Charles Steindel

State real GDP growth rates in 2023:4 ranged from Nevada’s 6.7% to Nebraska’s  0.2%. Growth tended to be weaker in the center of the nation, with agriculture being a major drag.

The distribution of personal income growth was comparable to real GDP with Nevada again on top with a 6.7% growth rate, while Iowa and North Dakota tied for last with each having a growth rate of 0.8%. Over the last few years, the extension and withdrawal of federal transfers connected to the pandemic often grossly distorted movements in state personal income, and the ranking of states. This has become less evident in recent quarters, though the range of annual growth rates for transfers in 2023:4 did run from 8,1% in Mississippi to -5.0% in Arizona. The large drop in Arizona certainly had a visible effect on its overall income growth; Mississippi’s large gain was less meaningful, since other income components there also grew substantially.

State GDP and Personal Income in Q4 2023

Our global data offering is unparalleled in terms of coverage, quality, and organization. We offer 290+ databases from 2500 government and private sources, a wealth of key survey and forecast data covering the world’s economies, and a robust offering of archive databases that drive machine learning for big data applications.

Optimized for precision analytics, our data is seamlessly integrated with Microsoft Office and all leading statistical packages through our DLX® software and platform independent HaverView™ website. We further offer direct database feeds, client server or cloud-based delivery, and RESTful API.


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

A premier time series data platform for the global strategy, research, and quant communities. 

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

State labor markets were little-changed in October. The Boeing strike, and Hurricane Milton, triggered statistically significant declines in payrolls in Washington and Florida. There were no other statistically significant changes, not even in North Carolina (which did have a insignificant drop). Nonetheless, the sum of payroll changes across the states was -76,400, a clear amount lower than the independent national change of 12,000. 


Three states  had statistically significant declines in their unemployment rates in October, and one  showed an increase.  None of the changes were larger than .2 percentage point.  The highest unemployment rates were in DC (5.7%),  Nevada (5.7%), California (5.4%), and Illinois (5.3%). No other state had rates as much as a point higher than the national 4.1%. Alabama, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin had rates of 3.0% or lower, with South Dakota at 1.9%. 


Puerto Rico’s unemployment rate dropped to 5.4%--lower than both DC and Nevada, and matching California--while the island’s job count grew by 2,300.


State Labor Markets in October

Joseph G. Carson

The new administration intends to pursue an unconventional fiscal strategy. A key aspect of the strategy involves reducing or abolishing non-defense government agencies in order to create fiscal space to make the current tax law permanent, lower taxes even more, and generate extra revenue through an extensive and significant tariff program.

The success of the fiscal policy of the new administration will depend on the reaction of the bond market, which has historically influenced policy changes. Three decades ago, Bill Clinton pledged a stimulus package if he won the election, but upon taking office, he had to shift towards a "financial market strategy" instead. Stimulus spending was abandoned in favor of a deficit reduction plan to prevent long-term interest rates from increasing. Given the imbalance in the federal budget is much larger today, it is crucial for policy decisions to take into account the bond market's reaction, raising the question whether policymakers will heed the advice as they did in 1993.

The odds are in favor of the opposite happening, as the new administration is not inclined to give in to the pressures of the bond market. If bond yields jump sharply, the administration might urge the Fed to intervene, potentially worsening the situation.

**The Federal Budget**

In the fiscal year 2024, total federal spending reached $6.75 trillion, resulting in a budget deficit of $1.83 trillion. Currently, defense budget and social programs are deemed off-limits, as are interest payments. This shifts the attention towards cutting expenses in non-defense discretionary spending.

During the fiscal year 2024, non-defense discretionary spending amounted to approximately $950 billion. Although non-defense spending had stayed stable in nominal values between 2010 and 2019, it surged in 2020 as a result of economic recovery initiatives through additional legislation. Nevertheless, there is a pattern of downward trend in non-defense expenditure even prior to the upcoming Congressional term, with forecasts indicating a decline to 2.5% of GDP over the next ten years as per the Congressional Budget Office. The smallest proportion of such outlays in the past five decades was 3.1%.

Although additional spending cuts may still occur, the meager budget share allocated to these programs indicates that the extent of budget savings is significantly smaller than advertised. Below are some more reasons why significantly cutting non-defense discretionary spending will pose political challenges.

With a budget of $238 billion, the Department of Education provides support to almost 100,000 public schools through its programs.

With a budget of $106 billion, the Department of Commerce supports research and development in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence.

With a budget of $460 billion, the Department of Agriculture funds many projects in rural communities, including housing, community facilities, and utilities.

With a budget of $275 billion, the Department of Transportation makes billions of dollars in grants to improve and upgrade all types transportation systems.

Non-defense federal spending plays a critical role in the economy by offering assistance to businesses of different scales and types, along with state and local governments and individuals. This does not imply approval of the Federal budget or its spending preferences, but rather recognizing essential elements concerning federal spending and its economic influence.

