Update on the Economy | Invest & Innovate | Steve Levy | Palo Alto Online |

Local Blogs

Invest & Innovate

By Steve Levy

E-mail Steve Levy

About this blog: I grew up in Los Angeles and moved to the area in 1963 when I started graduate school at Stanford. Nancy and I were married in 1977 and we lived for nearly 30 years in the Duveneck school area. Our children went to Paly. We moved ...  (More)

View all posts from Steve Levy

Update on the Economy

Uploaded: Nov 23, 2010
I wish everyone a happy and peaceful Thanksgiving.

The Bottom Line

? The state and national economy are growing
? The economic recovery will be long and slow -- not what we hoped
? There are dangers to the economic recovery.

But the biggest threat in my opinion is not the events beyond our control but the rancor and persistent disagreement in our public discourse. At a time when we need to feel and act on the connections that link us together, the public rhetoric is pushing us apart and making areas of agreement so hard to find.

The Economy is Growing

Last month California added 39,000 jobs. The nation has added nearly 1 million private sector jobs in 2010. Today's GDP report was a little better than expected. Last week General Motors found a strong welcome for its return to the stock market as the government began to eliminate its ownership position.

The state economy is picking up based on the 3 T's -- technology, trade and tourism. A growing world economy is filling our ports again and leading to an increase in exports -- almost back to pre-recession levels. The state is adding jobs in professional, technical and information services and there are the beginnings of job growth related to energy efficiency. Tech firms are, once again, competing for skilled workers.

Our region is one of the two large metro areas in CA (Orange County is the other) to post job gains in the past year.

Expect a Long and Slow Recovery

The slowness of recovery is primarily because this is a "triple threat" recession with 1) severe shocks to the housing and financial sectors leading to 2) losses in home and portfolio wealth for many residents and 3) a resulting decline in spending and the associated job losses as the fallout from the housing and financial market meltdown reduced business and consumer spending.

For most businesses there is always an incentive to invest to increase productivity or to launch a new product or service and that is happening. But at the same time businesses are facing a shortage of customers. There is no rush to expand capacity when the purchasing power of customers is weak.

Some residents can continue spending at previous levels. But for many residents there is the need to pay down debt and, of course, some residents remain unemployed for more than two years.

In the absence of aggressive federal policies (that seem unlikely in today's environment), the prudence of business and consumers will slow the recovery.

Why is Unemployment Higher in California?

Construction spending fell from $100 billion to $40 billion as new home construction fell from 200,000 units per year to under 40,000. These declines in construction contributed to the loss of more than 600,000 construction and related jobs in California and are the major reason for such high unemployment.

In addition, state and local government job levels have declined as a result of budget pressures, which will continue into the future. These two factors account for the state's unemployment rate at 12.4% compared to the U.S. 9.6% rate.

In terms of manufacturing jobs, which get a lot of press attention, California had losses that were average (33%) compared to the nation -- Texas did better (lost only 21% of their manufacturing jobs since 2000) but many large states including Florida, Georgia and North Carolina had greater manufacturing job losses than California both since the recession started and for the entire decade.

Time Heals

My personal opinion is that the economic recovery could and should be accelerated by additional federal spending as long as it is combined with real long-term deficit reduction policies. But here is the more likely and longer path to recovery -- the "time heals" path.

Housing starts are far below long-term demand and population continues to grow. Many owners are able over time to rebuild equity. Some properties are foreclosed. Home prices decline. Eventually the market reaches equilibrium. It took seven years in the 1990s to see a sustained upturn in building and prices.

Continued job growth will slowly reduce the number of unemployed workers and rebuild spending power. Eventually cars and appliances wear out and need to be replaced. Most people will gradually reduce their debt levels -- through income growth or some through bankruptcy.

The world economic growth will be a positive creating demand for our goods and services and supporting trade and tourism. A new wave of innovation is possible whether that is in clean tech or biotech or a field beyond our current imagination.

With or without public policy, time heals a recession.

