sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Tuesday's Top 10: China's coal mountain range; Strong middle classes, not lower taxes, create jobs; 3D faxing; Why the US should double its minimum wage; Dilbert

Tuesday's Top 10: China's coal mountain range; Strong middle classes, not lower taxes, create jobs; 3D faxing; Why the US should double its minimum wage; Dilbert
This daily collection of links and comment was previously sponsored by NZ Mint. We'd welcome a new sponsor.

Here's my Top 10 links from around the Internet at midday today.

As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to bernard.hickey@interest.co.nz.

See all previous Top 10s here.

My must read is #5 from venture capitalist Nick Hanauer arguing for a doubling of the minimum wage in the US. 

1. The problem for Solid Energy - The government is now negotiating with bankers over the size of the haircut they will take on their debt with Solid Energy.

Meanwhile, the state owned coal miner continues to lay off staff and reduce production.

Its customers such as New Zealand Steel and Genesis continue to import coal from Indonesia.

The New Zealand dollar's 10-20% over-valuation is a factor, but the massive over-supply of coal in China is also a driver.

This piece in Quartz explains just how big that coal mountain is and the scale of the challenge for Solid Energy. The story in aluminium is very similar.

Here's Quartz:

Years of excessive investment are catching up with China, and the latest example is coal. Its reserves now contain 220 million tons (200 million tonnes) of coal, as the Hao Hao Report notes. That puts China on track to have as much as 440 million tons by the end of 2013, according to the China National Coal Association (CNCA)—around 40% more than the combined weight of the entire human population.

This excess coal has driven prices down by half, compared with the same period last year. Now 24 of China’s biggest coal companies—nearly one-third—are losing money, says Jiang Zhimin, vice-chairman of the CNCA.

2. Increase the wages - US average real wages have fallen since 2009. This is why America's economy is struggling. Not vice-versa. 

Here's the WSJ with an excellent report. 

Four years into the economic recovery, U.S. workers' pay still isn't even keeping up with inflation. The average hourly pay for a nongovernment, non-supervisory worker, adjusted for price increases, declined to $8.77 last month from $8.85 at the end of the recession in June 2009, Labor Department data show.

Stagnant wages erode the spending power of consumers. That means it is harder for them to make purchases ranging from refrigerators to restaurant meals that account for most of the nation's economic growth.

All told, Patrick Newport, an economist at IHS Global Insight, expects real wage growth of only 1% by the end of 2014. That is "good news for employers," he said, "not-so-good news for workers."

Consumers remain the biggest driver of the U.S. economy, but without more money coming in, it will be difficult for them to spur robust growth.

3. Ageing and browning populations slow US growth - This research cited by the WSJ suggests US growth could continue to remain very subdued for demographic reasons.

New research by two economists, Richard Burkhauser of Cornell Universityand Jeff Larrimore of Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, suggests things may get even worse in coming years—thanks to two basic population trends. After supporting the economy during their peak earning years, America’s Baby Boomers are starting to retire, which will mean higher numbers of lower-income older individuals. Second, the researchers argue, relatively high-earning whites are over time being replaced by minority workers, especially Hispanics, who tend to make less money.

Burkhauser and Larrimore project these two factors will reduce growth in median incomes by about 0.5% per year through 2030.

Demographic trends used to support income growth. The median household income rose about 9% between 1979 and 1989 and 13% between 1989 and 2000, the researchers note. A key driver was the increased employment and earnings of women.

But in the mid-2000s incomes slumped. Many Americans apparently took this in stride since home values were climbing significantly, boosting wealth, and credit was easy to get. To offset stagnant incomes, Americans took on more and more debt, which made the Great Recession that much worse, according to a separate paper by New York University economist Edward Wolff. As the crisis took hold, net worth plummeted. At the same time, median household income dropped about 7% from 2007 to 2010, more than the 3.5% fall seen between 2000 and 2004 and a 4% decline between 1989 and 1992.

4. 'We need to grow the middle class' - US venture capitalist Nick Hanauer makes a strong case in this TED talk that was never broadcast that the very rich are not job creators and what's needed to get the US economy going is a stronger middle class and public investment in infrastructure funded through higher taxes on the very rich, like him. 

