More mixed messages from the housing market: Prices up, sales down


The housing market provides more mixed messages about the economic recovery.

On the one hand, home prices, as measured by the Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index, are up just under 7 percent over the same time last year. Increasing home prices may boost consumer confidence and help accelerate economic growth.

On the other hand, existing home sales, as reported by the National Association of Realtors are down 7.5 percent since the same period last year. Weather can’t be blamed as the bad weather is now behind us. The U.S. housing market saw strong growth in 2012 and the first half of 2013. Existing-home sales hit a seasonally adjusted peak last July and have fallen in seven of the past eight months. High prices, stringent lending standards, and a rise in borrowing costs have been blamed for the slowdown, which could slow the overall recovery.

A lesson from the worst paper of the year and a Turing test for economists

The popular press loves marijuana research. Even more so because much of it is dreck.

I was reading a review of what has been called the worst paper of the year in marijuana research:

I noticed that the principal investigator Hans Breiter was claiming to be a psychiatrist and mathematician. That is an unusual combination so I decided to take a closer look. I immediately found out the claim was a lie. In fact, the totality of math credentials of Hans Breiter consist of some logic/philosophy courses during a year abroad at St. Andrews while he was a pre-med student at Northwestern. Even being an undergraduate major in mathematics does not make one a mathematician, just as being an undergraduate major in biology does not makes one a doctor.

I’d like to add another one:  Being an undergraduate major in economics does not make one an economist.

And with that, I propose a Turing test for economists:  When someone claims to be an economist, ask them (1) which statistics package they use and (2) when was the last time they used it.

Higher education: You might get what you pay for, but probably not

College is expensive and it’s getting more expensive every year. Over the past five years, according to the College Board, in-state tuition and fees at Oregon’s public universities has increased 30 percent, while private institutions have seen a 19 percent increase. Over the same period, average student debt in the U.S. has increased 31 percent to more than $27,000.

The rapidly rising cost of higher education has left even the smartest researchers and the wonkiest of wonks wondering what’s happening and where’s all that money going. More and more, prospective students—and their families—are asking: Is college worth the cost?

Over the past few years, the salary comparison website has collected salary data from its users and ranked U.S. colleges and universities based on which schools deliver the best bang for the buck, measured by Payscale’s calculation of the net return on investment (ROI). They measure ROI as the difference between a typical graduate’s earnings over 20 years and subtract out the cost of attending the school. The data are far from perfect, but there are enough data points to make some broad generalizations.

The figure above turns Payscale’s rankings into a scatterplot. The green dots represent in-state tuition and fees for Oregon public universities, excluding Portland State University. The red squares represent Oregon’s private colleges and universities.

Two things stand out:

  1. There is a negative relationship between an institution’s costs and the return on investment: Bigger bucks yield a smaller bang. For example, on one extreme, University of Virginia cost about $26,000 for in-state tuition and fees and its 20 year ROI is 17.6 percent. At the other end, a student at Ringling College of Art and Design is expected to shell out almost $165,000 to end up with lower earnings than someone who did not go to college.
  2. The dots are all over the place. In other words, although there is a downward trend, in fact, there really is not much of a relationship between a school’s cost and its graduates’ earnings. This is highlighted by two Georgia schools that cost about $40,000 to graduate. On one end, Georgia Tech grads get a 17.1 percent return on their investment, while Savannah State University grads have a negative return on their investment. Oregon’s public universities have roughly the same cost to graduate, but have a wide range of returns on investment.

While Payscale accounts for the variation in the time it takes a student to complete a degree across institutions, it misses some key costs of higher education. For example, the typical student graduates with about $27,000 of debt. Interest payments on this debt reduce take-home pay and reduce the return on investment for higher education. More importantly, Payscale misses the fact that, in most cases, full-time students give up full-time employment. In addition to spending money on tuition and fees, student are giving up money from four or more years of employment.

