Does anyone remember the 1990s? Economic growth was robust, the stock market was exploding and unemployment was low. Even though outsourcing was just emerging as a new business practice, there were more jobs than employees in America, and the Federal Reserve Board Chairman worried about "irrational exuberance." If you had a degree you had a job, and you had a car (or 2) and a house as you awaited ever rising income and asset values.
Oh my, how times have changed. A third of U.S. homes are worth less than the mortgage, auto sales fell off a cliff as GM and Chrysler filed bankruptcy, trust in banks has disappeared, savers earn nearly 0% yet investors shun stocks and laugh at declining values of IPOs. And unemployment remains stubbornly stuck just below double digits as job growth remains anemic, despite reduced outsourcing and rising oversees costs.
So how do Americans react to limited economic growth? Apparently, increasingly, by feigning disabilities in order to create their own form of social welfare net similar to Europe. Regardless of what Americans say, it is important to look at what they do.
This week I am pleased to offer you a guest blog from Jack Ablin, Chief Investment Officer of Harris Private Bank, a division of BMO Financial:
Working conditions in the United States are getting downright dangerous if the Social Security disability statistics are any indication. The number of Americans collecting disability is rising at an unprecedented and alarming rate. This belies Bureau of Labor Statistics data that tells the story of workplace safety that is constantly improving. Everyone knows that injury incidence rates have been in secular decline since, well, always.
When thinking about worker-related risks, "Lunch atop a Skyscraper," the famous Depression era photo by Charles C. Ebbets immediately comes to mind. What we once accepted at the workplace is now wildly unacceptable:
In 2010, there were 3.5 total recordable cases of non-fatal occupational injury and illness per 100 full-time workers, down from 5.0 less than a decade ago. In 1973 the rate was 11 per 100. The net decline amounts to a 3.7 percent reduction in these hazards every year for four decades.
Of course, not all injuries and illness are work related. Then again, is there any aspect of our lives that has not become safer in the last two generations? For example, auto injuries are always a factor. But those risks have collapsed with the advent of airbags, anti-lock brakes and other technological breakthroughs.
The Social Security Administration’s website cites two criteria for disability eligibility: • You must be unable to do any substantial work because of your medical condition(s); and • Your medical condition(s) must have lasted, or be expected to last at least 1 year, or be expected to result in your death.
Quizzically, from 1980 to 2002 there was no change in the percentage of the workforce claiming disability, yet the “disability participation rate” has embarked on a 4.5 percent ascent each year for the last decade. There is now 1 person collecting disability for every 12 in the workforce.
This occurred despite the evolution toward more of a “desk job” workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that today only 14% of working Americans are in goods producing jobs, down from more than 25% in 1973. Yet, somehow, claims for disability benefits have headed in the opposite direction:
There are people out there that truly want to work but are too sick or injured to do so. Sadly, many are unfortunately being branded with a stigma because of the legions that are out there gaming the system. That is the only way we can explain how almost as many people collect disability (10.8 million) as there are working in the entirety of manufacturing (12 million).
It is plain to see that permanently stagnant labor markets are making Social Security disability the new unemployment benefit.
The impact of America's "no growth decade" from 2000-2010 is clearly impacting America. I want to thank Jack for his analysis. I urge your to sign up for Jack's newsletter, full of insight about the economy, interest rates, investing and jobs by contacting him at jack.ablin@harrisbank.com. Jack is a graduate of Vassar and has his MBA from Boston University. He is a CFA and frequent contributor to CNBC, Bloomberg, Barron's and The Wall Street Journal.
No businessperson thinks the way to solve a business problem is via the courts. And no issue is larger for American business than health care. Despite all the hoopla over the Supreme Court reviews this week, this is a lousy way for America to address an extremely critical area.
The growth of America's economy, and its global competitiveness, has a lot riding on health care costs. Looking at the table, below, it is clear that the U.S. is doing a lousy job at managing what is the fastest growing cost in business (data summarized from 24/7 Wall Street.)
While America is spending about $8,000 per person, the next 9 countries (in per person cost) all are grouped in roughly the $4,000-$5,000 cost — so America is 67-100% more costly than competitors. This affects everything America sells – from tractors to software services – forcing higher prices, or lower margins. And lower margins means less resources for investing in growth!
American health care is limiting the countries overall economic growth capability by consuming dramatically more resources than our competitors. Where American spends 17.4% of GDP (gross domestic product) on health care, our competitors are generally spending only 11-12% of their resources. This means America is "taxing" itself an extra 50% for the same services as our competitive countries. And without demonstrably superior results. That is money which Americans would gain more benefit if spent on infrastructure, R&D, new product development or even global selling!
