Council of Economic Advisers Blog
- Posted byon April 22, 2010 at 9:41 AM EST
A central piece of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is more than $90 billion in government investment and tax incentives to lay the foundation for the clean energy economy of the future. These investments and tax incentives include everything from energy efficiency retrofits to modernizing the electrical grid to tax credits for advanced clean energy manufacturing. These clean energy investments are also providing crucial stimulus to the economy today. The CEA’s third quarterly report on the impact of the ARRA, released on April 14, found that the Act as a whole raised employment by between 2.2 million and 2.8 million jobs over what it would otherwise have been. In a new supplement to the report, we focus in detail on the macroeconomic impact of the Act’s clean energy provisions.
Table 1 lists the clean energy provisions in the ARRA, grouped into nine functional categories. Column 1 shows that of the original $787 billion estimated cost of the Act, $90 billion was devoted to clean energy programs. The last two columns indicate that nearly $40 billion of this total has already been obligated for specific clean energy projects, and more than $9 billion has been outlayed.
To estimate the short-run economic impact of the ARRA’s clean energy investments, we use the CEA macroeconomic model described in our third quarterly report. Table 3 of the supplement shows the results. We find that the Recovery Act created more than 80,000 clean energy jobs as of the first quarter of 2010, and that the clean energy investments supported an additional 20,000 jobs throughout the economy. Importantly, these estimates include only employment related to projects that have received actual outlays to date. In many cases, the additional $20 billion in obligations shown in Table 1 may have already generated economic activity because recipients may begin spending as soon as they are certain funds are available. Looking over a longer horizon, the ARRA’s clean energy provisions will support about 720,000 job-years through 2012. (A job-year is the equivalent of one worker employed for one year.) Thus the Act will be a source of both employment and progress on clean energy for years to come.
Christina Romer is the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.
- Posted byon April 16, 2010 at 10:10 AM EST
The CEA’s third quarterly report on the impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), released earlier this week, found that the ARRA raised employment as of the first quarter of 2010 by between 2.2 million and 2.8 million jobs over what it would otherwise have been. There is obviously much interest in how these employment effects have been distributed across states. Our first quarterly report, last summer, developed methods for examining state-level employment impacts. We have updated those analyses to estimate the number of jobs that the ARRA created or saved in each state as of the first quarter of 2010.
Estimates for all fifty states, plus the District of Columbia, are reported in Table 1. The methodology is described in detail in a supplement to the third quarterly report. However, it is important to emphasize that these disaggregate estimates are inherently more speculative and uncertain than are aggregate estimates.
Of course, we estimate that larger states have seen larger jobs impacts, simply because their populations are larger. Similarly, industrial states are estimated to have had larger employment effects relative to their populations because manufacturing employment is more cyclically sensitive. Finally, both because of their industrial composition and because state fiscal relief and aid to individuals directly impacted have been larger in states hit harder by the recession, we estimate that states with higher unemployment rates at the time of passage have seen larger employment effects of the ARRA relative to their populations.
The estimates in Table 1 are calibrated to add up to 2.8 million jobs, the estimated employment impact of the ARRA in 2010:Q1 according to one of the two methods that the CEA uses to estimate the ARRA’s impact (see Table 3 of the third quarterly report).
This approach yields somewhat higher overall employment impacts than does our other method, which indicates that 2.2 million jobs were created or saved. Thus, it is possible that the estimates in Table 1 somewhat overstate the true impacts. But there is no reason to expect that this would lead to changes in the distribution of jobs impacts across states.
Christina Romer is the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers
Jesse Rothstein is a Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisers who focuses on Labor, Education, and Welfare
- Posted byon April 14, 2010 at 11:35 AM EST
As part of the unprecedented accountability and transparency provisions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) was charged with providing to Congress quarterly reports on the effects of the Recovery Act on overall economic activity, and on employment in particular. Today we released our third report (pdf), with an assessment of the effects of the Act through the first quarter of 2010.
The main macroeconomic findings include:
- The magnitude of the fiscal stimulus increased substantially in the first quarter of 2010 (from $83 billion in 2009:Q4 to $112 billion in 2010:Q1) largely because of a surge in tax refunds and lower final tax liabilities due to the Making Work Pay tax credit.
- Government investment outlays in areas such as infrastructure and clean energy, which increased $16 billion in 2010:Q1, are expected to rise further throughout 2010.
- The CEA estimates that as of the first quarter of 2010, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.2 and 2.8 million. These estimates are broadly similar to those of other analysts. Our estimates incorporate the most recent information about actual Recovery Act spending and tax reductions, as well as current trends in employment and production.
A special section of the report focuses specifically on the impact of the tax relief and income support provisions of the Recovery Act:
- To date, there has been more than $200 billion of tax relief and income support provided to households by the ARRA. These funds have had a disproportionately large impact on the incomes of middle- and lower-income families.
- CEA estimates that without these provisions, household real disposable income would have fallen substantially in 2009. Figure 6 from the report (reproduced below) shows actual after-tax family income alongside income without the tax relief and income support provisions of the Recovery Act. Without the tax cuts and income support provisions of the ARRA, consumer spending would not have rebounded as it did and, indeed, would likely have continued to fall.
- As of 2010:Q1, the tax relief and income support provisions of the Recovery Act have saved or created between 1.1 and 1.4 million jobs, or roughly one-half of the total number of jobs saved or created by the Act.
Identifying the impact of policy actions is inherently difficult, and the estimates must be understood to be subject to large margins of error. For this reason the CEA has approached its task from a wide range of perspectives, all of which point to a key role for the ARRA in helping the economy recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression. The CEA will continue to monitor the effects of this important policy initiative over the coming months and years.
The data in this chart is available to download as a csv file.
