Why Record Corporate Profits Aren’t that Great

Tomorrow the government will announce the jobs number for November. Companies are expected to have added nearly 150,000 jobs last month. That’s not a lot compared to the millions people who are out of work. Indeed, the unemployment rate is not expect to fall from its current 9.6%. But if the jobs number is even lower than expected, here’s the reason: Corporate profits are not as strong as they look. What’s more, it’s not earnings growth that produces hiring. It’s sustained earnings growth that produces hiring. And that’s where we may have a problem. Here’s why:

Just before Thanksgiving we got the news that corporate profits hit a record high in the third quarter. All told, companies earned nearly $1.7 trillion in the third quarter. Some commentators have pointed out that if you inflation adjust the numbers, profits are not as high as they were back in 2006. That’s fine. But even after that analysis it looks like profits are growing nicely.

According to Standard & Poors, Profits at the companies in the Standard & Poors 500 rose an average of nearly 37%. Not bad at all. So why haven’t those profits translated into more hirings?

The first answer is because a good deal of those profits are from cost cutting–i.e. firing people. Revenue for companies in the S&P 500 only rose by 5.5% in the third quarter. Nonetheless, as we have seen from the drop in mass layoff claims, and the downward trend in new jobless claims, that firing was mostly happening last year, and the early part of this year. The normal cycle is layoffs and then profits, which leads back to hiring. We should be entering that third part of the cycle now, but there is a chance we won’t or it will be delayed. Why is that?

Look at where the profits came from. The biggest gainer in the third quarter was the banking sector. Profits at financial companies jumped 191%. Yet revenues at those firms actually fell 6%. No new sales, no new employees.

In fact, financial firms accounted for more than a third of the profit growth in the third quarter. Strip out the banks, and the increase in income drops to 23%. That’s still not bad. But here’s the problem: By this time next year, even that run up in profits will have significantly melted away.  For 2011, profits growth is expected to be 13%.

Again, not bad, you say. It is double digits. Yes, but we’re in the second year of an economic rebound. Similar times have produced much higher growth. In 2003, profits jumped 19%. Corporate income spiked 29% in 2003. So while corporate profits may have looked strong, that strength may have only been on the surface, and it may be fleeting. And that means we may still be a year or more away from a robust job market.

Related Topics: Economy & Policy, jobs, Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Brendan McDermid / Reuters

    Facebook’s Stock Falls Below $30 for First Time

    (NEW YORK) — Facebook’s stock has fallen below $30 for the first time since its much-awaited public debut this month.

    The Jury Is Out on the EuroSlate

    U.S. consumer prices rose faster than expected in May. (Mario Anzuoni / Reuters)

    Consumer Confidence in the Economy Plunged in May

    NEW YORK — American confidence in the economy suffered the biggest drop in eight months as worries about the weak jobs, housing and stock markets rattled them again. The decline comes after a few months of optimism amid some positive economic news.

  • deconstructiva

    Hard to raise corporate profits when:
    (1) too many are out of work and can’t afford to buy the companies’ overpriced crap goods and services,
    (2) those who know said people out of work and thus are scared to spend beyond their means like they once did in the glory days as much as they used to, and
    (3) said companies already squeezed enough “efficiency” out of workers without diminishing returns …of those still on the payroll, of course, and NOT laid off fired by management, thus adding to unemployment problem which leads back to #1.
    .
    Stephen, Barbara had earlier tried to ponder possible solutions, even if this mess seems unsolvable. We already know profits are unstable and (because) unemployment is still high, even if the market has been on a roll lately. Can we instead see more posts from your team + sources / guest bloggers (hint to Barbara) about what to do to solve these? Thanks.

  • grmccray

    Preaching to the Converted & Blasphemy to the rest.
    It seems to me that hopes of any actual long term recovery are unlikely at best. Free market capitalism is a great thing. Unregulated free market Capitalism is a disaster waiting to happen.

    Modern business is solely about maximizing short term profits, it cares not one whit about any long term or altruistic goals. Or, in fact even goals that may prove to be necessary for its own survival. We have seen this time and again over the last few (several) decades and it has just gotten worse and worse,

    The government is “charged” with reigning these things in, but obviously it is in the best interests of business to subvert this wherever possible. And they have been incredibly successful.

