Q&A with OU Professor Robert Dauffenbach on the economies of Oklahoma and the U.S.

By Ian Ogilvie Modified: March 23, 2013 at 12:10 am •  Published: March 24, 2013
Advertisement
;
Robert Dauffenbach is associate dean for Research and Graduate Programs, and director for the Center for Economic and Management Research at the University of Oklahoma's Price College of Business. The questions here were posed by Ian Ogilvie, an investment professional who writes the “Understanding Wall Street” column for The Oklahoman and NewsOK.com.

Q: People who pay attention to economic news can be overwhelmed by data and stories coming from all directions, especially with the 24/7 media. It's difficult to sift out the politics and sensationalism. Please tell us your view of where the national economy is today.

A: Sure. It's not easy to assess how the overall economy is doing at a given time, and trends can be affected by events unfolding in the U.S. and around the world. Having said that, I look to the rate of employment growth as the best lens to see what is going on now and over time. Personal income data are important, too, but come to us only with a considerable lag.

The rate of employment growth reflects employers' collective judgment that the benefit of taking on new people outweighs the cost of doing so. When an employer hires someone, it is effectively betting that that new employee will be profitable despite all of the uncertainty out there. The uncertainty I'm talking about includes every risk that employers can foresee. So the rate of employment growth helps us to look past the media noise you're talking about and pay attention to the bottom line.

I'm encouraged by what I see going on in the labor market right now. In February employers added a net 236,000 jobs nationally, which was a much better number than what had been expected. That includes significant gains in manufacturing jobs. And the employment news has been even better in Oklahoma.

Q: You have provided us with a very interesting graphic [see below] entitled “U.S. and Oklahoma Employment Growth.” What does this graphic tell us about the economic picture nationally and in Oklahoma?

A: This graphic contains four lines, one for each of the U.S., the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City and Tulsa metro areas spanning the past 40 year period. The lines represent the year over year rate of change, measured quarterly, of employment growth, for each of those places. The thickest line is for the national economy. The most recent date the graphic includes is this past December.

The numbers in the bottom right-hand quarter show the employment gains in the year beginning Jan. 1, 2012, and ending Dec. 31, 2012. Employment growth in the U.S. was 1.6 percent for the year. For Oklahoma as a whole, the rate of growth was 2.4 percent. Oklahoma City saw a 4 percent gain, while Tulsa's growth was much less, slightly ahead of the state's at 2.5 percent. The other numbers are the actual numbers of jobs created over the year. The state gained 38,000 jobs in 2012.

The graphic is interesting because it tells an historical tale, as well as a comparative one. You can see the effects of the various recessions over the past 40 years, as well as the expansionary periods. In the late '70s and early '80s, energy boom years, we were doing much better than the nation. Also note the Penn Square Bank era of 1982-83; the graphic plainly shows Oklahoma's underperformance compared with the rest of the country. You can see that the lines representing the U.S. and Oklahoma have moved together far more closely since 1990 or so. This suggests that Oklahoma's economy is becoming more diversified, more like the national economy. A more diversified economy should be a more resilient economy, less prone to booms and busts than Oklahoma was in the past. While we are sometimes higher and at times lower than the nation, our growth patterns now certainly “rhyme” with the nation's.

Notice also that Oklahoma City's employment growth is far outpacing the rest of the country and the state. Contrast its employment growth with Tulsa's much slower rate. You can see that Tulsa's line has often exaggerated the movement of the other trend lines. Tulsa is more cyclically volatile. This likely reflects the fact that Tulsa's economy is less diversified than Oklahoma's City's and has a comparatively larger manufacturing base. OKC benefits from being the seat of state government and Tinker.

Combined with the recent employment numbers, the trends in employment growth are beginning to look quite positive, and there has been marked improvement since the financial crisis of 2008. I say this as a skeptic of policymakers in Washington and the Fed.