
Civility, root causes of our problems, community, good news, the economy, Trump, history, religion, popular culture, Indiana, Hamilton County.
Scroll down to the bottom to subscribe.

https://www.gm.com/heritage/collection/chevrolet/1976-chevrolet-chevette
The Chevy Chevette was the best product of the largest and most successful corporation in 1976. [WOWSER] It was marginally better than the Corvair or the Vega. Major US corporations had taken advantage of the post-WWII opportunity to produce for the world and perfected minor changes each year to further stimulate consumer demand. Functional roles in corporations were largely unchanged since the 1920’s. Japanese competition in the auto and consumer electronics industries in the 1970’s caused American corporations to eventually reinvent themselves and move into a world of perpetual change management.
It’s difficult to describe the size and impact of these changes. They were like a compounded series of paradigm shifts. I worked with many organizations from 1975-1989: Koppers, Avery Label, Sherwin-Williams, multiple S&L’s, United Telephone, AmeriTrust, E&Y, Tandy Radio Shack, EDS, IBM, Microsoft, GM, NASA, Zenith, Allison Transmission, City of Cleveland, McCormick Convention Center, Amway, US Navy, US Health & Human Services, Lorain Community College, Baldwin-Wallace University and the University of South Florida.
I completed a finance MBA at Case Western Reserve University in 1984. I joined Ernst & Young as a junior management consultant and learned from Dr. E. Leonard Arnoff, one of the founders of the discipline of operations research.
https://www.informs.org/Explore/History-of-O.R.-Excellence/Biographical-Profiles/Arnoff-E.-Leonard
FEW of the most important concepts and skills of my 35-year professional career existed or were rarely applied in 1984. The smartest academic and business leaders were aware of some of the changes that would shape the next 50 years, but the typical 1984 manager was still working from a 1930’s view of business.
I’ll group the more than 100 HUGE advances into 6 categories.
Modern firms have cumulatively adopted and leveraged these interrelated capabilities to become strategically driven, self-aware, well-managed and improving through time. The marginal finance/portfolio view together with the process view allow firms to identify, deliver and monetize customer needs while outsourcing functions that are not deemed strategically essential. Firms generally invest more resources in planning, optimization, new product development and risk management today.
The application of these principles has varied by industry. Government, not-for-profit and health care have great improvement opportunities remaining.
Firms may invest in Joseph Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” or they may optimize within existing market structures if they see higher returns from internal process improvements, incremental product development, supplier squeezing, price discrimination, targeted marketing or regulatory capture. In other words, the capabilities for ongoing world-changing improvements exist but may not be applied for the greater good.

I wrote many posts during the Biden administration to counteract the recurring false claims about “runaway inflation”. Biden was certainly guilty of spending too much taxpayers’ money for economic recovery, infrastructure, green projects and student loan forgiveness. This aggravated the inflation rate, made it slower to fall and established expectations of higher long-term inflation. However, the primary drivers of inflation were the pandemic driven demand for physical goods after factories closed, loose monetary policy and bipartisan government spending to offset the pandemic. We all enjoyed 20 years of price stability before this. A little bumpiness after a pandemic driven global shutdown was not surprising.

The climbing inflation rate broke in June, 2022 more than 3 years ago. It has not slowed under Trump’s stewardship.

The inflation rate has been in the 3% +/- range for the last 2 years. That means that prices, on average, continue to increase each year. 2% inflation was the normal rate for the prior 20 years. It (3%) seems to be a rate that is “non-accelerating”. Economic agents, including consumers, are able to ignore 2% inflation. It is immaterial, too small to really notice. 3% inflation is on the border of being “concerning”. Inflation can more easily accelerate from 3% to a concerning 5% or higher. President Trump can claim that he has maintained the Biden inflation reduction from 9% to 3% but he cannot claim that he has reduced prices, reduced inflation or made the cost of living more affordable.

The core inflation rate, excluding the more volatile food and energy prices, has shown the same pattern. It peaked at 6.5% and declined to “about 3%” by June, 2024. It has moved down by one-quarter percent since then. Unfortunately, it seems to be flat. Trump has not moved it down.
President Trump has pursued 2 of these 12 areas but worked in the opposite way to increase inflation on most. He has pressured drug prices down. He has encouraged increased supply of traditional fossil fuels energy.

Federal budget deficit remains at an unsustainable $1.7T per year. Too much demand, not enough supply.

