and timely public policy research on a wide range of economic issues affecting the state and nation. Learn more.

Terms of Service

Center for Business and Economic Research

Ball State University • Whitinger Business Building, room 149
2000 W. University Ave.
Muncie, IN 47306-0360
Phone:
765-285-5926
Email:
cber@bsu.edu
Website:
www.bsu.edu/cber
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/BallStateCBER
Twitter:
www.twitter.com/BallStateCBER
Close