UMass study says jobs suffer when companies 'hoard' cash
1

AMHERST - While millions of Americans face foreclosure and even homelessness due to the unemployment crisis, U.S. corporations and commercial banks are sitting on piles of cash totaling $3.6 trillion - nearly a quarter of the country's gross domestic product - according to economists at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Part of that "unprecedented cash hoard" could be used to create as many as 19 million jobs and bring the unemployment rate - which is in the double digits in some states - down to a nationwide level of 5 percent, according to a report issued this month by the Political Economy Research Institute at UMass.
The official U.S. unemployment rate in November was 8.6 percent, down from a high of 10.1 percent in late 2009. That means at least 13.3 million Americans are unemployed.
Nationally, unemployment is highest in Nevada (13 percent), California (11.3 percent) and the Washington, D.C. (10.6 percent).
Massachusetts' unemployment rate stands at 7 percent. Other New England states are at 10.5 percent (Rhode Island), 8.4 percent (Connecticut), 7 percent (Maine), 5.3 percent (Vermont) and 5.2 percent (New Hampshire).
The UMass report, written by PERI's Robert Pollin, James Heintz, Heidi Garrett-Peltier and Jeannette Wicks-Lim, says banks and corporations could safely spare $1.4 trillion in "liquid assets" that could be used to cut joblessness in half by the end of 2014. A variety of new policy measures could stimulate demand and ease credit constraints, they say.
The report's authors also dispute the official unemployment figure, saying it doesn't count people who are discouraged and no longer looking for work, or those who are working part-time and want full-time work. Factoring that population into the equation would put the real unemployment figure at 15.6 percent, or 24 million people, "a figure roughly equal to the combined populations of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and the other seven largest cities in the country," the report states.
The PERI report authors "like to use a broader measure" of unemployment figures than those used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics because they want to more accurately reflect the experiences of the American workforce, said Wicks-Lim, a UMass labor economist.
Pollin said he has closely followed the economic crisis that has becalmed the American economy since 2008. But the amount of cash hoarded by banks "shocked the hell out of me," he said Thursday in a telephone interview from Tel Aviv, Israel, where he is visiting.
Heintz and Pollin both said U.S. banks have never had such mountains of cash held in reserve.
Before the economic crisis, the banks had about $20 billion in reserve, Heintz said, noting that the current $1.6 trillion is "eightyfold" larger, which he called "mind-blowing."
The Federal Reserve "has been bailing them out," Heintz said, "And yet we don't see job creation."
"I'm not blaming the Fed," Heintz added. "The financial sector is not doing its part to help out the U.S. economy."
The Fed policy was designed to pump money into the U.S. economy, he said, adding that bank hoarding was not the expected outcome.
"Job creation is the most important policy in the domestic domain that the government has to focus on," Pollin said.
Using $1 trillion of excess bank holdings "will create a lot of jobs," he said. And the beauty of the plan is "this won't cost taxpayers a penny," he added.
The PERI group recommends changing U.S. policies that have enabled such large cash reserves to be stockpiled, including Fed policy that lets banks borrow funds at near-zero interest rates (and even get paid 0.25 percent for holding the cash on hand), or policies that allow corporations to use their cash for "financial engineering," such as stock buybacks, rather than expanding operations and hiring more workers.
A detailed breakdown
The PERI authors say the 19 million potential new jobs their report identifies would be spread out over three yeas and apportioned in the following areas: 40 percent to workers with high school diplomas, 30 percent to those with some college, and 30 percent to those with college degrees.
They say there are steps that U.S. policymakers can take to stimulate demand, which will encourage business expansion and job creation.
The authors favor creating priorities for businesses which are best suited for job creation, with energy-efficient retrofitting at $60 billion; private and public infrastructure at $180 billion; health care, including community health clinics, at $180 billion; and small businesses at $300 billion.
The rest of the money, $480 billion, could be spread "fairly evenly" throughout the economy, the economists recommend.
The authors say they developed "a very high-end estimate" of how much cash commercial banks need in order to deal with the ongoing home mortgage crisis that has led to millions of defaults, pegging the figure at $300 billion, then doubling it.
As for nonfinancial corporations, the authors note that the ratio of liquid assets held relative to short-term liabilities has risen from about 32 percent in 2001 to nearly 65 percent in 2010. Their estimate of excess cash holdings for the corporations at $400 billion, they say, is "based on highly conservative premises."
But hoarding cash is not the sole cause of economic stagnation and widespread unemployment, the economists say. They say the "toxic combination" of low demand and poorly performing financial markets are a big part of the problem.
In addition, they note that household wealth collapsed by $17.6 trillion from 2006 to 2008, nearly 25 percent in just two years, leading to a reduction in household spending.
