the 3% – 4% growth promise
One of Donald Trump’s campaign promises is to create 3% – 4% GDP growth in the US. Is this possible?
The first thing to note is that this is real GDP growth, meaning after inflation has been subtracted out. I’m not sure Mr. Trump has ever clarified this–or that he wouldn’t be nonplussed by the question–but his appointees to head the Treasury and Commerce departments have said real is what they mean. Also, 4% nominal (that is, including inflation) growth is about what the US has been churning out in recent years. So promising 4% nominal growth would be like P T Barnum putting up his “This way to the egress” sign.
where does growth come from?
Simple models are usually the best (as in this case, feeling embarrassed when calling them “models” is a good indicator of simplicity). Growth can come either by having more people working or by having workers be more productive, meaning churning out more output per hour.
Having more people working is a function of demographics.
Each year, the population of the US rises by about 0.8%. Half of that comes from children being born to people already residing in the US; half comes from immigration. If we take increases in the population as a proxy for increases in the workforce, then demographics can generate a bit less than 1% trend growth in GDP.
This also means that if Mr. Trump carries through on his threat to deport 3% of the workforce and restrict entry of immigrants, not only will the social consequences be shameful, he will make it that much harder to achieve his GDP objective.
Given that demographics will likely either not change, or will change in a negative way, getting to the low end of the 3% – 4% range will only be possible if worker productivity rises. Let’s make the optimistic assumptions that the Republicans’ white supremacy rhetoric doesn’t discourage any potential immigrants and that there’s no increase in deportations. If so, productivity gains would have to be at least +2.2% per year to achieve the low end of the GDP growth goal.
If +4% growth isn’t simply “marketing” in the worst sense of that word, the Trump camp must believe that productivity can be boosted to +3.2% per year.
An aside: My first stock market boss was a vintage 19th-century capitalist. He believed that increasing worker productivity meant boosting the workload–and making employees work longer hours for the same pay. (No, there was no company store where we were forced to buy meals; yes, we had to basically provide our own office supplies.)
That’s not correct, though. Productivity improvement comes through better employee education/training and by employers investing in labor-enhancing machines (back then, it would have been computer workstations, or in my firm’s case, pencils).
Productivity today has been stuck at around +1% per year growth for about a decade. During the housing bubble, when the US was furiously churning out many more new dwellings than the country could afford and banks were making crazy no-documentation mortgage loans (websites were also sprouting up to show low-income renters how to buy a house and scam the system for a year of “free rent” before foreclosure), we got to maybe +2.8% for a number of years. But the last time the US rose above 3% was in the 1950s, when industry in Europe and Japan had been destroyed by war.
I hope Wilbur Ross can do what he says.
I think +4% growth is simply hype–and that Mr. Ross, if not Mr. Trump, knows the situation.
The trend in manufacturing is to replace humans with robots. That’s the most straightforward way to achieve productivity gains. Output climbs steadily; output per worker goes up faster. However, the number of employees shrinks drastically. For many displaced workers supporting Mr. Trump, this may be a case of being careful about what you wish for.