Faltering Innovation and America’s Grim Economic Future

A confluence of trends will reduce economic growth in the United States to half — or less — of the rate that has prevailed for the past 150 years, argues Robert J. Gordon, an economics professor at Northwestern University in a new paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, “Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds.”

Successive waves of technological innovation — steam/railroads, electricity/internal combustion engine, and microchips — unleashed tremendous productivity gains that led to higher living standards. There is nothing remotely comparable on the horizon, Gordon contends. Indeed, the U.S. economy faces strong headwinds that will drag long-term growth to half or less of the 1.9% average annual rate that prevailed between 1860 and 2007.

The picture looks even worse for average Americans. While the Top 1% of income earners may continue to benefit from globalization, future growth in consumption per capita for the bottom 99 percent of the income distribution could fall below 0.5 percent per year for “an extended period of decades.”

If Gordon is correct, the implications are profoundly unsettling. Not only will living standards for most Americans stagnate for decades, there will be zero chance of whittling down the burden of the national debt by reviving  economic growth. While Gordon does not explicitly say so, if his arguments are correct, America’s entitlement state is unsupportable. Dramatic revisions to the social contract between government and the governed are all but inevitable.

Gordon’s paper largely buttresses my Boomergeddon scenario for U.S. government finances. Indeed, in my book, I made the argument, for very similar reasons, that economic growth will be slower than the 10-year forecasts that underpin Obama administration and Congressional Budget Office forecasts of spending, revenues and deficits. If slow economic growth constricts tax revenues, the nation faces $1 trillion-a-year deficits as far as the eye can see…. until the system finally breaks down.

As gloomy as I am about the short- to- mid-term future, however, I am less pessimistic than Gordon for the long run. As it happens, I am currently reading “The Physics of the Future” by Michio Kaku, who provides a fairly nuanced view of the technological changes we can expect within the near future (by 2030), midcentury (2030 to 2070) and the far future (2070 to 2010). Continued advances in computing power, artificial intelligence, robotics, genetic engineering and nanotechnology will continue to drive material progress. By giving short shrift to the impact of coming waves of technological innovation, Gordon is unduly dour over the long run.

Nevertheless, the six mega-trends that Gordon highlights are reason enough for alarm. In a nutshell they are:

The demographic dividend is now in reverse motion. In the late 20th century, the mass migration of women into the workforce propelled U.S. economic growth. That trend has spent itself. Now baby boomers are retiring en mass. Hours of work per capita are declining. Less work means less output.

The plateau in U.S. educational attainment shows no sign of ending. The U.S. is slipping in international rankings in the percentage of population that has earned a college degree. A key barrier — much discussed in this blog, though not in “Boomergeddon” — is the surge in the price of tuition, which deters people from attending college. Particularly worrisome is the persistent achievement gap between Asians/whites and Hispanics/blacks.

Continued growth in income inequality will hold down gains for the 99%. Between 1993 and 2008, the 1% captured more than half the income gains during that period; the 99% shared the other half. Gordon sees no reason to think that trend will change.

Globalization will continue to outsource middle-class jobs. Inexpensive foreign labor competes with American labor not just through outsourcing but through imports. Emerging nations enjoy the advantage not only of lower wages but growing technological capabilities.

Energy and the environmental constraints will dampen growth. In 1901 the environment was not a priority. The population’s willingess to accept pollution allowed the economy to grow faster than it otherwise would have. We no longer have that luxury. Meanwhile, economic growth in India and China means greater competition for petroleum and other raw materials, which will drive up prices. (Gordon does not address the fracking revolution and what it means for long-term energy prices. I missed the significant of this trend when writing “Boomergeddon.” But that was more than two years ago — there is no excuse now.)