The figure above adds some very back-of-the-envelope estimates to account for interest payments on student debt and the opportunity cost giving up employment while in school.  It assumes the average amount of debt and that a student would give up full time work at the federal minimum wage. Yes, I know that’s not very realistic, but it’s pretty conservative and you’ll get the idea.

As with the ROI scatterplot, the dots are all over the place. In fact, there is hardly any relationship between the opportunity cost of higher education and future earnings.

What is most striking, however, is how small the net benefits are—even for students paying in-state tuition. Students at Southern Oregon University and Western Oregon University just about break even on their college educations. If it took them a little longer than average to graduate, or if they incurred a bit more student debt, these students would have been better off skipping college altogether.

Keep in mind that the data presented here looks only at the “average” student. The benefits and costs of education are unique to every individual. Having the right test scores, choosing the right major, and having a supportive network of family and peers can make huge differences in the payoff to higher education.

Nevertheless, a look at previous Payscale studies shows that over the past few years, the return on investment in higher education is declining. Students seem to be paying more, but getting less. Research suggest new administrative positions—particularly in student services—have driven a 28 percent growth in the higher-ed work force from 2000 to 2012. At the same time, universities have shifted to a growing army of part-time instructors and full time faculty salaries have barely kept pace with inflation. The result is a set of institutions that have shifted their focus away from research, education, and training and more toward providing social services to employees and students.

Unfortunately, I don’t see this trend ending soon. It will take a major student debt crisis for policy makers and educational institutions to refocus their direction away from growing the university bureaucracy and back to providing an education that is valuable to students and employers.

Originally published at Oregon Business.

Employment situation stagnating in developed countries


The rate of unemployment across the 34 nations that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development rose in February. After three months of slowly declining unemployment, the recent uptick is viewed as a setback for the global economic recovery.

The OECD reports the unemployment rate for its members—made up mostly of countries with developed economies—rose to 7.6 percent from 7.5 percent.

The number of people without jobs increased to 46 million from 45.8 million.

The rise in the jobless rates suggests economic growth in developed economies isn’t yet strong enough to generate a rapid increase in employment, which would in turn boost the recovery by supporting consumer spending.

Ups and downs in Oregon employment

First, the good news: In 2013, Oregon outperformed the nation in job growth.

Add to that, the good-but-don’t-too-excited news: U.S. employment is now back to where it was before the recession.

And finally, the news that makes the first piece of good news look pretty weak:  Despite last year’s growth, it’ll likely be nine months to a year before Oregon is back to the job levels seen in early 2008.

The jobs and profits connection: Does it exist?

Under the headline of Soaring Profits but Too Few Jobs, the Wall Street Journal’s William Galston complains that “Companies have not boosted hiring in line with revenues, or wages in line with productivity.”

This somewhat new line of thinking seems to ignore the observation that productivity gains have allowed businesses to increase sales without adding workers. In addition, with millions still out of work, companies face little pressure to raise salaries.  

First, let’s take a look at the long run relationship between corporate profits and employment.

The figure below shows the quarter-over-quarter change in corporate profits against the quarter-over-quarter change in U.S. employment.


Casual observation supports the association between corporate profits and company hiring: Generally speaking an increase in profits is associated with increases in hiring and decreases in profits are associated with reduced hiring or layoffs.

Casual observation also shows that the relationship is not very strong.

Looking more recently, the graph below shows that since the beginning of the Reagan administration to the present, there really has been no relationship between corporate profits and employment.


So what gives? Is Galston living in the post-World War II boom years where employment boomed and corporate profits rolled in?


The figure below shows that the Reagan administration should be Exhibit A as an example of soaring profits coexisting with strong employment growth.


George H. W. Bush oversaw the recession that sent me to grad school. His administration was marked by small profits and a languid job market, and no real relationship between the two factors.


While the booming economy during the Clinton administration saw strong employment growth and decent corporate profits, there wasn’t really much of a relationship between the two: A 14 percent increase in corporate profits was associated with the same employment growth as an 11 percent decrease in corporate profits.