The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.

5. A capitalist argues for a doubling of the minimum wage - Here's Hanauer again with this opinion piece in Bloomberg. He makes a good point that if wages had tracked productivity gains since 1968 the minimum wage in the United States (currently US$7.25) would be more like US$21.72 an hour.

Wouldn't it be great to see a New Zealand capitalist do this? Although to be fair,  Stephen Tindall's Warehouse does have to be congratulated for adopting a higher retailing career wage.

The fundamental law of capitalism is that if workers have no money, businesses have no customers. That’s why the extreme, and widening, wealth gap in our economy presents not just a moral challenge, but an economic one, too. In a capitalist system, rising inequalitycreates a death spiral of falling demand that ultimately takes everyone down.

Low-wage jobs are fast replacing middle-class ones in the U.S. economy. Sixty percent of the jobs lost in the last recession were middle-income, while 59 percent of the new positions during the past two years of recovery were in low-wage industries that continue to expand such as retail, food services, cleaning and health-care support. By 2020, 48 percent of jobs will be in those service sectors.

Policy makers debate incremental changes for arresting this vicious cycle. But perhaps the most powerful and elegant antidote is sitting right before us: a spike in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

6. 3D printing - Quartz have done a nice job here summarising the latest on a trend that could be big. It cites Citi saying the market for 3D printing could triple in 5 years.

3D printing will explode in 2014, thanks to the expiration of key patents. Soon, you won’t have to master the (challenging, time-consuming) task of learning how to model things in 3D, because you’ll just be copying them from the real world usingcheap, effective 3D scanners. This technology will also enable 3D faxing (should anybody want it) and the democratization of fine art.

The materials with which you can 3D-print something continue to multiply—the latest is plain old printer paper, not to mention human tissue. But it’s not just materials—the ways in which 3D printing, or really 3D fabrication, can be accomplished are also multiplying. There’s 3D subtraction—i.e., cutting shapes out of blocks of material—which is a lesser known but actually much more mature technology, and it’s already being used to create new models for localized manufacturing. Crane-operated 3D printers are even being used to fabricate entire buildings.

7. Derailing the recovery? - Gavyn Davies writes in this FT blog (ie not paywalled) about whether the emerging markets exodus of recent weeks might derail the global economic recovery. He looks at a couple of expected shocks, including a slide in Chinese growth and a surge in US growth.

The markets seem to be broadly correct in their assessment of the two significant shocks which are currently hitting the global economy. These are likely to have a marked effect on the relative growth rates of the major regions, with the emerging world being hit while the US gains, but the net effect on the entire global economy may not be very large.

The outcome would, however, be different if the size of the shock hitting China were to increase significantly. For example, if the initial shock were to increase by one half, from -2 per cent of GDP to -3 per cent (which would take Chinese GDP growth down into the 5 per cent region for a while), then the overall adverse impact of the two shocks on global GDP growth would peak at about -2 per cent for a couple of quarters. This would probably be enough to threaten a renewed global recession, even assuming that the expansionary shock in the US remained intact.

In other words, the emerging market malaise could indeed take the global economy down with it, but only if the the Chinese shock turns out to be much larger than currently seems likely.

8. A strike in Singapore - This WSJ piece on a strike by Chinese migrant bus drivers in Singapore is a good read. I lived in Singapore for a couple of years and the idea of a strike is deeply unsettling to the family that runs the place.

9. Israel tightens its own speed limits - Our Reserve Bank has watched the Bank of Israel's attempts to bring in macro-prudential tools such as limits on high LVR lending. Israel announced a fresh tightening in the last week, Bloomberg reports. 

10. Totally John Oliver's summer holiday story.

 

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

26 Comments

It seems completely axiomatic that having a prosperous middle class is essential for driving an economy in any sustainable sense. Why is this such a controversial idea?

Up
0

forget controversial, it's just plain oxymoronic.

 

Firstly, because you mis-identify the driver.