President Trump has been harassing Fed Chair Jerome Powell (who he appointed) to cut interest rates. The real, inflation adjusted, interest rate is currently 1%. Monetary policy is neutral or a little tight. President Trump encourages looser monetary policy which increases inflation. Not an inflation fighter.

The US dollar has declined in value since Trump took office, making foreign purchases more expensive.

Housing prices peaked in 2022, drifted down by 5% in 2022 and have remained flat for the last two and a half years. Trump policies have no impact here.

3% medical inflation continues despite efforts to reduce drug prices.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/11/business/prescription-drug-prices-trump

Food prices are more volatile than most. Inflation reached 11% in 2022. It approached 2% in 2024 but has since increased to 3% annually.

Energy prices jumped in the first 2 years of recovery from the pandemic. They have been flat since then. Trump has cancelled $8B worth of previously authorized energy projects.

Gas prices averaged $2.50/gallon before the pandemic, spiked up to $4.50/gallon during the recovery and settled back to $3.00/gallon for the last 3 years.


US consumers enjoyed immaterial average import tariff rates for the last 50 years. Trump has levied an 18% tax on imports, increasing costs for American consumers of the 14% of their consumption that is imported. The inflationary impact of the Trump tariffs has not yet been passed along to consumers. The frequent changes in tariff rates have led businesses to absorb costs in the short run. This will not continue.
Trump invests fewer resources in collecting taxes, reducing budget deficits and reducing inflation.
No support from Trump for increased labor union power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Efficiency
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-firings-watchdogs-inspectors-general-60-minutes/
Marginal results from the highly publicized DOGE efforts, despite very large opportunities for improvement.
A $10 billion-dollar permanent loss of output.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/oct/31/federal-shutdown-cost-economy-trump/
This recent tax change benefits individuals with enough income to pay federal income taxes, so improves affordability for an estimated 4 million people.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/how-does-no-tax-on-tips-work-in-the-one-big-beautiful-bill/
This recent tax change exempts the overtime premium from federal taxation, so promotes affordability for hourly wage earners.
This provision of OBBA benefits low to moderate income households aged 65 and older. Many experts criticize its structure, but it clearly makes life more affordable for those who benefit from the change.
.https://taxfoundation.org/blog/obbba-senior-deduction-tax-relief/
Higher income taxpayers who itemize deductions received a significant federal tax reduction. This change does not benefit most low to moderate income households.
https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/personal-finance/SALT-deduction-increase
The OBBBA increased tax credits to partially offset childcare costs. Critics considered these changes to be inadequate, noting that a “pro-family” political party should do better.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/25/5-facts-about-child-care-costs-in-the-us/
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/the-top-five-trump-attacks-exacerbating-the-child-care-crisis/

Real, inflation adjusted, compensation is slowly recovering towards its pre-pandemic level.
Greatly reduced net immigration will tighten the labor supply in some industries, leading to higher compensation for some workers and higher prices for consumers. Economists have not reached a consensus on the net impact to the typical American.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-firings-watchdogs-inspectors-general-60-minutes/
Inflation continues at 3% annually. Real wages are keeping up with inflation. The memory of large price increases in 2022 that were never reversed seems to have reset inflation expectations from 1-2% to 3-4% per year. Some tax law changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill meaningfully cut taxes. Fiscal policy remains very loose and drives inflation. Monetary policy is considered neutral by most economists, but Trump is trying to loosen it, which risks further inflation. Trump’s “on/off” tariff negotiations have not yet driven large consumer price increases but have slowed business investments. Trump’s claims to have improved “affordability” rest on his specific actions that point in that direction, not on the economy wide statistics or large-scale policies that might significantly improve affordability for the “average” family.

