Creative Class

It’s my pleasure to announce the release of a new study of immigrant entrepreneurs in the U.S. high-tech sector, which I co-authored with David Hart and Spencer Tracy. The central finding of the study is that about 16 percent of the nationally representative sample of high-impact, high-tech businesses that we surveyed count at least one foreign-born person among their founding team.

Only about three percent of the founders of high-impact, high-tech companies are foreigners (60 out of 2034). 97 percent are U.S. citizens, and specifically 87 percent are U.S.-born, while the other 10 percent are naturalized U.S. citizens. Furthermore, most foreign-born founders lived in the US for decades.  These founders are statistically very similar to the average U.S. population in terms of birth and immigration status.

An interesting but unanswered aspect of the study is how these high-tech immigrants (many not new), part of the international creative class, help integrate U.S. business in a post-American world? Do they as some have claimed strengthen America in a post-American world, or is it a non-issue? If they strengthen our connection to the rest of the world through “brain circulation” is the flight of the creative class not a major public policy issue?

A second issue has to do with closing the borders. If America closed the borders to high impact entrepreneurs, would its own citizens fill the breach? Would more students become better high school students and go on to college and graduate school in engineering and the sciences? This is a much more difficult question to answer, but is again at the heart of public policy today.

The impacts of the economic crisis continue to be felt unevenly across the country. I’ve previously looked at the factors associated with higher rates of regional unemployment. But which places have seen the biggest jumps in unemployment since the crisis hit?

To get at this, my colleague Charlotta Mellander conducted a straightforward statistical exercise called a “residual analysis.” It’s a simple way to track how a location performs relative to the performance of all other locations. Basically, the analysis examines to what extent the initial unemployment rate in May 2008 seems to have had an impact on the change in unemployment over the last year. Technically speaking,  Mellander ran a regression analysis predicting change in unemployment over this last year (May 2008 to May 2009) as a function of the initial level of unemployment at the beginning of the period (May 2008). She then compared the predicted values to the actual values.

The first graph shows the pattern for U.S. states.

The hardest hit states are ones that were doing badly even before the crisis hit. The fitted line is steep; the correlation between the two is 0.59 and significant; and the R2, 0.345. States below the line experienced a smaller than predicted increase in unemployment levels, while those above the line saw a larger than predicted increase.

Michigan has the highest unemployment rate, but Oregon (+3.0) has taken the biggest relative hit. Alabama (+1.8), Indiana (+1.6), South Carolina (+1.6), and Wisconsin (+1.4) have also taken bigger than expected hits. North Dakota has the lowest rate of unemployment but Alaska (-2.8), Mississippi (-2.1), Arkansas (-1.2), Connecticut (-1.2), Iowa (-1.1), and Nebraska (-1.2) have done better than expected.

The second graph repeats the analysis for U.S. metropolitan regions. It excludes two extreme outliers in California – Yuma and El Centro – which started the period with 20 percent plus rates of unemployment.

The hardest hit metros are also those that were doing badly before the crisis. The fitted line is again steep; the correlation coefficient is high, 0.59; and the R2, 0.351.

The crisis has hit hardest at smaller Rustbelt metros, especially those in Indiana: Elkhart-Goshen, IN; (+7.3); Kokomo, IN (+7.2); Decatur, GA (+3.2); Sheboygan, WI (+2.7); Fort Wayne, IN  (+2.3); and Youngstown, OH (+2.2).

While Detroit has faced staggering unemployment, the difference between its actual and predicted unemployment is +1.6. Among large metros, Portland (+3.1), Charlotte (+2.2), and, San Jose (+1.9) experienced even bigger than expected increases in unemployment. Las Vegas (1.5), Boise (1.29), and Orlando (+1.29) have also been hard hit. San Francisco (+.93), Miami (+.49), L.A., Chicago (+.31), Atlanta, and San Diego (+.21) also performed worse than their May 2008 unemployment levels predicted.

Several Oregon metros took worse than expected hits: Bend-(+4.6), Eugene-Springfield (+3.8), Portland (+3.0), Salem (+2.5), Medford (+2.4), Corvallis(+1.9). Metros that border Oregon like Spokane, Washington (+0.8) and Boise, Idaho (+1.3) also have high differentials.

Three Texas cities – Dallas (-1.0), Houston (-0.9), and Austin (-1.0) – performed considerably better than expected. Minneapolis-St. Paul (-0.4) did too. Cities along the Bos-Wash mega-region – Boston (-0.4), D.C. (-0.3), New York (-0.1), and even Philadelphia (-0.3) – also did better than predicted. Surprisingly, Phoenix also outperformed expectations (-.2), albeit modestly.