 

Secondly, because you can't have both growth (unless you're  advocating a steady-state economy?) and sustainability simultaneously.

 

Thirdly, when the growth effort started to hit the wall, the bottom would suffer first (KH has a 'baulk' threshold at that one, doesn't like to know his putchases are via slave-labour or environment-trashing) then the lower middle, then the middle middle, then the upper middle, then........  It was inevitable, given who hold the purse-strings and call the shots.

 

 

 

Up
0

Technically you can have growth and sustainability: it's just a bit unlikely. The "best" form of growth is productivity enhancement rather than just throwing more resources at an economy. And we could do with productivity enhancement in areas like renewable energy and low-input farming. What we dont want is growth in burning fossil fuels.

Up
0

Enhancement? Interesting. Productivity is a combination of reduction in remuneration (a trend to lower wages) and efficiencies.

 

You are quite correct in that we need to be going full-steam ahead with renewable energy and local farming, but neither will provide 'growth'. More requirement for labour, yes. More income, no.

Up
0

Remember I am only using growth in the economists' limited sense of what you measure through the amazingly deficient GDP measure. Nothing to do with reality of course. In that sense "productivity" is only more sales revenue per input dollar. You can drive a truck through that one.

Up
0

Some years ago china couldnt dig out coal fast enough to meet growing demand.  Now there are huge stockpiles? the next Q is if the chinese economy was really OK they wouldnt have all this spare coal, would they?  So is it OK? probably not...

regards

Up
0

Yes.  We have had a war on the middle class.  Why ?  In whose interest was it ?

Up
0

RE US wages , the minimum wage in the US is still to high for what is essentially still a large manufacturing economy .They continue to bleed jobs to Mexico and South East Asia

The only way to adjust is for the wage rate to fall in real terms over time

Up
0

But not your income, eh Boatman? Nor those of your cronies?

 

You're quite right, incomes vs purchasing ability will fall, and for the neediest first. That's what happens on an overcrowded, over extracted, overpolluted planet. Hughey can point out the trend, but misses the 'why'.

 

But your problems are twofold - and shooting the messenger won't remove the unwelcome message: One is that you can't buy your way out of the pollutive impacts (like climate change), the second is that there is a problem with stored 'wealth' in that most like you believe (and it is no more than a belief) that your 'wealth' will survive the inevitable meltdown.

 

Bernanke held it off, but didn't make it go away. Can't make it go away. Good luck with that.

Up
0

What I'd call a nice longread (book section) on shipping http://blog.longreads.com/post/59373790425/like-being-in-prison-with-a-…

 

Up
0

Something I was reading earlier- a primer on Inca economics.

http://io9.com/the-greatest-mystery-of-the-inca-empire-was-its-strange-1198541254

Up
0

Boatman

You think it is the right direction to lower wages in Developed countires to match with those in developing countries ? The only benefactors of such conditions are  corporations that gain more profits at the expenses of the common people in both developed and developing countries. The left is often accused of spreading poverty equally however it seems that freemarket is doing this instead.

Up
0

Bernard,

Items 2-5 have a similar theme of spreading income back down to the middle and lower middle classes not only being good in fairness and ethically; but frankly to drive an economy. A simple proposition that I wholeheartedly agree with.

A few questions, which I attempt to answer:

Is consumption constrained by money being in the right hands, or the lack of ability to produce goods and services? PDK tends to the latter I understand, with the world running out of resources to produce any more. My view is that spare employment capacity, and generally low commodity prices suggest there is plenty of capacity for now, so it is a money in the right hands issue for now at least.

Can any one business fix the problem? No is the short answer. Credit to the Warehouse, but they cannot deviate from a commercial norm by far, or their costs will be very uncompetitive. So a solution needs some regulation, either with minimum wages or income redistribution.

How does NZ compare with the US? Our minimum wage is already higher than theirs by some margin. We have working for families redistribution; and more complete health, education and social welfare packages. We do though have considerably higher cost of living in many things. On balance we seem in considerably better shape, but should at least be aware that every time we tighten the screws on the working middle class, consumption will decline.