1602 – Dutch East India Company, limited liability corporation, global trade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company
1776 – The Wealth of Nations from markets, specialization and trade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
1817 – Comparative advantage drives international trade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo
1865 – Gilded age economic expansion and inequality in the US, laissez faire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age
1867 – Trade unions legalized in the United Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom
1910 – Scientific management, Frederick Taylor, Taylor method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management
1911 – Breakup of the Standard Oil Company – anti-monopoly power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Standard_Oil_Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States
1913 – Federal Reserve Bank created
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act
1913 – Industrial assembly line- Ford
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_line
1929 – Great Depression
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
1933 – Securities and Exchange Commission regulates financial markets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Act_of_1933
1936 – Modern macroeconomics is outlined
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
1939 – Silicon Valley begins with Hewlett-Packard, product and financing innovation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett-Packard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley
1942 – Creative Destruction is an essential part of effective capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter
1947 – Military industrial sector, defense complex created
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
1948 – Japanese companies start modern manufacturing based upon statistical insights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Production_System
1950 – The study of “sequence of events” leads to modern project management.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_path_method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_project_management
1952 – Henry Markowitz formalizes modern portfolio theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory
1955 – Destination theme park travel begins – Walt Disney
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Experiences
1955 – Enclosed Shopping Mall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_center
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_mall
1956 – Intermodal shipping container and freight transport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport
1958 – General purpose credit cards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card
1958 – A meritocratic work environment was dominating, and critics objected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
1962 – Product and process standardization, franchising take off
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_McDonald%27s
1962 – Discount retailing, big box stores, category killers arise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Walmart
1968 – For profit health care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCA_Healthcare
1970 – Income inequality begins to grow again in the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
1971 – Discount air travel, standardized routes and aircraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Southwest_Airlines
1973 – How much is a financial option worth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes_model
1973 – Reliable express delivery is founded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx
1974 – Tax-advantaged individual retirement accounts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_retirement_account
1975 – Index funds and mutual funds simplify and lower transaction costs of investing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vanguard_Group
1978 – Executive stock options provide high levels of tax-advantaged compensation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_stock_option
1979 – Monetary policy can stop inflation, at a cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker
1980 – Junk bonds provide financing for riskier companies and tools for investors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-yield_debt
1980 – Michael Porter clarifies the effective use of business strategy to compete in markets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_advantage
1984 – Eli Goldratt offers a “theory of constraints” as a way to understand and manage complex systems effectively, leading to true “lean manufacturing” and “lean operations”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_constraints
1994 – On-line retailing, everything is in stock, and available soon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Amazon
2007 – Great Recession highlights the ongoing risks of financial deregulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession
Process standardization. Financial innovation. Highly focused strategies. New business forms. Markets and international trade deliver desired products, lower prices and competition. A role for government regulation remains. The macroeconomy can be managed to reduce the impact of business cycles and shocks.


Trump focuses only on win/lose. If the US earns $1 trillion from trade and the rest of the world (ROW) earns $1.2 trillion, he sees this as a $200 billion loss. The ROW is winning, taking advantage of the USA and its unenlightened deal makers. If the US earns $500 billion from trade and the ROW earns only $400 billion then we are winning by $100 billion. Trump sees the second scenario as far superior to the first. Relative winnings (win/lose) are the bottom line rather than actual winnings (win/win). This is a fundamental flaw.
Trump only sees costs; he doesn’t consider benefits. Net benefits, benefits minus costs is the right measure.
Trump only looks at the short-run. He ignores the long-run. He believes that he can always renegotiate any situation.
Trump only sees dollar signs. The trade balance can be measured. It is positive or negative. The cost of defense can be measured. Either we pay or others pay. We trade goods and services. Defense/security benefits matter. We care about immigration, crime, taxes, personal security, climate, health, economic development, investments, rule of law, intellectual property, labor, the environment, etc. Other countries care about all of these dimensions. We must too.
Citizens have an irrational commitment to their nations. They are willing to die for them. Nations have sovereignty. Each has certain minimal rights. Politicians respond to these irrational beliefs. Ignoring this reality is irrational, even though it is very frustrating.
The US learned from European, Japanese and American experiences. Empires are very costly to establish and maintain. Nations can be enticed into becoming reliable allies at a fraction of the cost. They are rationally willing to evaluate costs and benefits, risks and rewards, short-term and long-term, labor and capital, sovereignty and influence, security and opportunity. Trump is right to negotiate, but wrong to discount this basic approach.
The US has greatly benefited from the post-1945 system of global governance, finance, economic development, health and trade. Global deals designed by the global leaders provide a framework for low-cost transactions. Trump believes that the strongest nations can extract even more net value through individual deals. Too many countries. Too much complexity to negotiate all of these topics effectively.
Trump comes from the real estate world where each deal is “one off”. International relations and trade are repeated deals. The optimal strategy is different when the “tit for tat” strategy can be used. Firms and nations will punish any bully, even at a significant cost to themselves. The strongest players must consider the weaker players’ strategies. When firms or nations find that they cannot trust someone the total costs go up significantly.
There are many strategies in the game of chicken. The strongest player does not automatically win. Bluffing matters. Posturing matters. Resources matter. The ability to endure losses and pain matter. Allies matter. Insurance matters. Flexible resources matter. Capacity matters. Creativity matters. Credibility matters. Non-negotiable factors matter. Trump seems to confuse simple economic might with certain winning.
Trump does not understand David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage from 200 years ago. You can be better than someone else in everything, at least in theory. You cannot have a comparative advantage in every production process. Between any two individuals, firms, states or nations, there will be differences in relative productivity. This is the basis for trade and specialization. The U.S. cannot be better in every industry. We can be relatively better in many industries, but not in all. As our incomes and standard of living increase, we will be relatively less competitive in those activities that can use lower cost labor. This is an unavoidable fact. We can choose to subsidize low skilled manufacturing employment, but we are fighting against very strong market forces.
Trump focuses on simple short-term one-time win/lose. The best negotiators know that the greatest value comes from “growing the pie” in the long-run (win/win). They don’t assume a fixed-sum game. They cooperate to grow the pie, perhaps at the expense of suppliers, competitors, labor, investors or customers. They exploit comparative advantages to lower overall costs, lower risks and increase benefits. They share or signal their relative priorities. They fulfill their commitments. They create incentives for sustained cooperation. They cooperate to build market power. They manage customer expectations. They under promise and over deliver. They manage the government. They build shared cultural expectations and priorities. They build personal relationships. They manage large risks. They manage and coordinate supply chains. Modern business is complex. The real winners understand and deal accordingly.
Trump’s dealmaking approach fails on every critical dimension. It is a losing approach for almost all firms and for all countries. His supporters need to understand that he cannot win with his approach and force him to change. His opponents need to highlight these failures. The United States has too much at risk from Trump’s losing strategies.