    The only real recovery your ever going to see is after this whole mess finally and catastrophically collapses. It could be a self generated Apocalypse or who knows if were lucky more than 1 percent of the planets population might survive.

    Many of you will think I’m off the deep end, just remember where and when you read it.

  • Worley

    Banks, like any financial service, don’t produce anything. While credit is vitally important, our economy will only truly start to grow again when we start producing more of what we consume and need to live a happy life.

    As such, get serious about China’s trade imbalance, bringing jobs back home, solving illegal immigration, and cutting spending. And while you’re at it, reform education and stop acting like everyone needs to go to college. If 80% of the illegal immigrants were not in this country, businesses far and wide would be forced to hire legal citizens and, yes, pay more for an honest day’s work.

    Inflation, you say! I’ll pay more for my fruit, clean hotel room, computers, house, etc. knowing that the added tax revenues will help balance the budget and cut government spending on welfare. Trade has to be fair, not free.

  • yourguidetochina

    Worley,

    How do you suggest improving the China trade imbalance? I’m all in favor of creating more opportunities in the US. The trick is that much of the current US economy is dependent on low priced goods manufactured overseas. If these products were made in the US, they would many times more expensive than they are now.

    It is sort of like saying we want to give all McDonald’s worker a minimum wage of $30/hour though still have our 99cent hamburgers.

    Steve
    http://www.TheChinaBusinessGuide.com

  • waltwriston

    Through both the transfer pricing of taxes; too the fact that the biggest earners are transnational does not translate into “national prosperity.”

    Google is a classic example of saying “don’t be evil,” but dodge international taxes through crazy arbitrage strategies’!

  • headybrew

    I don’t think its that simple. I don’t mind paying more either for my goods and services. Provided that my employer sees fit to give me (and everyone else) a significant raise to cover the costs of increased everything. Do you honestly think companies, big and small (those that actually produce goods, i.e. not banks) are going to want to pay more for raw materials (thus increasing the costs of the end products) and then also agree to pay their workers more in order to be able to purchase what they need? I doubt it.

  • quantumplanner

    At some point on this blog we need to have a serious accounting of the following factors in terms of long term economic growth and recovery:

    1. World population growth is declining and will continue to do so for decades leading to ,by some estimates, a stable population of about 5 billion. The early impacts of this are visible in Japan and emerging in Germany.

    2. There is massive over-capacity in many industries (autos in particular) and lots of pre-produced inventory that is competing with new production (in other words, we have enough a lot of things and the old stuff works just fine). Some new production is worth less than the cost of production once it reaches the market.

    3. The expanding economics of coordination via communications technologies will make us more efficient users of what we have (see the book, The Mesh) so that long term demand will go down. Many things can be shared efficiently via communications technology.

    4. Steadiy increasing technological productivity is lowering the demand for human labor (especially poorly trained and uneducated people which our education systems are producing more of). The productivity gains are going increasingly to owners of capital and not the remaining workers who are competing for the few available positions.

    All of this to me indicates a long term decline in economic activity regardless of the games we play with money or trade balances. We need to shift to a new economy somehow not based on producing stuff because we will need less of it and use what we have a lot more efficiently. How do we define and build this new economy, possibly based on human rights?

  • deconstructiva

    Well, let’s sure as hell NOT base it on the clouds and eyeballs pre-2000 Net crash “new economy.” Cash in hand sure proved to be a nice thing to have then. Many net companies that failed didn’t have any.

  • quantumplanner

    No doubt cash in hand is valuable, especially in normal circumstances (no hyper-inflation) and the cash is being used to buy what can be purchased (some things cannot be bought, like sanity, true love, good health without exercise, and self-knowledge).

    There are millions of people living on less than $2 a day (interesting couple of guys doing this by experiment on Youtube). They are surviving within the context of community and in a precarious balance with nature (clearly most modern people would find this unbearable, so I am not advocating or celebrating it).

    But maybe there is something we can learn by stepping outside our comfort zones that will help us reinvent our current system so it serves us all better. Maybe we need to redefine community.

    For sure this will scare hyper-individualist that suffer under the illusion that they are making it “own their own.”

  • http://briskfeetinn.wordpress.com briskfeetinn

    YOU MUST NOT MISS IT.

    SAVE YOU A LOT!

    http://www.briskfeetinn.com

blog comments powered by Disqus