To combat the low demand, credit deadlock crisis, the authors propose more government stimulus spending, such as President Obama's jobs program, proposed in September and still languishing in Congress; debt forgiveness by the banks, which could reduce the mortgage debts of homeowners, particularly the 22.5 percent who are "underwater" and owe more than their homes are now worth; a tax on excess bank reserves; and guarantees for small business loans.
"Solving the unemployment crisis would accomplish far more than any other measure toward bringing the federal deficit down," the report states. "This is simply because when more people have jobs, they also pay more taxes and rely less on government support, such as unemployment insurance and Medicaid."
Heintz said federal policymakers need to "make changes that make ordinary people feel more secure right now."
That might include mortgage write-downs for homeowners who bought moderately priced homes that have lost a great deal of their value, he said.
"Those people can't sell their homes and they can't refinance their loans," he said. "They can't move from Michigan, say, to a job in Massachusetts. It freezes up the labor market."
Pollin said he will participate in a conference call with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in early January as Bernanke reaches out to economists nationwide for insights and suggestions to address the country's economic woes.
Asked if Bernanke is aware of the information in the PERI job-creation report, Pollin said: "He knows it. It won't be news to him."












Comments
Wow. Did they go to college to figure that out?
This rates up there with the study on why baby monkey's like their mothers.
I just hope our tax dollars weren't used on this.
Okay, let's step out of the ivory towers for a few minutes here folks.
First: Corporations have to turn a profit to stick around.
Second: I know that many people out there can not seem to grasp that fact, like these "researchers," so let's try to equate it to our households, shall we?
In order for us to keep and maintain our households, we need to have income. That income needs to meet our outflow to cover necessary items like the mortgage, insurance and food - at a minimum. We also need to have monies on hand to do maintenance work on our humble homes. Paint, replacing old wood, perhaps a new roof every 25 years or so, replacing broken appliances and so forth. It would be nice to have some extra money to go out to the movies, buy a pizza occasionally, a six pack of beer or whatever. It would be great to be able to stash, even just a little, away into a savings account (or maybe a vacation fund).
So, for the sake of this conversation, let's say that we are doing just that - month to month.
Now, all of a sudden, you're told that you've got a HUGE expense coming your way. You don't know exactly how much this expense is, you just know that it will be absolutely huge - and may cause you to lose your humble home. The only thing you know for sure is that IT IS COMING SOME TIME SOON. (queue the theme from "Jaws")
Now, how will you behave regarding your spending? You'll probably stop the movie night, cancel your NetFlix, stop the occasional pizza, start looking for ways to save, buy more generic foods - if you weren't already, stop the Friday morning coffees at Dunkin Donuts and anything else you can cut out. You'll, in effect, start hoarding your money.
Your hoarding will cost the pizza shop revenue. They may have to lay someone off or not hire that new person.
Your hoarding will cost the local movie theatre revenue. They may have to lay someone off or not hire that new person.
Stopping your Friday morning coffee purchase will cost that place revenue. They may have to lay someone off or not hire that new person.
NetFlix may have to lay someone off a bunch of people or not hire that any new people.
Your hoarding threatens other peoples jobs.
Hmmmmmm......... hoarding your money because you're scared of what you know is coming......... hoarding your money because you have no idea exactly how much this new expense is going to be - you only know it will be EXPENSIVE....... hoarding your money causes businesses to lay off or not hire new people.........
So, you figure it out yet?
Welcome to the world of Obamacare's impact on businesses of all sizes.
No one can tell businesses just how much this will cost them - unless they are well connected to Democrat politicians (like Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid) that exempted them from Obamacare or if they are Muslim (Islam forbids the purchase of insurance as it is deemed to be "gambling" - not racist or xenophobic here, that's the plain and simple truth - look it up if you don't believe me).
So, here's this massive new law (remember we had to "pass it to find out what's in it" Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)) with an unknown, but growing, price tag on it flying down the road for a head on collision with employers of all sizes.
No business, impacted by Obamacare, in their right mind would expand hiring without knowing how much each new hire is going to cost them. That would be financial suicide.
Yet this GROUP of "researchers" was only able to come up with the symptoms of Obamacare? Good grief, Charlie Brown! TALK to business leaders! READ what they have already written! LISTEN to what they are saying at business meetings!
It's not difficult to figure out and I'm not even a "researcher!"
And yet, through all of this, THIS is exactly what you all voted for and cheered for! D-OH!
Large Corporations
Hi:
And I'm sure a sizable portion of cash goes into buying back company stock with the reasoning We are investing in our company and increase share value. Of course those company owned shares are also handy to dole out stock options to the corporate magnates. In the past we learned the options were also back dated.
What else is new?
Cheers, Fred