Real mortage interest rates can be calculated as the difference between nominal mortage interest rates and the 10-year Treasury Bond interest rate. Although nominal interest rates have ranged from 3% to 16%, the real, after expected inflation, interest rates are remarkably consistent, averaging just 1.7% and ranging between 1.3% and 2.1% in 70% of the last 52 years. The peak real rate was 3.0% in 1982 following the unexpectedly high and remaining high nominal rates of the prior 4 years.
Banks, mortgage-backed securities investors and mortgage borrowers all take risks when they complete mortgage transactions. Lenders are betting that their present and future borrowing interest rates are and will be low enough to fund their mortgages at a profit. Each lender locks in funding commitments for a reasonable share of the loan life and counts on the consistency of interest rates over the business cycle to fund the remaining portion. Lenders that experience a mismatch put their stockholders’ equity at risk and face bankruptcy. Investors in mortgage-backed securities are subject to valuation change risks throughout the period in which they are invested. Most such investors hold diversified portfolios of mortgages (region, amount, riskiness, urban vs suburban vs rural) and non-mortgage assets to ensure that any investment decision will not be too damaging.
Fixed-rate mortgage borrowers are betting that inflation will not fall too much lower than the expected inflation rates when they borrowed. If so, they will be paying back the mortgage in higher real value dollars than expected. If inflation and mortgage rates drop by more than 2%, most borrowers will seek to refinance their mortgages at the new, lower market rates, paying another round of closing costs for this privilege. Fixed rate borrowers are also hoping that inflation will be higher than the expected inflation rates at the time they borrowed, allowing them to pay back their debt with cheaper real dollars. Mortgage originators do not generally have the legal right to “call” the debt and require a change in the rates and terms as many commercial lenders and bond issuers do.
The “good news” is that the US mortgage market is very efficient and the real interest rate premium for borrowing to own a home is just 2% more than what the US government pays for borrowing. Borrowers face interest rate change risks, especially being caught with a high interest rate mortgage when inflation rates fall if they are unable to refinance.
The market has been tested through 7 business cycles and held up very well. The “Great Recession” exposed excessive risk taking by mortgage originators and funders. They lost money and many went out of business. Riskier mortgages are rarely issued today, and government regulations provide some added protection against any future overreach.
For higher income households that itemize deduction on their federal tax returns, the nominal interest rate paid is a tax-deductible offset to earned income. These individuals typically pay 22%, 24% or 34% marginal tax rates. A 5% nominal tax rate can provide a 1%, 1.25% or 1.65% reduction in the effective interest rate, thereby making the 2% real mortgage rate less than 1%. Higher income households can benefit greatly from this tax benefit.