College towns number among the best performers, doing much better than predicted: Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, home to University of Illinois (-2.2); Iowa City, University of Iowa (-1.81); Manhattan Kansas, Kansas State University (-1.82); College Station, Texas, Texas A&M (-1.74); New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University (-1.54); State College, Pennsylvania, Penn State University (-1.47); Boulder, Colorado, University of Colorado (-.93); Austin, Texas, University of Texas (-1.0); Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan (-.94); and Ithaca, New York, Cornell University (-.97), among others.

Check out this map of job postings by metro area (h/t: Steven Pedigo).

The map controls for population.

D.C. has the most openings, and Baltimore is second. San Jose, Austin, Hartford, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Denver, Boston, Las Vegas, Charlotte, and San Francisco all are doing reasonably well, relatively speaking.

Detroit comes in dead last, with the fewest openings Miami. Buffalo, Rochester, L.A., and Chicago are doing poorly.

An interactive version and the full list of cities is here.

While the business press points to May’s slowdown in the pace of layoffs as an early sign of recovery, Harvard economist Jeffrey Frankel says not so fast. Frankel, who’s also a member of the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, prefers an alternative indicator of employment – total hours worked – which he says provides a better gauge of economic cycles (pointer from Economix).

Speaking entirely for myself, I like to look at the rate of change of total hours worked in the economy. Total hours worked is equal to the total number of workers employed multiplied by the average length of the workweek for the average worker. The length of the workweek tends to respond at turning points faster than does the number of jobs.

Frankel provides the graph below which tracks the trend in hours worked over the past decade.

Green chutes optimism is misplaced. The economic crisis continues to deepen at a pace that is on par with or worse than that of the Great Depression, according to an updated analysis by economists Barry Eichengreen and Kevin O’Rourke. They conclude that even though “trade and stock markets have shown some improvement without reversing the overall conclusion – today’s crisis is at least as bad as the Great Depression” (pointer via Mark Thoma).

Their first graph (below) tracks world industrial output leading them to conclude that: “World industrial production continues to track closely the 1930s fall, with no clear signs of ‘green shoots.”‘ They add that: “North Americans (U.S. & Canada) continue to see their industrial output fall approximately in line with what happened in the 1929 crisis, with no clear signs of a turn around.”

That’s the overall rate of unemployment, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ newly released U-6 measure which includes “marginally attached workers” as well as those who work part-time for economic reasons. That’s quite a bit higher than the widely reported 9.4 percent figure also released today.

And, unemployment continues to fall unevenly by gender, race, class, and occupation.

Race: The unemployment rate for whites was 8.6 percent compared to 12.7 percent for Hispanics, 14.9 percent for blacks, and 16.8 percent for black men.

Gender: Men continue to experience higher rates of unemployment than women, with the gap widening to three full percentage points – 10.5 percent vs. 7.5 percent (for those over 16 years of age) – due to the concentration of men in manufacturing jobs.

Human Capital/Education: Unemployment is even more uneven by education or human capital level. The unemployment rate for college graduates is 4.8 percent, half that for high school (only) graduates (10 percent), and one-third of the 15.5 percent rate facing those without a high school diploma.

Class: And there remain huge differences in unemployment by occupation. The highest rates of unemployment remain concentrated in working class occupations. For production, transportation, and moving occupations overall, the rate is 13.7 percent, up from 6.3 percent last year. For production workers it’s 15.6 percent; movers and transportation workers, 11.8 percent; and construction and extraction jobs, 19.7 percent. For service occupations, the unemployment rate is nearly 10 (9.4) percent.

Unemployment is significantly lower for the creative class. For management and business occupations – including hard-fit financial jobs – overall the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent, up from 2.7 percent last year; and for professional and technical occupations it is 4.2 percent, up from 2.5 percent a year ago.

The unemployment rate surged to 9.4 percent today. But unemployment continues to fall heavily on certain demographic and class groups and in certain cities and regions of the country, according to the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Greater Detroit still posts the highest rate for large regions (those with a million or more people), 13.6 percent, down from 14 percent in March. Los Angeles, Tampa Bay, Las Vegas, and San Jose also have rates above 10 percent. Greater Portland, Oregon saw the largest jump in its unemployment rate (+6.9 percentage points), followed by Detroit (+6.6 points) and greater Charlotte (+6.4 points). Iowa City (3.2 percent), Des Moines (4.6 percent), and Salt Lake City (five percent) post the lowest unemployment rates.