Americans seem to be fixated on the past. How they used to obtain health care services 50 years ago, and the role of insurance 50 years ago. Looking forward, health care is nothing like it was in 1960. The days of "Dr. Welby, MD" serving a patient's needs are long gone. Now it takes teams of physicians, technicians, nurses, diagnosticians, laboratory analysts and buildings full of equipment to care for patients. And that means America needs a medical delivery system that allows the best use of these resources efficiently and effectively if its citizens are going to be healthier, and move into the life expectancies of competitive countries.
Unfortunately, America seems unwilling to look at its competitors to learn from what they do in order to be more effective. It would seem obvious that policy makers and those delivering health care could all look at the processes in these other 9 countries and ask "what are they doing, how do they do it, and across all 9 what can we see are the best practices?"
By studying the competition we could easily learn not only what is being done better, but how we could improve on those practices to be a world leader (which, clearly, we now are not.) Yet, for the most part those involved in the debate seem adamant to ignore the competition – as if they don't matter. Even though the cost of such blindness is enormous.
Instead, way too much time is spent asking customers what they want. But customers have no idea what health care costs. Either they have insurance, and don't care what specific delivery costs, or they faint dead away when they see the bill for almost any procedure. People just know that health care can be really good, and they want it. To them, the cost is somebody else's problem. That offers no insight for creating an effective yet simultaneously efficient system.
America needs to quit thinking it can gradually evolve toward something better. As Clayton Christensen points out in his book "The Innovator's Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care" America could implement health care very differently. And, as each year passes America's competitiveness falls further behind – pushing the country closer and closer to no choice but being disruptive in health care implementation. That, or losing its vaunted position as market leader!
Is the "individual mandate" legal? That seems to be arguable. But, it is disruptive. It seems the debate centers more on whether Americans are willing to be disruptive, to do something different, than whether they want to solve the problem. Across a range of possibilities, anything that disrupts the ways of the past seems to be argued to death. That isn't going to solve this big, and growing, problem. Americans must become willing to accept some radical change.
The simple approach would be to look at programs in Oregon, Massachusetts and all the states to see what has worked, and what hasn't worked as well. Instead of judging them in advance, they could be studied to learn. Then America could take on a series of experiments. In isolated locations. Early adopter types could "opt in" on new alternative approaches to payment, and delivery, and see if it makes them happy. And more stories could be promulgated about how alternatives have worked, and why, helping everyone in the country remove their fear of change by seeing the benefits achieved by early leaders.
Health care delivery, and its cost, in America is a big deal. Just like the oil price shocks in the 1970s roiled cost structures and threatened the economy, unmanagable health care delivery and cost threatens the country's economic future. American's surely don't expect a handful of lawyers in black robes to solve the problem.
America needs to learn from its competition, be willing to disrupt past processes and try new approaches that forge a solution which not only delivers better than anyone else (a place where America does seem to still lead) but costs less. If America could be the first on the moon, first to create the PC and first to connect everyone on smartphones this is a problem which can be solved – but not by attorneys or courts!
Every day it seems someone tells me they "are looking forward to an improved economy." When I ask "Why?" they give me a horrified look like I must be stupid. "Because I want my business to improve" is the most frequent answer. To which I ask "What makes you think an improved economy will help you?"
This recession/depression is the result of several market shifts.What people/businesses want, and how they want it, has changed. They no longer are willing to part for hard earned (and often saved) dollars for the same solutions they once purchased. They want advances in technology, manufacturing processes, communications and all aspects of business to give them different solutions. Until that comes along, they are willing to put money in the bank and simply wait.
Take for example restaurants. Many owners and operators are complaining business was horrid in 2009, and still far from the way it was years ago. And regularly we hear it is due to "the recession. People fear they'll lose their jobs, so they don't eat out as often." Nicely said. Sounds logical. Makes for a convenient excuse for lousy results.
Only it's wrong.
In "Dinner out Declines: Economy Not Sole Factor" MediaPost.com does a great overview of the fact that dining out started declining in 2001, and has steadily been on a downward trend. Across all age groups, eating out is simply less interesting – at least at current prices. When the recession came along, it simply accelerated an existing trend. Increasingly, people were less satisfied with cookie-cutter, similar establishments that had similar food (almost all of which was prepared somewhere else and merely heated and combined in the restaurant) and exorbitant drink prices. For years restaurant prices had outpaced inflation, and simultaneously family changes – along with the growth of better prepared foods at grocers and specialty markets – was enticing people to eat at home.
This is true across almost all industries. A revived economy will not increase demand for land-line phone service. Nor for large V-8 American autos costing $60,000. Nor for newspapers, or magazines – or even books most likely. Or for oversized homes that cost too much to heat and cool. In fact, it was the trend away from these products which caused the recession. People simply had all of these things they wanted, so they stopped buying. Fearful of economic change, they simply accelerated a trend brought on by shifts in technology and underlying ways of doing things. When we once again talk about better economic growth in America it will not drive people to these purchases. Rather, people will be buying different things.