https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/c6217390-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/c6217390-en
One-half of US government spending is managed at the state and local level. Only 3 OECD (developed economy) countries have a higher share at the local level. The median level is one-third of the total and some countries limit local spending to just 10-20% of the total. The US federal government model ensures that a significant share of government is managed closer to “the people”, which is even more important today with 330 million people than it was 200 years ago.
State and local expenditures as a percentage of GDP is 19% for the US, on the high side compared with other OECD nations as expected based on the 50/50 local/national split.


https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS#0
Federal government employment has been essentially flat for many decades.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/its-time-for-states-to-invest-in-infrastructure
Setting aside land and defense assets, states and local governments hold a supermajority of government assets.

The share of total government spending to GDP is the most important ratio to track. Since the 1960’s the federal government has moved spending responsibilities to the state for many programs. Spending drifted up to 25% of a growing post-war GDP by 1966. The Vietnam War and the Great Society programs pushed this up to 29% in 1975. The oil crisis, Japanese competition, inflation and recession pushed it up to 32% in 1976. Spending was still 33% of GDP 30 years later in 2007. The Great Recession drove spending up to 40% of GDP and then it declined back to 34% in 2014. State and local government spending has been relatively constant since 1976.


https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/local_spending_chart
Local government spending reached its modern level at 9-10% of GDP by 1990 and has mostly remained at that level.




federalism.us

https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/how-is-k-12-education-funded
State and local governments provide a wide variety of services.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/L319411A027NBEA
States and local governments routinely deliver solid budget surpluses in normal years and greatly exceeding the deficits encountered in recessionary years. State and local governments rely more on property and sales taxes which do not vary as much as income taxes. States have proactively reduced spending budgets whenever they have encountered recessions.

States have built up a nearly 3 month cushion of reserves to buffer recessionary periods. States and local governments did much better during the pandemic recession than anyone expected. They reacted quickly to ensure fiscal stability and found ways to put the federal government transfers to good use. Some states have provided rebates to their taxpayers.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLGTFFQ027S

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLGTANA027N
State and local governments have continued to accumulate valuable assets, especially in the last 10 years.
States have generally improved their credit ratings since 2006, before the Great Recession. At that time, 9 states had the very highest AAA rating. 39 held very strong AA ratings. Just 2, Louisiana and California held “upper medium” A ratings. Recent data shows 7 more states, for a total of 16, at AAA ratings. 29 have strong AA ratings. 3 are at single A: Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Kentucky. 2 have fallen a step lower to BBB: Illinois and New Jersey. The median rating has improved from AA to AA+.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_credit_rating
States have improved their pension fund percentage funding ratios, although some states remain at some risk of defaulting on their obligations.


federalism.us

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/state-and-local-general-expenditures-capita
State and local government spending per capita varies widely, reflecting local preferences. The mideast and far west are 15% above the national average while the southeast and southwest are 10% below the national average.
State spending varies even more widely. The national average is $6,900 per capita. California is 12th highest at $9,000 but neighbor Washington is much lower at $7,000 (26th). Massachusetts is also at $9,000 but its neighbor New Hampshire is at a very low $5,000 (46th). New York is lower than might be expected at $8,600 (15th). Nearby New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia spend $7,200-7,500, a bit above the national average. Michigan, Ohio and Illinois spend less than the national average at $6,100-6,300, but nearby Indiana ($5,500), Kentucky ($8,500) and West Virginia ($10,300) have much different priorities. Georgia ($5,700), Alabama ($6,300) and Mississippi ($6,700) spend less than the national average. Texas spends only $4,700 per capita (48th) while its neighbor Arkansas spends $9,200 (10th). Florida is the lowest spending state at just $4,000 per person, an amazing 42% less than the national average.
Another way to look at these differences is to compare the spending of 5 states. Rhode Island $10,400 (6th), Kentucky $8,500 (16th), Washington $7,000 (26th), Colorado $6,200 (36th) and New Hampshire $5,000 (46th). Rhode Island spends twice as much on state government than New Hampshire, a few miles away. This is the range in the US, reflecting vastly different local priorities.
In our federal system, state and local governments are called upon to manage one-half of total government spending. They routinely deliver budget surpluses and adapt during recessions, even the pandemic driven recession. They have accumulated significant real and financial assets to buffer difficult times. They have managed pension liabilities appropriately and improved their bond ratings and ability to borrow. They have taxed and spent to match local preferences. In aggregate, their spending has remained at the same percentage of GDP for many years.