There are always Risks

No one knows for sure how much risk there is of another housing market downturn. The banking system looks more secure than it did two years ago but no one knows the risks posed by increasing evidence of sloppy or fraudulent mortgage and foreclosure activity. The risks of a "double dip" recession and the risk of inflation seem less than they did a few months ago.

Our fate is also connected to the world economy. Today Ireland and Europe are in the news. At other times we worry about China. While world economic trends are a positive force long term for the state and nation, today presents risks.

But beyond the risks provided by markets and human behavior, there are risks from the deep divisions we have over how to proceed to accelerate the economic recovery and at the same time avoid lasting federal and state budget deficits.

Positions seem to be hardening as we face decisions in the months ahead. Several national groups have proposed long-term deficit reduction packages that combine spending and tax measures. The one area of agreement that stands out is that people on both sides of politics have already said "hell no" to part of the package, but they disagree about which part is absolutely off the table.

In California our fates as residents are connected -- across age and ethnic groups, and across geographic boundaries north and south, inland and coastal. But our public discourse speaks more to our divisions, not our connections.

Some groups are working to develop better governance rules. My take is that we need to squarely face the tough content choices about the economy and budget that are dividing and paralyzing us. But my friend Susan Clark gave me a new word and idea. She said "it's the relationship, stupid." And I agree with Susan and my friend Dowell Myers that we need to engage people in developing and choosing a different, more accurate story for California than the path we are on.

Connections, relationships and a more accurate story -- we just might get there.

Happy Thanksgiving!!
Local Journalism.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by Lycos, a resident of ,
on Nov 23, 2010 at 10:51 pm

I wish I was so optimistic.

We need 3% annual job growth just keep up with population growth and keep unemployment unchanged. We need 5% annual growth to reduce the unemployment rate by 1%. The nation is at 9.6%, but California is at 12.4% -- who is ready to gamble on the next 5 years of solid 5% annual growth to reduce our unemployment to a "normal" 7% or so?

Businesses are leaving California rather than coming here. When expanding, businesses try to do it elsewhere rather than here. Our taxes are some of the highest in the nation and they are not going to get lower in the foreseeable future. So why would we grow?

Green technology? Photovoltaics? Wind energy? Perhaps, but hard to believe. There is nothing unique to California that makes this likely to happen here. The technology is not very demanding and the Silicon Valley know-how plays a rather tiny role in it. Given California's higher costs of doing business, the bulk will happen elsewhere. Our VCs are excited about government handouts but those will soon stop, and the VCs are not fools -- after mopping the handouts, manufacturing will be done elsewhere.

Biotech perhaps? Not such a growth industry anymore, and -- again -- California has little unique contribution to offer, except our weather. Add California's heavy handed environmental regulations and I wouldn't hang too many hopes on it to pull us out.

I don't hear many public grumbles about the extra 25-50 cent a gallon we are happily paying for our "super-special clean" gas. We have just rejected prop. 23 and that will cost us a few extra unemployment points. I don't hear rumblings about easing our regulatory burden or our tax burden.

So, no, I am not very optimistic. I wish I was as hopeful as Mr. Levy. If California was truly serious about improving its economic position we would be racing to resubmit prop 23 for another vote, and we would be clamoring to reopen California waters for drilling. But we'd rather feel good than be smart.

It is going to be a very long recession for California.

Posted by Agree with Lycos, a resident of ,
on Nov 24, 2010 at 4:59 am

Lycos, my first thoughts agreed with yours.

My second was in reaction to the comment of Mr. Levy that the biggest danger is 'rancor and persistent" disagreement etc.

All I can think is...where is this belief when the left is "persistently and rancorously" disagreeing? Then it is only patriotic and trying to "do the right thing".

There is persistent rancor because those of us who knew better knew that bail-outs, government regulations, taxes and a ruling elite belief that picking winners and losers, and "redistributing" the wealth and health of "winners" to "losers" was going to ride the car off the cliff and freeze up private investments...

To see this continuing belief in the face of all historical and current data causes a bit of rancor.