Rising government debt will slow growth. Accumulating consumer debt propelled economic growth for many years. The gradual pay-down of consumer debt has knocked out one of the props from the economy. Government has made up for the lost buying power by increasing its debt, but that increase is unsustainable. “As a matter of arithmetic the ratio of government debt to GDP can be reduced by a mix of higher taxes, lower expenditures, and lower entitlement benefits (including higher retirement ages). But the same arithmetic implies that higher taxes and/or lower transfers reduces the growth rate of real household disposable income relative to that of real GDP.”

For the most part, I agree with Gordon’s appraisal. One mega-trend that I identified and Gordon neglected was the impact of growing government control over the economy through direct spending, regulation and manipulation of credit markets. The morphing of the economy from innovation-driven capitalism to crony capitalism squanders resources on a massive scale. This is easily as important as any of the problems he mentions.

Bacon’s bottom line: We had a good run for 150 years. Absent fundamental reforms to our economic and political systems — reforms for which Americans have no stomach — the U.S. will enter a slower growth trajectory. We cannot support our the entitlement state with its massive unfunded liabilities. Adjusting to reality will be very, very painful.

— JAB


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Quite a few years ago, I attended a conference in Denver, joining a number of my then-co-workers and invited guests. The conference discussed the intersection of business/economics and public policy. One speaker’s remarks set off the alarms in my mind. He gave me a new insight that has stuck with me ever since.
    The speaker was from the UK, a former Labor Party member of Parliament and a consultant to my employer’s European subsidiary. I seem to recall he was also an economist. He talked about the big change in the private economy whereby much economic power in the private sector had shifted from producers to consumers, chiefly as a result of competition and globalization. Many examples were given.
    He then contrasted the public sector and explained how much of the economic power remains with the producers. High college costs as much of education is government operated and funded. Ditto for heath care and government in general.
    I don’t have a ready solution, but I think the explanation is quite useful.

  2. well.. people who don’t have jobs or have jobs but not high pay will not be buying near as much as they did before.

    so there go the production jobs also.

    now take away the DOD jobs and reduce/eliminate entitlements and if you think the fiscal cliff is frightening.. you ain’t seen nothing yet.

    pretty soon, we’ll be competing with the Chinese in building cell phones and the like, eh? No.. scratch that.. illegals will take those jobs.

    I threw in the last thing for TMT!

    🙂

  3. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Jim:

    Well written and interesting. However, I think you have a “double typo”:

    “Gordon sees no reason to think that trend will persist. In fact…”.

    The “In fact …” may be a reference to the next sentence. However, does Gordon see no reason the trend of income inequality will persist or no reason it will end?

  4. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Gordon’s pessimistic view may be right. Let’s say it is. Does a constant decline in American productivity / wealth / standard of living mean that all of America will suffer equally? I doubt it. Different areas of Virginia display very different economic profiles.

    So …

    Should America favor a stronger central government so that this coming pain is evenly distributed, or …

    Should America favor a more distributed government (i.e. states’ rights) so that different states can innovate differently in an effort to try to find the best way to cope with these issues?

    Of course, the same question could be asked of centralized state government versus empowered localities (i.e. Death to Dillon).

    You know my answer – decentralization of government creates competition among governments. And competition among governments breeds innovation in government.

    Decentralization = a much better chance of economic success.

    1. Agreed. I would elaborate upon your point thusly: Decentralization also creates more laboratories for success and failure. We can see what the winners are doing and try to emulate them, and we can see what the losers are doing and try to avoid their mistakes. Decentralization allows a survival of the fittest in a competition between states, regions and municipalities within regions. I would much prefer that approach than putting all our money on a single set of policies at the federal government level and praying we get it right.

  5. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Two points from the New York Times: One article notes how super robots are making chinese labor inefficient. If so it won’t matter if American boomers retire. Another reports piles of Chinese product inventory piling up. These could make your points out of date.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Which, of course, means those very few of us “one percenters” who own the technology companies that make the robots and their software will force the rest of you to spend all of your savings buying the things that our robots make. After that, we won’t have any use for you. Maybe Bacon is right – we won’t need new roads after all.

      Happy weekend.

  6. more retirees = Less work means less output.