For the recession to go away requires a change in inputs. Providers have to start giving buyers what they want. They have to understand market needs, and give solutions which entice people to part with their money. Waiting for "the economy" will make no difference. Government stimulus can go on forever, but it won't create growth. It can't. Only new products and services that fulfill needs create growth. That will cause spending (demand), which generates the requirement for supply.
There are companies that had a great 2009. Google, Apple and Amazon are popular names. Why? Not just because they are somehow "tech" or "internet" companies. 2009 saw the demise of Sun Microsystems and Silicon Graphics, for example. The difference is these companies are studying the market, looking to the future and introducing new products and services which meet market needs. Because of this, they are growing. They are doing their part to revitalize the economy. Not with stimulus, but with products that excite people to part with their cash.
Those who are waiting on the economy to improve are destined to find a rough road. An improving economy will be full of new competitors with new solutions who did not wait. To be a winner businesses today must be bringing forward new products and services that meet today's needs – not yesterday's. And if we start getting winners then we will climb out of this economic foxhole.
"Huffington Says Her Site Is Close To Making Money" is the video headline at Marketwatch.com. For years this blog has chastised traditional news publishers for trying to Defend & Extend their traditional business, when the market has shifted on-line —- both for readers and advertisers. Of course, the newspaper companies counter this argument by saying that they can't make any money on-line. They have to defend their traditional business – even from web competitors.
When shifts happen it's best to get started experimenting and migrating early. You may hate the political bent of HuffingtonPost.com, but that it's near making money shows that the model can work. Just differently than a newspaper or magazine. Unfortunately, most traditional media have been too busy trying to fend off the web to learn anything. For example, Tribune Corporation has long owned equity stakes in CareerBuilder.com and Cars.com as well as FoodChannel.com. But the company refused to learn from these ventures and migrate toward a different Success Formula.
Now it's too late for these traditional companies. You may think that if HuffingtonPost.com is still not quite profitable there's still time to compete. But reality is that Ms. Huffington's organization has been experimenting and learning and creating this Success Formula for 4 years. That kind of learning you can't pick up overnight. You have to participate in the marketplace, then make what you learn (good and bad) available for everyone to see. Then you have to discuss what you've learned openly so the organization can become knowledgable about what works and migrate toward a new Success Formula in which they have confidence. And that's why most companies react to market switches way too late. They think they can jump in at the last minute. But by then the HuffingtonPost.coms and Marketwatch.coms and MediaPost.coms have already learned how to succeed at this business, developed a subscriber base and created a viable ad sales program.
Take for example "Clunkers Program Boosts Ford, But Not GM, Chrysler" as headlined on Marketwatch.com. Now that the results are in from the government stimulated "clunkers" program, we know that the market has shifted away from GM and Chrysler. Year-over-year, Hyundai sales were up 47%, Honda up 9%, Toyota up 6.4%. Ford scored big with sales up 17%. But GM sales were down over 20%, and Chrysler sales fell 15%. We can see from this data that people were ready to buy cars, given a boost. While the overall market was up, we can see that it has shifted to a new batch of competitors. GM and Chrysler simply weren't prepared to compete – and it's doubtful they ever will be. They've missed the market shift, and now they don't have the R&D, products, distribution, marketing, etc. to remain competitive with companies that are seeing volumes and revenues rise.
Of course, every company has the opportunity to shift with markets – or be crushed by changes. The latest economic reports show that too many American businesses, like GM and Chrysler, are waiting to be crushed. "US productivity rises at fastest pace in nearly 6 years, while labor costs plunge in spring" is the ChicagoTribune.com headline. This is bad news for those thinking an economic upturn will save them.
When an economy grows productivity improvements are good. Imagine you sell 100 items. You have 100 employees. Productivity is 1. A growing economy allows you to sell 105, your employment remains the same, and productivity jumped 5%. Lots of winners – between the employees (more pay or bonus), the customers (possibly lower prices down the road based on rising volume), for investors (more profits) and for suppliers (more volume and less pressure on prices.) Let's say the economy slackens – like 2009. Volume drops to 90. But through cost saving measures employment drops to 86. Productivity just went up almost 5%! But nobody won. And that's what's happening today. Labor rates keep dropping because there's more labor supply than product demand – and if businesses keep cutting costs we'll improve our productivity right up while the economy keeps going down.
Business leaders need to be more like Huffington Post, and less like GM. To improve profits they need to recognize that markets have shifted, and move quickly to develop new Success Formulas which get them growing. Trying to Defend & Extend the old business, like newspaper publishers, simply drives you toward bankruptcy. Instead, it's time to Disrupt the status quo and create some White Space projects to learn what the market wants. It's time to experiment and get the whole company involved in applying the collective brainpower to develop new a new Success Formula which gets you growing, making more money, and improving productivity for real!