Furthermore, handling the distributional effects of significantly reducing non=-defense spending will pose significant controversy and implementation challenges. For example, states in the northeast pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending, while various states in the south, as well as a few in the mid-west and southwest, receive more assistance than they contribute in taxes. This raises the question of whether politicians from states receiving the most aid will support legislation that significantly reduces the assistance provided to their constituents. Every state listed that gets more in federal assistance than they pay in taxes voted for the new administration.

Extending the 2017 tax cuts adds another layer of complexity to the new administrations fiscal plan. The Congressional Budget Office projects that prolonging these tax cuts could result in a $4.6 trillion increase in the deficit over the next ten years. To counterbalance this, Congress would need to enact spending cuts averaging more than $450 billion a year, affecting almost half of non-defense spending. Moreover, there are discussions about proposing further reductions in federal taxes.

Implementing a comprehensive and substantial tariff program could lead to increased revenue. However, the effectiveness of this strategy is uncertain, as it relies on the assumption that foreign trade partners will not retaliate. Additionally, foreign entities play a crucial role in aiding the US in meeting its federal borrowing needs, hence implementing a tariff strategy is like informing your creditor that you intend to cease transactions with them but expect them not to demand repayment of your loans.

The tariff plan could potentially create complications for both the economy and the bond market. Significant risks include the possibility of higher consumer inflation, which may raise the expenses of social programs (such as inflation indexation) and widen the budget deficit. Additionally, it could lead to higher interest rates, affecting policy rates accordingly.

The new administration has expressed interest in influencing the Federal Reserve's interest rate decisions and has even proposed replacing the Fed Chair before his term expires in 2026. Unlike other government agencies that report directly to the President, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency accountable to Congress. Altering the Fed's independence would require legislative action, potentially causing disruption in the financial markets. The odds of changing the status of the Fed is minimal, but that does not mean the new administration will not publicly expressing its views, which pose challenges for the Fed and confusion (volatility) in the financial markets.

The new administration faces a specific challenge when it comes to dealing with the bond market, particularly due to the fact that it is commencing with an excessively large budget deficit that is forecasted to grow over the next decade. The sheer size of the bond market renders it impervious to being swayed solely through rhetoric or public persuasion. Irrespective of the new administration's declarations or viewpoints, the bond market will express its position on fiscal policy. Three decades ago, the Clinton administration changed direction when the bond market rejected a stimulative fiscal plan. If the new administration's fiscal strategy indicates larger budget deficits and increased inflation, the bond market's rejection will be more significant than that of 1993.

The Viability of the New Administration's Fiscal Policy Will Be Determined by the Bond Market

Sharmila Whelan

Regardless of who was going to become the next US President, Kamala Harris or  Donald Trump, US debt is headed one way and that is up, it is only a question of magnitude. It is not just the US, globally public debt is rising, led by advanced countries and China. World public debt is forecast to exceed US$100trn in 2024, of which 35% will be accounted for by the US and 100% of GDP 2030 according to IMF forecasts (Figure 1).

241108SW1.jpg

Source: IMF Fiscal Monitor, October 2024 & Westbourne Research

We are witnessing an era of fiscal activism. The drive for a green transition, increased defence spending, costly industrial policies, protectionism, rising income inequality, and heightened socio-economic tensions that are translating into growing support for anti-establishment parties at the ballot box have all spurred greater intervention . But this shift is also about a change in mindset. The invisible hand of Adam Smith’s free market is increasingly being countered by the visible hand of the state. David Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage—central to specialisation and globalisation—is being eroded by government subsidies and protectionist policies, while individual freedom is challenged by the “nanny state.”

**US debt rising but unlikely to hit IMF forecast**

At the height of the pandemic, in 2020 the US government ran a budget deficit of  over 10% of GDP. The deficit has narrowed since but remains substantial, averaging 7.3% of GDP per annum between 2021 and 2023 and 6% in the current year to September. This compares with a pre-pandemic, 2012 to 2019, average of 5.1%.

The IMF projects an average U.S. budget deficit of 6.7% of GDP p.a through 2030, significantly above the global average of 4.2%. Consequently, U.S. government debt issuance is expected to increase sharply, reaching 132% of GDP by the end of the decade.

241108SW2.jpg

We are not convinced the US public debt will rise as sharply as the IMF is predicting. The direction of travel though is clear. Even if Mr Trump scraps the Inflation Reduction Act, dilutes the Chips and Science Act and ends US financial support for Ukraine the budget deficit will remain significant, if as we expect the corporate tax rate is cut.

The worry is the US dollar role as the global currency is diminishing, and with it, seigniorage. Today the US accounts for 58% of international foreign exchange reserves, down from a peak of 86% in 2Q73 (Figure 3). The point is that if there is a  fiscal crisis it will come from domestic investors abandoning US bonds. They own 77% of outstanding Treasuries. Sustainability is a concern because foreign central banks, which hold U.S. government debt to balance their U.S. dollar-denominated assets and liabilities, may offer more stability than U.S. private investors. Unlike private investors, these central banks are generally less focused on returns and more obligated to maintain balanced balance sheets, making them relatively reliable holders of U.S. debt.