Christina Romer is the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers
- Posted byon April 5, 2010 at 7:42 PM EST
On June 24, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS, commonly known as 'Cash-For-Clunkers'), one of several stimulus programs whose purpose was to shift expenditures by households, businesses, and governments from future periods when the economy is likely to be stronger, to the present when the economy has an abundance of unemployed resources that can be put to work at low net economic cost.
Critics of the CARS program argued that it would have little ultimate effect because most of the purchases under the program would have happened soon anyway - they were merely 'pulled forward' from the following few months. In contrast, the CEA's September 10 economic analysis of the program argued that a substantial proportion of the CARS sales were pulled forward from a far more distant future, and thus represented an important increment to aggregate demand at just the time when such demand was sorely needed.
With seven months of post-Clunkers sales data in hand (September 2009 through March 2010; see dark blue line in figure), now seems a good time for a reckoning.
The 'short-term pull-forward' view was perhaps most vigorously articulated by automotive industry website Edmunds.com. In late October, Edmunds.com made a widely-reported forecast for the pace of sales in the last quarter of the year: According to Edmunds, light motor vehicle sales in November and December would be only about 10.5 million at an annual rate (the dashed blue line in the figure). Edmunds furthermore argued that, had the CARS program not existed, the pace of sales would have been higher, about 10.8 million, during those two months (the dashed red line in the figure).
But according to the final data now in hand, the actual pace of sales in November and December was about 11.0 million units (the solid blue line in the figure substantially exceeds Edmunds' October 28 forecast). Last Thursday's announcement of a strong pace of sales in March also belies Edmunds' pessimistic trajectory. Indeed, over the seven months following the end of the CARS program in late August, the sales pace has averaged 10.7 million units at an annual rate, much higher than the 9.6 million pace in the three months that preceded the program, and considerably stronger than the forecasts made by private forecasters just before enactment of the CARS program.
A final source of evidence on size and timing of the 'pull forward' effect comes directly from the people who purchased a vehicle under the program. According to a survey conducted by the Department of Transportation as part of the program, the average timeframe over which new car purchasers said they would have otherwise sold, traded in, or disposed of their old vehicle was 2.87 years - far longer than the timeframe of a few months that the program's critics hypothesized. A plausible interpretation of the available data, in fact, is that many of the CARS sales were to the kinds of thrifty people who can afford to buy a new car but normally wait until the old one is thoroughly worn out. Stimulating spending by such people is very nearly the best possible countercylical fiscal policy in an economy suffering from temporarily low aggregate demand.
Christina Romer is Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers
Christopher Carroll is a Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisers who focuses on Macroeconomics
- Posted byon April 2, 2010 at 8:39 AM EST
Today’s employment report shows continued signs of gradual labor market healing. Payroll employment rose significantly in March, and the unemployment rate remained constant despite a substantial increase in the labor force.
Payroll employment increased 162,000. Even after adjusting for the 48,000 temporary Census workers hired and a rebound effect from the February snowstorms, this number suggests an increase in underlying payroll employment. Moreover, revised estimates now show a small job gain in January and a smaller job loss in February than previously reported. As a result, for the first quarter of 2010 as a whole, job growth averaged 54,000 per month. This is a dramatic change from the first quarter of 2009, when average job loss was 753,000 per month.
The unemployment rate remained constant at 9.7 percent. This stability reflects roughly proportional rises in the labor force and employment, as measured by the household survey. This pattern of rising labor force and household employment has been repeated in each of the last three months. Indeed, according to the household survey, the labor force has increased by 1.1 million since December 2009 and employment has increased by 1.4 million.*
At the same time that we welcome today’s encouraging labor market news, it is obvious that the American labor market remains severely distressed. More than eight million Americans have lost their jobs since the start of the recession in December 2007. It will take sustained, robust employment growth to bring the unemployment rate down. Further targeted actions to spur private sector job creation are critically needed to ensure a more rapid, widespread recovery.
While this is the most positive jobs report we have had in three years, there will likely be bumps in the road ahead. The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and subject to substantial revision. Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and generate steady, strong job gains.
Christina Romer is Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers
* The reported numbers are adjusted to remove the impact of revised population controls that the Bureau of Labor Statistics introduced in January 2010. Without this adjustment the labor force increased by 851,000 and employment increased by 1.11 million.
- Posted byon March 31, 2010 at 12:04 PM EST
As part of the White House Forum for Workplace Flexibility, the CEA released a report today presenting an economic perspective on flexible workplace policies and practices.
Work-Life Balance and the Economics of Workplace Flexibility (pdf) highlights changes in American society over the past half century, including the increased number of women entering the labor force, the prevalence of families where all adults work, increasing eldercare responsibilities, and the rising importance of continuing education. These changes are among those that have increased the need for flexibility in the workplace.
This increased need can be met with flexibility in terms of when one works, where one works, or how much one works (including time off after childbirth or other life events). As such, “workplace flexibility” encompasses a variety of arrangements that allow workers to continue making productive contributions to the workforce while also attending to family and other responsibilities.
Data suggest that many employers are adapting to the changing needs of their workers. For example, in 2007 over one-half of employers reported allowing at least some workers to periodically change their starting and quitting times, although there is variation across workers who have access to such arrangements. And while most employers offer at least some workers the ability to return to work gradually after a major life event such as the birth or adoption of a child, job sharing is less widespread and only about one-fifth of employers permit some of their employees to work from home on a regular basis.
White House Blogs
- The White House Blog
- Middle Class Task Force
- Council of Economic Advisers
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Council on Women and Girls
- Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
- Office of Management and Budget
- Office of Public Engagement
- Office of Science & Tech Policy
- Office of Urban Affairs
- Open Government
- Faith and Neighborhood Partnerships
- Social Innovation and Civic Participation
- US Trade Representative
- Office National Drug Control Policy