Job growth is too slow, there are not enough jobs.
All of the good jobs are gone, there are fewer good jobs.
The only growth has been in “low wage”, service jobs.
There are no “blue collar” jobs, no “hands-on” work is available today.
Jobs are all “dumbed down”, no real content remains.
Automation, computers and artificial intelligence are eliminating all jobs.
There is no room for advancement at work.
The economy is inherently stagnant, firms are unable to create new positions.
We’ve become a nation of shopkeepers.
There’s no hope for millennials in the job market, Boomers are leaving a disaster.
More and more jobs are subject to the “imposter syndrome”, they really do nothing.
This time is different, we have reached the “end times” for jobs.
The US Census Bureau and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics attempt to measure the detailed occupations in the evolving US labor market. I have selected 1970 as a baseline because it is effectively prior to the “computer revolution” and within my lifetime of observing the labor market. The US economy was still essentially in the post WWII boom period with manufacturing clearly the most important industry in 1970. Prior to Japanese or Chinese competition. Prior to the “energy crisis” and environmental concerns. Prior to improved social, political and economic opportunities for women, racial and other minorities.
We had 153 million people working in the US labor market in 2021.
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
We had 75-77-79 million people working in 1970.
The total measures and the detailed measures are somewhat inconsistent between 1970 and 2021. But, they are adequate to make basic comparisons. The labor force doubled in 50 years. 75 million new jobs created! 15 million new jobs each decade. 1.5 million new jobs each year, on average.
The detailed occupation categories have also changed. The 500+ categories in 1970 are very different from 2021, but the basic measures are roughly consistent. I have mapped the 1970 categories onto the 2021 categories. In 1970, the “undefined” responses were in the 10% range and not reallocated back to the detailed occupations as is done currently. Self-employed individuals were measured differently. Managers and supervisors were measured differently. The current definitions are better aligned with the current jobs. The 1970 categories provided much more detail on the manufacturing sector.

Total employment more than doubled.
The highest level “manager/supervisor” jobs category nearly tripled. 18 million manager/supervisor jobs were added between 1970 and 2021. In 1970, there were 10 million manager/supervisor jobs; 13%, or one out of every 8 positions. The newly added positions are 24% of the labor force in 1970. The 28 million current manager/supervisor roles are 37% of the total 1970 work force. Opportunity, indeed. In 2021 terms, manager/supervisor roles are 18% of the work force, more than one of every six positions.
Professional jobs (college degree plus required) also tripled, growing from 14 to 41 million, an increase of 27 million new jobs. This increase is 36% of the 1970 work force. The manager, supervisor, professional subtotal is 23 million in 1970 (31% of the total). It has grown to 69 million (3X) in 2021, reaching 45% of the labor force. The number of “premium” jobs tripled, while the share of “premium” jobs increased by almost 50% in this half-century. Good news, indeed.
“Skilled” labor jobs were flat across 50 years, declining as a share of total jobs by one-half, from 10% to 5% of the economy. However, their neighbor, technical jobs, increased faster than the economy, adding 10 million high quality positions. The combined skilled labor (trades) and technician/technical level positions increased from 15 to 25 million, overall. This two-thirds growth is slower than the overall labor market’s doubling. Hence, this job level decreased from 20% to 16%, or from one in five to one in six positions. This is a “glass half-full or half-empty” situation. The 14% of the total labor market growth for premium positions is offset by a 4% decline in middle skilled positions, resulting in a 10% increase of combined middle and premium positions as a percentage of the total.
Lower skill level jobs accounted for nearly half of all jobs in 1970; 37 of 75 million. They comprised a decreased 39% of the total in 2021, 59 million out of 153 million. A smaller share of “lower skill” jobs seems like progress. Yet, even here, we have a growing labor market, with 59 million jobs in 2021 versus just 37 million jobs in 1970; 50% more.
The “physical labor” category grew from 22 to 32 million jobs, but it declined from 30% to 21% of the work force. Relatively fewer jobs, absolutely more. The clerical workforce encountered a similar, but less extreme change, growing from 11 to 15 million jobs, but declining from 14% to 10% of the work force. The “service sector” grew twice as fast as the overall economy, increasing from 4 to 12 million jobs and from 6% to 8% of all jobs. The “service sector” is growing disproportionately, but it is a relatively small part of the overall economy, just 8% of the total in 2021.
In total, the lower skilled clerical, labor and service groups combined, grew from 37 million to 59 million positions, but declined from 49% to 39% of all jobs. I see this as progress and look forward to the next half century reducing this category to just 30% of all US jobs.