The George W. Bush administration continued the trend of no real relationship between corporate profits and employment. (By the way, I took out the last quarter of Bush’s term because it completely overwhelmed the chart.)


Now things get interesting … And we get a peek at why Galston and others are wringing their hands so hard.

During the Obama administration, the relationship got turned on its head. Under Obama, increasing corporate profits are associated with reduced or declining employment. (By the way, I took out the first quarter of Obama’s term because it completely overwhelmed the chart.)

That makes the “Greed is Good” of the Reagan administration look not so greedy after all.


As Columbo would say, “Just one more thing …”

The Obama trend line seems to be driven by the four quarters with employment declines that occurred at the beginning of his administration (the red dots). If we take out those observations, we see that we return to the modern phenomenon of no real relationship between corporate profits and employment.

What’s the takeaway?

Over the quarter century there has been no relationship between corporate profits and employment. The line of thinking that argues that corporate profits should be spent to boost hiring seems to have been pulled out of thin air (or at least out of the first five quarters of the Obama administration). Perhaps our energies would be better spent on figuring out ways to boost profits and employment simultaneous would be a more productive effort.

Mixed messages in durable goods orders


Durable goods provided a mixed message on the economy. Last month’s strong performance pointed to continued growth. This month, however, suggested slow growth with the big bump aircraft and transportation new orders almost entirely offset by a drop in other capital goods orders, especially in fabricated metal products.

Orders for durable goods show how busy factories expect to be in the next few months as manufacturers work to fill those orders. Companies commitments to spending more on equipment and other capital, indicate that they are forecasting sustained growth in their business. As such, durable goods orders are a leading indicator of industrial production, capital spending, and economic growth.

Portland home prices: Recovery with seasonal slowing



Portland home prices are up 13 percent from last year, despite seasonal slowing.

Prices remain down 14.5 percent from the peak in mid-2007, Portland area home prices are up 23.5 percent from the bottom of the market in early 2012.

While the Portland area has seen three months of declining home prices, this seems to reflect a seasonal occurrence, rather than the beginning of a long-run trend. Traditionally, April is the first month of the year in which prices begin to rise after the winter slow down.

Oregon employment trends: Things look different here

State employment numbers came out this week. This ultimately leads to press releases and prognostications that now, things are starting to look better for job seekers.

The good news: At 6.9 percent, Oregon’s unemployment rate fell its lowest rate in more than five years.

The not-so-good news: Oregon’s employment growth is lagging the nation.

The bad news: Oregonians are giving up on work at a more rapid pace than the rest of the US.


The figure above shows that US employment is one-half of one percent lower than it was in 2007. In contrast, Oregon’s employment is 1.3 percent lower than it was in 2007. Beginning in Fall 2012—where the two employment lines cross—Oregon’s employment growth flatlined, while US employment continued slow, but steady growth.

The bottom panel of the figure shows that the US labor force has increased by 1.7 percent since 2007. A the same time, Oregon’s labor force has grown by only 0.6 percent.

The state’s labor force participation rate dropped off through the recession and recovery. It has leveled off and bounced around 61.2 percent for the past six months. In contrast, the US labor force participation rate is 63 percent.

At first glance, the difference in the two rates seems almost insignificant.  In fact, it may be a big deal.

If Oregon had the same rate of labor force participation as the US as a whole, then the state would have about 57,000 more people in the labor force (that’s more than the entire population of Corvallis). If that number is added to the number who are in the labor force, but unemployed, then Oregon’s unemployment rate would be 9.5 percent.

Going into the recession, Oregon’s labor force participation rate was about the same as the US rate. Through the recession and recovery, Oregonians left the labor force more than other Americans. Thus, while the unemployment rate may look OK on its own, it belies a deeper problem of people leaving the labor force.

How well do CEOs forecast the economy?

Results from the Business Roundtable’s first quarter 2014 CEO Economic Outlook Survey show a moderate uptick in CEO expectations for hiring, sales and capital expenditures and some improvement in the Business Roundtable CEO Economic Outlook Index.