Ryan Avent notes the resilience of Washington, D.C. and of the Bos-Wash mega-region across the board as well as college towns. He also points to the surprising strength of the “eastern Rust Belt” especially Buffalo, Scranton, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh. These places all  experienced the kind of hit Detroit is taking today roughly a generation ago. They have had time to stabilize the economic trauma and to begin to rebuild around universities, heath care, technology, and creative industries.

Large increases in regional unemployment remain heavily concentrated in regions with large fractions of blue-collar working class jobs. The change in unemployment from April ‘08 to April ‘09 is closely correlated (0.39) with the regional concentration of working class jobs – that is, jobs in industrial production, transportation, and construction, according to an analysis by my colleague Charlotta Mellander.

Regions with higher levels of the creative class and higher levels of human capital have fared much better. (Year-over-year, change in unemployment is negatively correlated with both the creative class, -0.29, and human capital levels, -0.35, the percentage of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree).

Unemployment does not appear to be related to regional income levels (the correlation between the two is insignificant). And it tends to fall more heavily on regions with higher housing prices (with a significant positive correlation between the two of 0.18) – perhaps an artifact of the bubble.

Interestingly, regions with large concentrations of lower-end service jobs (like food prep, building maintenance, and personal care services, which are typically seen as the worst and least secure kinds of jobs) are holding up much better than those with large working class concentrations. (Change in unemployment is negatively correlated, -0.29,  with large concentrations of these standardized service jobs).

Seems to me, we’d be much better off developing new strategies to improve wages and working conditions in this sector – by say speeding the dissemination of better management models and improving innovation and productivity – instead of bemoaning the loss of blue-collar jobs or, worse yet, bailing out failed manufacturing firms.

While many restaurants and restaurant chains are getting killed by the economic downturn, P.F. Chang’s is up, up, up according to Slate’s Dan Gross:

P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, whose two restaurant chains—P.F. Chang’s and Pei Wei Asian Diner—are staples of upscale malls and mixed-use developments, said that same-store sales fell a bit but profits produced at its 350 outlets rose 38 percent from the first quarter of 2008. Operating margins—the holy grail of any business—at P.F. Chang’s 190 stores rose from 12.8 percent to 14 percent, largely because of “incremental operational improvement opportunities.” The stock has doubled since November.

The reason: mainstream mall appeal, affordable offerings, and especially good management – based heavily on the principles of “kaizen” or continuous improvement pioneered by Toyota and other Japanese manufacturers.

P.F. Chang’s made it to $1 billion in sales by taking cues from successful Asian businesses. Now by focusing on process improvement rather than helter-skelter growth, it seems to be doing so again. Continuous improvement, the philosophy pioneered by Japanese companies such as Toyota in which managers and workers relentlessly seek out small modifications that add up to big profits, seems to be the recipe for success in 2009.

Low-end standardized service jobs make up more than 40 percent of all U.S. employment. Imagine if more restaurants and service companies started to act like P.F. Changs. Innovation and rising productivity are the underpinnings of higher wages, and happy and engaged employees the key to more continuous improvement.

Business Week’s Michael Mandel crunches the numbers and turns up some disturbing results. While recession has hit hardest at blue-collar workers, it is taking its toll on professional jobs as well. Unemployment for professionals overall increased by roughly four percent between August 2008 and April 2009. But the recession is hitting much harder at certain types of professionals. Computing and mathematical jobs (heavy on software engineers, computer scientists, and systems analysts) are down 9.3 percent; engineering and architectural jobs (two-thirds engineering) are down 10.3 percent; and “creative professional” jobs – working artists, musicians, dancers, entertainers, reporters, editors, writers, and other media types – are down 11.3 percent.

The Seattle Times Jon Talton suggests the coffee-maker’s ongoing financial problems may be an “artifact” of deeper economic troubles:

“What if Starbucks is an artifact of an economy that’s not coming back? A time of rising, if fleeting, American affluence as we moved from dot-coms and telecoms, to day trading and house flipping, all based on the biggest run-up of debt in the history of the world. For this venti, triple-shot America, it might have been the quintessential bubble drink…

Although Starbucks suffered a 77 percent drop in its fiscal second-quarter net income, it actually beat analyst’s expectations slightly. Its shares have been generally rising since March and have outperformed the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index… Still, same-store sales remain in negative territory, a critical measure for any retailer. For two years, it has underperformed the Dow Jones Restaurants and Bars Index (yes, there is one).

Looking back, Starbucks’ fall was a leading indicator of the trouble massing across the land. Now the question becomes whether the America that emerges from the financial shock of the Great Disruption will have the appetite, and the cash, to fund Starbucks’ hopes.  How long will Wall Street just wait and see? However the recession has changed America, Wall Street is still in a pre-2007 mindset, and it may demand growth that Starbucks simply can’t deliver anymore.”