"Deeper Recession Than We Thought" is the Marketwatch headline. As government data reporters often do, today they revised the economic numbers for 2008. We now know the start tothis recession was twice as bad as reported. The 3.9% decline was the worst economic performance since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The consumer spending decline was the worst since 1951 (58 years – a very low percentage of those employed today were even born then.) Business investment dropped a full 20%. Residential investment dropped 27%. Stark numbers.
How did business people react? Exactly as they were trained to react. They cut costs. Layed people off. Dropped new products. Stopped R&D and product development. They quit doing things. What's the impact? The decline slows, but it continues. Just like growth begets growth, cutting begets more decline.
Then really interesting bad things happen.
"ComEd loses customers for first time in 56 years" is the Crain's headline. There are 17,000 fewer locations buying electricity in the greater Chicago area than there were a year ago. That is amazing. When you see new homes being built, and new commercial buildings, the very notion that the number of electricity customers contracted is hard to fathom. People aren't even keeping the lights on any more. They've gone away.
In the old days we said "go west." But that hasn't been the case. Everyone remembers the dot.com bust ending the 1990s. "Silicon Valley Unemployment Skyrockets" is the Silican Alley Insider lead. Today unemployment in silicon valley is the highest on record – even higher than the dot bust days. When even tech jobs are at a nadir, it's clear something is very different this time.
The old approaches to dealing with a recession aren't working. While optimism is always high, what we can see is that things have shifted. The world isn't like it was before. And applying the same approaches won't yield improved results. "For Illinois, recession looking milder – but recovery weaker" is another Crain's headline. Nowhere are there signs of a robust economy.
We can't expect an economic recovery on "Cars for Cash" or "Clunker" programs. By overpaying for outdated and obsolete cars we can bring forward some purchases. But this does not build a healthy market for ongoing purchases. These programs aren't innovation that promotes purchase. They are a subsidy to a lucky few so they pay significantly less for an existing product. To recover we must have real growth. Growth from new products that meet new customer needs in new ways. Growth built on providing solutions that advantage the buyer. Only by introducing innovation, and creating value, will customers (businesses or consumer) open their wallets.
Advertising hasn't disappeared. But it has gone on-line. Today you don't have to spend as much to reach your target. Instead of mass advertising to 1,000 in order to reach the 100 (or 15) you really want, today you can target that buyer through the web and deliver them an advertisement far cheaper. I didn't learn about Cash for Clunkers from a TV ad, I learned about it on the web. As did thousands of people that rushed out to take advantage of the program at its introduction – exceeding expectations. It no longer takes inefficient mass advertising through newspapers or broadcast TV to reach customers – so that market shrinks. But the market for on-line ads will grow. So Google grows – double digit growth – while the old advertising media keeps shrinking. To get the economy growing businesses (like Tribune Corporation) have to shift into these new markets, and provide new products and services that help them grow.
I live in Chicago. Years ago, in the days of The JungleChicago grew as an agricultural center. There was a time the West Side of Chicago was known for its smelly stockyards and slaughter houses. But Chicago watched its agricultural companies move away. They moved closer to the farms. They were replaced by steel mills in places like Gary, IN and Chicago's south side. But those too shut down, moved to lower cost locations offshore. These businesses were replaced with assembly plants, like the famous AT&T Hawthorne facility, and manufacturers such as machine tool makers. Now, for the last decade, these too have been moving away. With each wave, the less valuable work, the more menial work, shifted to another location where it could be done as good but cheaper and often faster.
Historically growth continued by replacing those jobs with work tied to the shifting market – jobs that provided more value. So now, for Chicago to grow it MUST create information jobs. The market has moved. Kraft won't regain its glory if it keeps trying to sell more Velveeta. Kraft has not launched a major new product in over 9 years. Sara Lee has been shedding businesses and cutting costs for 6 years – getting smaller and losing value. McDonalds sold its high growth business Chipotles to raise money for defending its hamburger stores by adding new coffee machines. Motorola has let mobile telephony move to competitors as it remained too Locked-in to old technologies and old products while new companies – like Apple and RIM – brought out innovations that attracted new customes and growth.
Growth doesn't come from waiting for the economy to improve. Growth comes from implementing innovation that gives us new solutions. Every market, whether geographic or product based, requires new solutions to maintain growth. If we want our economy to improve, we must change our approach. We can't save our way to prosperity. Instead we must create solutions that fit future scenarios, introduce new solutions that Disrupt old patterns and use White Space to help customers shift to these products.
If we change our approach we can regain growth. Otherwise, we can expect to keep getting what we got in 2008.