    I find his arguments contradictory.

    More robots = less need for human capital and you still get increased production.

    many folks who retire – often do so because for their particular skill – there is a glut and/or the bottom has dropped out for what they are skilled in.

    their choice is to re-train – so they can work a few more years, take a lower paying …even a menial job…or just retire and do the things in their life that make them happy including volunteering to help others.

    How many 55 – 65 year olds know how to program in Java or design a database schema or configure security for a Linus network?

    how many of them could actually re-train and even if they did – how well would they compete against younger workers who can forgo health care …work crazy hours.. and live in a place that a 55 year old would not unless as a last resort?

    I think you’re going to find that the world – from a technology perspective is far, far outpacing our job skills – even for some young people but no contest for 50+ year olds whose primary computer challenge was learning how to use MS word or create a spreadsheet?

    and technology, unlike Humans is dirt cheap once you have the skilled types needed to roll it out and keep it going.

    There are a ton of seniors out there that unless they are nimble and flexible and willing to learn and keep up – there simply is no real job for them anymore.

    Ask DJ how many 50-years old he is hiring…

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      “their choice is to re-train – so they can work a few more years, take a lower paying …even a menial job…or just retire and do the things in their life that make them happy including volunteering to help others.”.

      Yes, it is a CHOICE. The people you describe have decided to stop working and paying their full measure of taxes. So, they want me to pay more because I still work. Bull****. All you people who have CHOSEN to stop working because … imagine R. Lee Emry voice … “it doesn’t make you happy” need to keep paying taxes just like you would have done if you had CHOSEN to work.

      So, we institute a “citizenship tax”. It’s $15,000 per year. You can make that payment by working and paying income taxes or you can make the CHOICE not to work, sell some of your assets and pay the tax with the proceeds from your asset sale.

      I am tired of carrying lazy people on my back!

      The young – OK.
      Those seeking work who can’t find jobs – OK.

      Lazy people who CHOOSE to stop working but still want all of society’s benefits (paid for by people like me) – Hell No!

  7. “Yes, it is a CHOICE. The people you describe have decided to stop working and paying their full measure of taxes. So, they want me to pay more because I still work. Bull****. All you people who have CHOSEN to stop working because … imagine R. Lee Emry voice … “it doesn’t make you happy” need to keep paying taxes just like you would have done if you had CHOSEN to work.”

    If someone works until they are vested in their pension – what is YOUR problem with that? If someone CHOOSES to take an early retirement and as a result gets a reduced pension what is YOUR problem with with that?

    If someone chooses to retire and then volunteers in the community and in doing so saves YOU taxes, what is YOUR problem with that?

    You sound like a niggardly selfish brat.

    “So, we institute a “citizenship tax”. It’s $15,000 per year. You can make that payment by working and paying income taxes or you can make the CHOICE not to work, sell some of your assets and pay the tax with the proceeds from your asset sale.”

    Why? If someone works their whole life and meets the terms of their employment and wants to retire what business is it of yours? Are you turning into yet another right wing knuckle-dragger? Is that why you support Ryan?

    “I am tired of carrying lazy people on my back!”

    you are certainly not carrying me on your bad dude. I worked my whole life and paid into my retirement. your selfish and irresponsible punitive attitude is not justified at all.

    The young – OK.
    Those seeking work who can’t find jobs – OK.

    You’ll find if you take a minute that many who are in that 50-65 range at not prime job prospects if their background is out of date.

    Lazy people who CHOOSE to stop working but still want all of society’s benefits (paid for by people like me) – Hell No!

    People who work most of their lives and pay into their retirement are entitled to it and it’s none of your dang niggardly business, guy.

    get down off your high horse and be a human.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      “You’ll find if you take a minute that many who are in that 50-65 range at not prime job prospects if their background is out of date.”.

      Hmmm….

      I am in that age range and I run an open source software company.

      Do you think there were a lot of open source software companies when I was in elementary school? High school? College? In my 20s? 30s?