Is the ageing and browning effect a disaster in waiting? Not at all if sensible policies are followed. I'm not even sure we do need to raise the official retirment age, or cut pensions. It's now clear retired people consume less on average, apart from health care. There is plenty of productive capacity to meet other peoples' needs and expectations. GDP measures are probably not the best score to keep. We need to ensure reasonable money is in the hands of the majority of the population.

Can we move to some redistribution without inflation? Maybe, but it will take longer. Debts and obligations will have been arranged with current incomes in mind. Redistribution on current price levels will cause real pain to the highly indebted; and to those then defaulted on. All of that though is just numbers on a spreadsheet, and not real production and consumption. But it will need some managing. The Japanese have tried the long way, and now are at least trying the shortcut. Let's see.

Any other key points? New Zealand still needs to manage within its income. No matter any redistribution. Keep close to the current account, and therefore the exchange rate.

Apologies for the length of this; all seemed important to me.

 

 

 

 

Up
0

Lots of sensible thinking in all those bits Stephen L.  Well worth a re-read and a think.

Up
0

StephenL = what 'money' in the hands? Seems to me, most folk - and increasingly more folk - are doing it on debt. Remember that much of what is charged, saved and expected to purchase, is 'created' out of nothing relative to anything real.

Debts and obligations will have been arranged with current incomes in mind.

No - that's the HughP misconception. There isn't time to erase the currently-held debts, hasn't been since 2005-8. Gonna either be ugly (mass defaults cascading) or via inflation

 

There is plenty of productive capacity to meet other peoples' needs and expectations.

I went to Jeanette Fitzsimmons lecture last night (an economy of 'enough' - or 'steady-state') and I'd be less confident than you. She referenced a major banking outfit (name escapes me but I'll fing out) which anticipates an energy-contention-induced crash pre 2020.

http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/events/otago052694.html

We need to ensure reasonable money is in the hands of the majority of the population.

Money just buys stuff. No point in everyone having it, if there's a shortage of 'stuff'. Better is to anticipate what might be short (food, energy) and aim for resilience in those. That's why the Food Resilience crowd here are heading down the track, that's why our Council are looking at food resilience, forming an Energy Policy, have a resilience adviser, etc.

 

The biggest scrap equity-wise is going on now; this Govt is set on prying ownership from ordinary folk, and is prepared to spend ordinary folks tax to set up the conditions to do so. That's theft, fraud or both. Where's the media? Backing it, is where.

 

And pensions? There won't be any, by 2030. They are expectations to buy goods/services.

 

What's wrong with consumption decining, by the way? That's what has to happen, bigtime. That's a good thing from all but the perspective of the current generations self-indulgence fetish.

 

 

Up
0

PDK, On some key points we seem to agree; on one timing issue, perhaps not.

I actually do accept that oil prices in particular may well increase significantly ahead of inflation over the next 10 years; and that will have considerable downstream effects. For now though I see underconsumption relative to capacity in the western world in particular. Some of that is the usual useful repositioning of production into different stuff that the world now decides it would like. But much under consumption (and therefore under production of stuff) seems to be due to money issues, and not yet a shortage of resources. (Bernard's Chinese coal mountain story reinforces that some resources are actually abundant). Yet global money supplies in total are as large as they ever have been. So the problem is distribution of money, and debts. 

I agree on the mass defaults or inflation choice; or perhaps a long Japanese grind of a couple of decades. It could be globally that some modest inflation for 3-4 years is the least bad solution. How does Auckland get out of its overpriced house market for example? 

It would be good to keep resilience in food and energy medium term, I also agree; selling hydro power companies off still seems madness. 

And a reason to focus on the current account is to check consumption is no more than our own production over time as a country; or we can get hit by a shock. That would be my check on consumption.

We can still have pensions in 2030. What we can buy with them will depend on the capacity of the day. Best we keep that as high as practical, and not let it whither away.

Congratulations on the Ranfurly Shield. A heart warming story I thought.

 

 

Up
0

Most people do not know that the Irish potato famine was caused by inequality not an inability to feed itself. During the famine approximately 1 million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland.