The first graph in the press release shows the CEO Economic Outlook Index and changes to US GDP plotted as a time series.


With a simple eyeballing, things look pretty good in that the ups and downs of both lines seem to line up.

This raises the big question: Are CEOs good forecasters?

The Business Roundtable CEO Economic Outlook Index is a composite index of CEO expectations for the next six months of sales, capital spending, and employment.  The Business Roundtable says their index is a good predictor of where the economy is going:

In March 2011, Steve Leisman, Senior Economics Reporter for CNBC, showed that the index was an accurate tracker of real GDP. …  A study in 2013 showed that the change in the index provides a statistically significant leading signal of the change in U.S. GDP.

Notice the careful wording. Mr. Leisman said that the index was an accurate tracker of real GDP. In other words, it accurately reflects how the economy is currently performing.

Let’s take the figure above and make one simple change. Instead of a quarterly time series, we’ll turn it into a scatterplot, where the index is on the X axis and the change in GDP is on the Y axis.



Things look pretty good: A bigger index is associated with a bigger increase in GDP. The upward slope says that an increase in the index is generally associated with a more rapid increase in GDP.

The R-squared goodness-of-fit measure is OK, with 44 percent of the variation in GDP explained by variation in the index.

Predicting the past

There’s an old joke that forecasting the economy is like trying to drive car looking only in the rear view mirror. Economists do a great job of saying where we’ve been, but have a hard time of saying where we’re going. In that sense the CEOs surveyed by the Business Roundtable do a great job of saying where the economy has been.

Let’s make one more change to the scatter plot. In the figure below, the index is on the X axis and last month’s change in GDP is on the Y axis.



In other words, CEOs do a great job of saying where we’ve been. If GDP increased last quarter, CEOs are likely to provide a better assessment for the index. (By the way, see what I did there with causation?)

The R-squared goodness-of-fit measure is pretty good, with 64 percent of the variation in GDP explained by variation in the index.

Forecasting the future

However, this is similar to the lost traveler who pulls over to ask a local where he is, only to have the local answer, “You’re in a car.” While it may be true, it not especially helpful.

So, let’s see how helpful the index is in forecasting where the economy is going.

That means one more change to the scatter plot. In the figure below, the index is on the X axis and the change in GDP one month forward is on the Y axis.


Now things get a bit catawampus. Notice that the dots are all over the place. For example, an index of 80 is associated with growth of almost 5 percent or shrinkage of more than 8 percent.

The R-squared goodness-of-fit measure is not so hot, with 8 percent of the variation in GDP explained by variation in the index. If you use the index to forecast GDP growth, you’re not doing much better than guessing.

One more try

I know what you’re thinking at this point. The quote above says that a study in 2013 showed that the change in the index provides a statistically significant leading signal of the change in U.S. GDP.

That means one last change to the scatter plot. In the figure below, the month-over-month percent change in the index is on the X axis and the change in GDP one month forward is on the Y axis.


The goodness-of-fit is a bit better, but things still look catawampus—and that’s after throwing out two outliers that made the chart go kablooey. Notice that the dots again are all over the place, but mostly clustered around zero on the X axis. For example, GDP growth of 4 percent is associated with 143 percent increase in the index, a 24 percent increase, a 2 percent increase, and a 6 percent decrease in the index.

Economic forecasting is challenging in a stable economy, and the Business Roundtable is commended for collecting CEOs assessments of the economy.  While the CEO Economic Outlook Index may not be especially useful in forecasting the economy, the survey provides valuable information about what companies themselves are planning to do in the near future:

  • Nearly half of CEOs  said they expect to boost US capital spending in the next six months, compared with only 39 percent expecting higher spending three months ago.
  • 72% of CEOs see an increase in sales in the next six months
  • Only 37 percent expect to boost U.S. employment while 44 percent see their US payrolls unchanged.