      I had to evolve and adapt. I had to reinvent myself. I could have cried my little eyes out about how the world passed my by but I didn’t.

      So, when you and Obama claim that I somehow was lucky or I was the beneficiary of some special treatment, I used to laugh. Now, I am not laughing. I am mad. I am sick of carrying lazy people who could work but decide not to work on my back.

      Background out of date. You’re a comic. My background goes out of date every 10 years. Stop whining. Get a job.

  8. when you make it personal DJ – you get it right back in your face. keep it up.

  9. Whoah, dudes, everybody settle down! Go to bed. Get a good night’s sleep. Everything will feel better in the morning.

  10. some folks in life are arrogant sawed off little people who think much more highly of themselves than they ever have a right to.

    some folks have more to start with but can’t leave it at that – they have to go looking for others to look down their noses.. at

    but the world takes all types… no matter how repugnant…some are.

  11. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    New report from New York Times:

    Blogging is now official extinct. It was killed off by human-induced global warming which does not exist.

  12. I’m still not understanding why a person who works his entire life and takes his pension and does volunteer work is an enemy of other taxpayers.

    And I’d ask DJ exactly what courses and re-training he has taken to “re-invent” himself and if he himself is doing the actually open-source programming that he suggests others learn how to do to relieve their “laziness”.

    I suspect this was a blowhard moment but to be truthful , it HAS been coming on in many prior posts as he edged closer and closer to adding retired people to his other “blame” rants of people and institutions who supposedly at the root of what messes up the lives of the one percenters.

    I will give DJ his due. He is, if nothing else, a real, live job creator and for that, his voice does count.

    However, it’s totally bizarre how a guy who advocates raises taxes on others for “you did not create that” projects but himself has deep resentment for his share.

  13. One of my “volunteer” tasks is doing taxes for the elderly and younger folks of modest means.

    And I just want to say that I myself pay substantial taxes both income and sales and property so I’m not sure where DJ get this “I’m tired of paying taxes for your lazy ass” CRAP.

    But more than that – MANY of the elderly also pay substantial taxes on their pension income is they exceed the govt thresholds for income and don’t forget that Medicare does not cover 20% of expenses and the IRS does not let you deduct that extra – only the part that exceeds 7.5% of your income.

    I have seen many retired, including teachers on really minimal VRS pensions ( contrary to popular view – teachers pensions are not lavish but niggardly) end up paying taxes because they also received SS (that they paid into their whole working careers). These folks pay their fair share of taxes, and many at a much higher rate than on investment income. Remember, when you set aside pension contributions with tax free money, the taxes are DEFERRED til you retire, NOT forgiven.

    Others, young people, especially those with kids and few skills are the ones who end up paying no Federal or State taxes in part because the govt essentially gives them their tax deductions back via child credits – however, I’d also point out that no matter how poor these folks are – they get NONE of their FICA taxes for Social Security and Medicare back. They get not one penny back (except for the temporary 2% FICA rebate).

    My bigger point here is that people pay taxes, significant taxes even people who are in modest circumstances including near poverty – they still pay taxes.

    For DJ to take up the Paul Ryan Banner on taxes on the non-rich and retirees especially after supporting tax & spend types like Terry McAuliffe is nothing short of spectacular.

    If folks like Ryan get their way, we will do away with both Medicare and Social Security ( that people DO pay into their whole life) and we’ll end up with about 1/2 of our seniors in abject poverty as was the case when SS was first passed and is the case in most countries that don’t have social security or Medicare.

    There is NOTHING WRONG with mandatory payroll taxes for pension and health care. Every single industrialized country in the world does this and the only exceptions are 3rd world countries!

    Even Singapore and Hong Kong and Chile have payroll taxes for pensions and health care.

    so we have DJ who would tax the bejesus out of retirees and RoVa and he’s call it the “Lazy Ass” tax….. so that he would not have to pay taxes himself. Sounds like a GOP Plan to me!

    🙂

Leave a Reply