 

From about 1800, Irish farming increasingly split into two: a subsistence sector feeding the poor Catholic masses on potatoes, and an export sector meeting Britain's shortfall in food....

 

In 1815, Ireland supplied 57% of Britain's wheat imports; in the mid-1820s, 70%; in the mid-1830s, 90%. By 1845, 40% of Ireland's wheat production was exported to Britain..... From 1816 steam came.... Live animals now began to pour across the Irish Sea. In the 1830s and 1840s .... Ireland was regularly shipping 100,000 cattle beasts a year to Britain.... 200,000 sheep and lambs and 3-400,000 pigs. Wheat and meat were joined by butter, cheese and eggs -between 60 and 90 million eggs a year in the mid -1830s....

 

It was Ireland that made up the difference between British food output and food consumption during the first decades of the Industrial Revolution.

 

 Unlike grain farming, this new livestock trade did not need much Catholic cottier labour, but it did need land. Poor Catholics became dependent on the potato, while the best farmland fed England -hence the terrible consequences of the Potato Famine of 1846-7. Total Irish exports in 1845 could have fed over two million people. They did feed over 2 million people, but the people were English, not Irish.

 

Replenishing the Earth by James Belich, 2009

 

This is relevant to us because Ireland was a failed experiment to feed England during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution. They were replaced by Denmark then the Dominions, which of course included New Zealand. At our peak half our exports were going to Britain.

 

 Since then we have lost the British market but we haven't learnt how to diversify our economy like Denmark has.

 

So now we are experimenting with replacing Britain with China. Will that work out better than Ireland? We seemed to lost the knack of creating equality within our society. And according to some -PDK we are heading for the mother of all famines.

Up
0

#6.  What is the big deal with 3D printing.  Just look at the newell post on a ornate old stair rail.  They could do remarkable things with marking out and making back in the day.

And so you need it to be electronically driven.  Guy down the road has a big machine.  Takes a block of steel.  Cuts some complex widget shape out of it.  Day after day and perfect every time.

I don't get what the advance is ?

Up
0

His machine likely can only cut a few different shapes, where as a 3d printer can print any shape with no down time between shifting to a new shape. Thats the advance.

Up
0

3D printer.  Limited to shape.  Limited to size and most importantly limited to material.  Fairly equvalent limitations to the big lathes.  IMHO.

And the current big lathes are programmable to change jobs.

And ask an owner of a 3D printer to make a curled end piece of curved stair rail.  Similar shape to one of 100 years ago and add in some original shapes.  Quite able to be done.   But will take a high level of skill and almost nobody with a printer will be able to instruct the printer to do it. 

And there were plenty of guys 100 years ago who could think it through, mark it out and begin to cut the wood they had.  You can still find these guys.

But nothing wrong with 3D printers.  They will have their place. 

Up
0

There is a place for additive rather than subtactive but where I have my doubts given the example of inkjets is the mark ups there will be on the medium. Anything consumable is seem with bit dollar signs and it will be those profits driving the technology rather than potential uses.

 

Where they well be great is for prototyping or building a positive for a mold. It is certainly something that would smooth the way of the project I am working on, but at what cost? I take perhaps half a day to knock one up out of plaster of paris or resin whereas the real value in what I do is in the thought that goes into the design.

Up
0

Exactly Scarfie.  It's the thinking.  Design, layout and followthrough.  Same if you are using a 3D printer or a chisel.

Up
0

Perhaps you could print yourself a back-seat full of lithium iron batteries?

 

It wouldn't make up for the need to carry the weight, nor for the lost carrying space, but it would maybe save you $10,000 every few years at current prices...........

 

:)

Up
0

Haha thanks for that one PDK, good to have a laugh this time of the morning.

Up
0

Instead of driving into town to get those burgers PDK.  You could print those Big Macs right in you own kitchen !

Up
0

Except the block of steel is a hugely stronger item structurally.  I have seen little yet that suggests 3D printing will ever be of this structural quality.  Now in time with special glues, maybe post heat treated (baked, maybe lasered), yes, but not today.

regards

 

Up
0