At the detailed level, we have 70 occupations driving 62 million new jobs, 82% of the 1970 base. We also have 27 occupations experiencing a 12 million jobs loss, 15% of the 1970 base. Joseph Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” model of a dynamic economy is validated. Changes in demand and technology eliminated 12 million jobs, 15% of the total, across 50 years. The US economy is capable of permanently destroying and replacing a quarter million positions each year, about one-fifth to one-third of one percent of total employment.
Let’s go back to the dozen negative claims. Is there support in the details? Are there “good” jobs being destroyed? I only see declines due to “natural causes”: improved IT, telecom, process/quality/manufacturing, international trade, railroad, textile automation/imports, ag productivity, printing and DIY office options.
On the upside, what do we see? Management and supervisor roles growing in all areas in a more complex environment with higher sales volume, more products, faster product introduction, more exports, more outsourcing of functions, greater customer demands in all dimensions, global sourcing and competition.
Technology supplemented/infused positions at all levels. Cashiers, customer service reps, distribution employees, tellers and drivers today leverage IT systems and processes.
Increased specialization/technical skill in many service/technical areas. Retail terminals. WMS. HRIS. EDI. Customer service scripts. Web based transactions.
Increased professional skills, sophistication and impact in all areas.
More professional teachers, nurses, analysts, accountants, lawyers, HR, real estate and financial advisors.
Diverse technical computer, automation, lab, design, legal, teaching, culinary and design technical positions.
More medical, food service and personal care service roles.
In the last 50 years the US labor market has doubled in size and added an increasing share of managerial/professional/technical positions.
In my next blog, I’ll focus on the next level of detail: 17 categories of the US labor market.

https://abc13.com/houston-we-have-a-problem-weve-had-remember-when-history/1869513/
US Corporate profits grew from $1.9 Trillion(T) on an annual basis in the second quarter of 2019 before the pandemic to $3.0T in the second quarter of 2022; plus $1.1T (+57%)!!! US nominal gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 17%, from $21.3T to $24.9T, an increase of $3.6T. Real, inflation-adjusted, GDP grew by just 4%, accounting for a $0.8T increase in the real economy. Inflation grew by 13%, causing the other $2.8T of measured GDP. The $1.1T of increased corporate profits represents 39% of the inflation which has occurred in the last 3 years.
Let’s look at the growth of US corporate profits from a half-dozen starting points to try to put this into perspective.






| Year | Profit | Real Profit | Annl Incr Stage | Cum Annl Incr |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1970 | 55 | 142 | ||
| 1980 | 273 | 271 | 7% | 6.7% |
| 1995 | 468 | 307 | 1% | 3.1% |
| 2006 | 1,388 | 628 | 8% | 4.5% |
| 2012 | 1,880 | 819 | 3% | 4.3% |
| 2018 | 1,947 | 775 | -1% | 3.6% |
| 2022 | 3,012 | 1,023 | 7% | 3.9% |
US corporate profits reached $3 Trillion in 2022, up from essentially zero in 1950. I’ve selected 7 peak profit years to outline this growth. Nominal profits increased from $55B in 1970 to $3.0T in 2022. In real, inflation-adjusted terms, profits have grown from $142B to $1,023B, a 7-fold increase in 52 years! Annual profit growth has been erratic, increasing by a high of 8% from 1995 to 2006 and a low of -1% from 2012 to 2018. The cumulative annual real profit growth has stayed near 4% throughout the period. 4% compounded for 52 years is a little more than 7x.
The US population grew from 200.3M to 338.3M during this period, 1.0% per year. So, corporate earnings grew by 3% per year above the rate of population growth for 52 years!!!! This kind of compound growth rate cannot continue for long periods of time without greatly impacting other sectors of the economy.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population

Corporate profits fluctuated in the 4-6% of GDP range from 1947 through 2000. Profits jumped up to 10% of GDP by 2010 and have largely remained at this two-fold elevated level for a decade. Profits reached a new record of 12% in 2022!