I have no optimism in the short-term at all.

Mine will return when we let individuals risk, create and keep what they earn so that they can invest and buy and grow our economy. Or let them fail and take their own knocks so that others can rise up behind them instead of locking them into their failing mode with bail-outs and regulations.

Of course there will be some short term winners with the "new normal". But as we have seen there are a lot more losers than winners, and in the long term we are all losers.

I want the "old normal" back.

Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of ,
on Nov 24, 2010 at 3:17 pm

Paul Losch is a registered user.

A few observations. Thanksgiving best wishes to all who read Stephen's comments:

1. I seriously question the members of our US Congress/Senate and the counterparts in Sacramento know a thing about economics. Fiscal policy, monetary policy are Econ 101. We are way past that. When some are saying the way to economic recovery is to maintain tax cuts and some are saying let's keep the stimulus going, my interpretation is that neither opinio is informed about economics, it is political.

2. There are in IMHO, structural problems in the US economy which have to do with our inability to offer products and services cost effectively. As a result, many things are outsourced to other countries, and those jobs will not come back.

3. Despite the rhetoric about helping US small businesses to get the economy back in a growth mode, I do not see it on the "ground," as a small business owner and who has many still alive and many dead small business customers. Credit still sucks, orders are down to keep inventory exposure to a minimum, hiring is not permanent; all sorts of insurance are exhorbitant. None of these matters have anything to do with the "Bush Tax Cuts."

The cynic in me says that the "small business owners" that supposedly earn over $250,000/year are a myth. Rather, they are attorneys, CPA, MD's, and the like. They don't create new jobs. Instead, it is businesses like mine, employing real people based on customer demand, which don't fit the description of such an earning level. Think about your dry cleaner, local market, print shop.

I think the best economic indicators are how full parking lots are in commercial and industrial parks, and how the likes of UPS and FEDEX are doing. The parking lots are at best not very full, as is the case with those delivery trucks driving around.

Posted by anonymous, a resident of ,
on Nov 24, 2010 at 3:24 pm

"American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.66 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or non-inflation-adjusted terms.

Corporate profits have been going gangbusters for a while. Since their cyclical low in the fourth quarter of 2008, profits have grown for seven consecutive quarters, at some of the fastest rates in history."

Web Link

Structural problems?

Too much corporate welfare to the huge companies that are sitting on cash, not hiring, banking on tax holidays for their cash overseas, etc..

Posted by anonymous, a resident of ,
on Nov 24, 2010 at 3:44 pm

Other "strucural problems" in our country, from today's news, corporate control of politicos, division:

"Tom DeLay was found guilty of conspiring to launder $190,000 of corporate contributions through the Republican National Committee to seven candidates for the Texas House."

"Updated 4:53 p.m.: Tom DeLay, the former U.S. House majority leader whose name became synonymous with the Republicans? controversial rise to power in the Texas House, was found guilty this evening of laundering money in connection with the 2002 elections.

Jurors sent a note on yellow legal paper that a verdict had been reached to the judge at 4:46 p.m. They had deliberated for nearly 19 hours, since Monday afternoon.

It was read to a hushed courtroom three minutes later. DeLay appeared shocked.

DeLay, at one time one of the most powerful men in Washington, was charged with money laundering and conspiracy to commit money. He faces a possible sentence of 5-99 years in prison and a maximum $10,000 fine on the money laundering charge, and 2-20 years in prison and a possible $10,000 fine on the conspiracy charge."

Web Link

Structure is more than decaying bridges...

Posted by James, a resident of ,
on Jan 14, 2011 at 4:03 pm

How is the CA state economy doing?

I doubt that there will be federal bailout, anymore. Been there, done that, but no more water in the well.

Any ideas?

Posted by Agree with Lycos, a resident of ,
on Feb 24, 2011 at 8:28 am

James, I suspect reality will eventually hit California, like it has Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio...reality is sweeping the nation.

These States are on the right track, though not a fix-all for today, definitely the right direction.