241108SW3.jpg

Source: Federal Reserve St Louis & Westbourne Research

**Europe fiscal pressures to increase**

The European public finances picture is equally, if not more, disturbing. At first glance budget balances and public debt are moving in the right direction. Euro-area government unfunded spending during the pandemic was half that of the US. At the peak in 2020 the euro-area in aggregate ran a budget deficit of 7% of GDP compared with 13.9% in the US. Since the budget deficit has narrowed steadily with euro-area government expenditure as a share of GDP declining from 54% to 49.8% in 2023. This year the IMF forecasts a budget deficit of 3% after 3.6% in 2023.

However, European public finances at the national level are flattered by fiscal spending moving from national government to Brussel’s balance sheet and by massive debt mutualisation. Europe is spending plenty, close to the level of the US. The difference is it isn’t reflected in national government balance sheets and therefore in a straight aggregation of member country budget balances and public debt levels.

Donald Trump winning the US Presidential elections is further bad news for Europe. A forced settlement of the Ukraine-Russian war that irreparably damage US-European-NATO relations and heightens national security concerns will push up Europe defence spending and add to fiscal pressures. Another fiscal crisis is probably inevitable. Timing it is difficult. The probable outcomes for the euro-area though are clear. Either it will lead in the to a full-fledged fiscal union or a breakup of the monetary union.

**Asia fiscal prudence prevails**

Asia is another matter, well Japan aside, and probably now China. Inherently fiscally prudent, Asian governments have been reining in spending to bring budget balances back into control (Figure 4). As it stands the  emergency responses of Asian governments as well as central banks to the pandemic was measured compared with their US and European counterparts. The exceptions are India and China. Asian government budget deficits in the three years to 2023 continue, on average, to be larger than pre-pandemic 2012-19 levels. Taiwanese government’s revenues are outpacing spending, although budgetary surpluses are smaller than in the past.

241108SW4.jpg

Source: IMF, Haver Analytics & Westbourne Research

**In conclusion**

The pandemic might be over but in the current era of fiscal and political activism public debt continues to rise globally. A fiscal crisis is not imminent. However, the downside risks are rising for the US as the dollar’s role as the global reserve and trade currency diminishes. EU public finances are equally worrying even if member county government finances do not reflect it. Asia ex China and Japan remains one of the last bastions of small government where debt sustainability is not an issue.

In The Era Of Fiscal Activism

Paul L. Kasriel

On Sunday, October 27, 2024, Elon Musk claimed that he could find at least $2 trillion of potential spending reductions in the federal budget if Donald Trump were elected in the upcoming November 5, 2024 presidential election. I assume he could find the same magnitude of budget cuts if Donald Trump were not elected. Well, if Musk can return a rocket to its launch pad, why wouldn’t we expect him to identify $2 trillion in federal budget cuts? After all, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, federal net outlays were $6.75 trillion. Surely, Musk could identify $2 trillion of “fat” to trim. Or could he?

Shown in the Chart below are net federal outlays in FY 2024 minus net outlays for national defense, interest payments on the public debt, Social Security, Medicare and veterans’ benefits/services. The amount remaining of net federal budget outlays after these subtractions is $2.3 trillion. That’s $2.3 billion for Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), civilian retirement, earned income tax credits and the operating /capital costs of nondefense federal departments, including, but not restricted to, Justice, Agriculture and Transportation. So, if Musk had been able to identify $2 trillion of cuts in FY 2024 federal outlays, net of defense, interest, Social Security, Medicare and veterans’ benefits/services, that would have left him with $300 billion to fund the rest of federal outlays. Would you want to fly on commercial airlines knowing that airline regulations might not be enforced? You might want to start growing your own vegetables and raising your own animal protein, because the FDA might not be able to inspect food. Those Venezuelan gangs might be taking over more towns because of a lack of FBI agents to stop them. You get the picture. Unless Musk is going to cut spending on defense, interest, Social Security, Medicare, and veterans’ benefits/services, cutting $2 trillion from federal outlays would not leave enough to fund the rest of the government adequately. And if Musk, as part of a Trump administration, were to cut Social Security, Medicare and veterans’ benefits, the Democrats would likely win large majorities in the House and Senate after the 2026 midterms. So, although Musk can return a rocket to its launch pad, I don’t think he can cut $2 trillion from federal outlays in one year without causing severe political problems for a Trump administration.

State GDP and Personal Income in Q4 2023

Charles Steindel

More Viewpoints

State Labor Markets in October

The Viability of the New Administration's Fiscal Policy Will Be Determined by the Bond Market

In The Era Of Fiscal Activism

If Musk Can Return a Rocket to Its Launch Pad, Why Can’t He Cut $2 Trillion from the Federal Budget?