This measure shows profits growing eight-fold since 1970. (I’m going to ignore the detailed differences between the various measures of profit. They are important, but not necessary to see the major growth in profits, which is broadly consistent across the various measures.)

A tighter measure of corporate profits shows an increase from 4.5% to 7% of GDP, even before the most recent profit growth.

An alternate measure of just “domesticly earned” corporate profits shows a flatter trend.
Another way to consider profits is to view its complement, the share of national income received by labor.

By this measure, labor has lost 10% of its income, while capital has gained 10% since 1980.

6% of GDP was moved from labor to capital.

Consulting firm McKinsey shows an 8% of GDP transfer and provides 5 explanations.

Most analyses of the growth in profits and decline in relative wages note that labor productivity has continued to rise by 2% or more annually, but labor has received almost no portion of those gains in the last 30 years.

Labor share of total income has dropped by 15% in the long-run by this measure.

This author calculates a 6-8% decline for labor.

A right-leaning think tank adjusts the data and claims that labor’s share remains constant in the long-run. The Tax Foundation does delve into the various measures of income and provides arguments for their preferred measure.

Stock prices tend to follow profits. The S&P 500 index has grown by 50% in the last 2 years (despite the recent decline), reflecting the amazing growth in corporate profits during a “once in a century” pandemic driven recession.

S&P 500 company earnings (a subset of total profits earned) continued to grow strongly through and after the pandemic.

This investment advisor says that profits increased by 5% of GDP.

Median REAL, inflation-adjusted, earnings remained flat at $330/week from 1979 through 2014, a period of 35 years! This is during periods where profits were growing at 4% per year in REAL terms. In the last 8 years, REAL wages have increased by 9%, a bit better than 1% per year on average.
The media has published many articles, especially noting the increase of profits, overall, since before the pandemic. This is a popular topic because the result is certainly counterintuitive and because President Biden and the more left-leaning national Democrats have been criticizing corporations for “price gauging” and causing the recent inflation spike.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/corporate-profits-boom-may-lead-to-higher-wages/
A variety of sources provide compelling data and logic to indicate that corporations are “taking advantage of” the post-pandemic inflation caused by supply chain issues and expansive fiscal and monetary policies to boost prices at rates faster than their costs of inputs (suppliers, labor, capital).

https://abcnews.go.com/US/record-corporate-profits-driving-inflation/story?id=87121327

Most economists and analysts point to the increased concentration of firms (fewer) by industry increasing their pricing power and allowing them to raise prices during periods of change.
https://academic.oup.com/rof/article/23/4/697/5477414
https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/industrial-concentration-in-the-united-states-2002-2017
This is pretty dense and dry stuff. There is a general consensus among economists who focus on this topic that concentration and pricing power have risen very significantly. This is partly due to the simple aging of industries with fewer players left standing. The winners in a world of global competition are simply “much better” than the losers so they continue to take market share. US anti-trust enforcement in the last 40 years has been very limited, following the theory that “open competition” in the long run (Schumpeter’s creative destruction) eventually undermines leading companies with innovative products, processes and market strategies.
The US Chamber of Commerce argues that industry concentration has not increased, noting that consumer choices in broadly defined industries have increased greatly through time.
https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/industrial-concentration-in-the-united-states-2002-2017
By a dozen measures, profit has consistently grown as a share of the American economy in the last 40-50 years. This necessarily means that the share of output and income received by labor is much smaller as a percentage of the total pie. The recent surprising ability of American corporations to effectively work through the pandemic supply chain disruptions, lose more than 10% of their labor force, increase nominal wages significantly, encounter severe input price inflation and still engineer price increases to come out much further ahead on profits is a major story for our time.
It is attracting attention to what I believe is an even more important story: the ability of corporations to incrementally capture nearly all of the increased value added by the productive American economy across 40-50 years and share very little with labor. This structural advantage of a very effective corporate sector “doing its job” within the relatively low-tax and low-regulation US political context is now completely proven.
In an ideal world, we would be developing and considering serious policy options that would limit this excess power without “killing the goose that lays the golden eggs”. Unfortunately, the Republican party remains focused on tax and regulation cuts as the main economic tools and the Democratic party alternates between 1960-70’s era Biden “centrist” policies and much further-left Bernie Sanders style policies.