Either spend less, and encourage private business with less onerous regulation and taxes...or go bankrupt. Either way is painful, but I prefer to avoid the crash and burn of a total bankruptcy.

Continuing borrowing to spend, continuing to kill businesses ..well, we have tried that in our State and our nation, as have many other nations, and this leads only to collapse.

Hard times ahead, but I am finally, after 3 years, beginning to have some hope that we will have the willpower to stave off total bankruptcy, begin building the ladder out of crushing debt on our children, and begin "legalizing and rewarding" private innovation and business growth.

Posted by Truth in Jokes, a resident of ,
on Mar 6, 2011 at 10:42 am

A CEO, a tea party member, and a union worker are all sitting at a table when a plate with a dozen cookies arrives. Before anyone else can make a move, the CEO reaches out to rake in eleven of the cookies. When the other two look at him in surprise, the CEO locks eyes with the tea party member. "You better watch him," the executive says with a nod toward the union worker. "He wants a piece of your cookie."

"This little game, pitting one group of working class voters against another, isn't just a trick, it's THE trick."

Posted by James, a resident of ,
on Mar 6, 2011 at 12:44 pm


Should the CEO have taken only 3.7 cookies? Or less? Or more?

Or should she have just ordered a Perrier and avoided the calories?

Posted by anonymous, a resident of ,
on Mar 6, 2011 at 3:16 pm

Good one. It gets to the point that we've returned to the robber baron era in terms of inequity. Web Link

James: don't get the reference to "3.7" Is there a reason you picked that specific a number, and I'm missing the point? Perhaps the link above will allow you to pick which part of the Gilded Age you admire.

Staying in the mood of the above editorial posting - This Modern World: Sacrifices must be made! Web Link

"Punishing Success" my a..

Posted by James, a resident of ,
on Mar 6, 2011 at 6:41 pm

"James: don't get the reference to "3.7" Is there a reason you picked that specific a number, and I'm missing the point?"

I assumed that even a semi-serious mind would understand that the cookies did not arrive without a cost, thus of 12 cookies, only 11 would be left for the taking. One cookie would go to the producer and server. 11/3 = 3.7 (approx), after the roundup.

Sorry I had to explain it to you. Econ 101.

The most serious question is whether the CEO would choose to eat even one cookie, considering how her weight might be affected. A deeper question, probably at the econ 103 level, is whether or not the tea party or union people should eat even one cookie...or should they sweep them off the table, so that the crows can eat them? Econ 104 gets to the issue of whether the crows should eat them or ignore them.


Posted by Dump the games, a resident of ,
on Mar 7, 2011 at 6:22 am

Web Link">Web Link

Web Link">Web Link

Appropriate to economic/political games that AREN'T jokes..up to over 1,000 "exemptions" to that great Obama legacy, Obamacare....if it is so great, why are Democrat buddies getting exemptions, including Unions who pushed for it? Why isn't anyone in Congress/Federal employees affected by it?

Dump it. Bad for the "exempted", bad for all of us, business killing, economy kiling.

Posted by Doyle, a resident of Atherton: other,
on Nov 10, 2015 at 10:17 am

"Bad for the "exempted", bad for all of us, business killing, economy kiling."

Except it isn't.

Hasn't killed jobs as promised by the fringe (wrong again!)

Fewest uninsured Americans ever.

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Burning just one "old style" light bulb can cost $150 or more per year
By Sherry Listgarten | 12 comments | 3,075 views

Banning the public from PA City Hall
By Diana Diamond | 27 comments | 2,226 views

Pacifica’s first brewery closes its doors
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 1,963 views

Holiday Fun in San Francisco- Take the Walking Tour for An Evening of Sparkle!
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 1,646 views

Premiere! “I Do I Don’t: How to build a better marriage” – Here, a page/weekday
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,479 views


Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund

For the last 30 years, the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund has given away almost $10 million to local nonprofits serving children and families. 100% of the funds go directly to local programs. It’s a great way to ensure your charitable donations are working at home.