State and local government employees are essential in delivering everyday services to the American public, but the government's labor force is understaffed and has yet to recover from its pandemic lows. The reasons range from lower pay and less advancement to little flexibility in areas such as remote working.

 

Private-sector jobs have already surpassed pre-pandemic levels, while in the public sector, government employers are still looking for more than 664,000 workers with little success. This may sound like one of those "so what" kind of issues but consider this.

 

Public employees operate the nation's trains, subways and buses in addition to delivering essential services like health and unemployment insurance. Also on the list; safety-net services such as housing and cash assistance, protecting the nation's water, food, and air as well as combating infectious diseases. And let's not forget the increasingly difficult duty of teaching and caring for our kids in state universities, community colleges, and K-12 education.

 

I focus on teachers especially since jobs in education account for most of state and local employment, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Teaching salaries have the reputation of being notoriously low in the best of times, which these are not.

 

The ongoing pandemic, now in its third year, provides a clear and present infection danger for all teachers. Throw in the increasing number of school shootings, and the tension that goes along with it daily and you can understand why teachers have been retiring in droves with few replacements.

 

The increasing political pressure from outside the classroom on everything from facemasks, to books, to what lessons plans will be least likely to cause turmoil and/or outrage among parents adds to the teacher's list of grievances. No wonder, that, with a laundry list like that, it becomes even more difficult to woo young teachers for $50,000 a year when the same graduate can earn twice that and more in the tech industry.

 

Workers considering employment in areas like education, the postal service, etc. are being wooed away in this tight labor market by hefty signing bonuses and faster wage growth in the private sector, which becomes especially important in an inflationary environment.

 

You would think the simplest solution would be to raise wages for government employees just like the private sector has been doing. That turns out to be a rather difficult proposition. In the past, state and local governments struggled with a combination of cutbacks in federal spending (depending on who was in office), as well as low tax receipts from time to time. This made budgeting difficult and somewhat unpredictable.

 

Which brings us to government budgets. For the most part, it is the budget that determine salaries for public workers. Budgets, as we know, are ponderous things that take a long time to pass, and almost always involve political horse-trading. Raising wages for government workers, therefore, is a hot potato that few politicians are willing to tackle unless they must.

 

Another disadvantage in finding workers is that government work is not as flexible. Working from home doesn't cut it for a bus driver, police office, or letter carrier. Therefore, hybrid and remote work options just aren't in the lexicon of most state and local governments. So, who suffers the most from these lower wage jobs?

 

In the overall economy, state and local governments account for about 12 percent of employed people. Most of these workers are women. Workers of color, particularly Black and American Indian employees, are also heavily represented in these industries. As such, public sector employment has provided economic security for women and minorities.

 

Is there a solution to this employment problem? Probably, but not in the short term. However, as the wait time between your bus or subway stop lengthen, the lines at your unemployment office, or at the tax assessor's office trail out to the sidewalk, and your mail is two weeks late, we will notice and complain. At some point, if we yell loud enough, things will change, but I suspect not before they get much worse.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

The Biden administration is wrestling with whether to ease some of the Chinese import tariffs on billions of dollars of Chinese goods. If they do, it would mark the first step in reconciling the trade differences between the world's two largest economies and could even nudge down the inflation rate.

 

The trade war is now over four years old and substantial tariffs remain. "To what end," some may ask, as certain deadlines approach. The first tranche of the Section 301, China imports tariffs on $34 billions of goods, is set to expire this week. Another $16 billion worth of tariffs will expire on Aug. 23 followed by $100 billion of tariffs on Sept. 4.  

 

 You may recall that back in 2018, former President Donald Trump imposed a series of tariffs on a host of Chinese products totaling more than $450 billion. In response, China imposed their own tariffs on American goods. From there, as the rhetoric reached new heights, each side escalated the tariffs, encompassing more and more goods at higher and higher penalties.

 

Since China represented the United States' largest agricultural export market, China focused their retaliatory tariffs in that area. The U.S. Department of Agriculture found that the tariffs reduced U.S. exports of agricultural products by $27 billion from 2018 to 2019.

 

The damage ultimately was so bad that the federal government was forced to give farmers nearly $30 billion in taxpayer money just to compensate for lost sales to China. Overall, the tariff war caused U.S. exports to fall by 9.9 percent, while reducing GDP by 0.04 percent, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

 

The tit-for-tat escalation ultimately led to a "Phase One" trade deal between the two countries, signed with great fanfare by Trump in January 2020. The agreement required China to sharply increase its purchases of U.S. goods as a precondition for the president to remove the new tariffs. The agreement was a total flop. China, during the first two years of the deal (2020-2021), purchased only 57 percent of its commitments. China purchased $289 billion of U.S. goods, instead of the $502 billion promised.  

 

A partial explanation for such a big miss was the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected trade between almost all nations. In addition, supply chain disruptions had a meaningful impact on other U.S. products such as automobiles and aircraft exports. Weakening demand for imports overall, as China's economy declined, has also been a contributing factor.  

 

Bottom line: if one looks at trade between the two nations overall, China's purchases are below the level they were before the trade wars began.

 

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development found that the trade war was simply a lose-lose for both countries. The tariffs were supposed to protect American industries, but they have hurt the U.S. economy instead. If there had been no trade war, U.S. exports between 2018 and April 2022 would have been $129 billion more, according to a Washington-based research group, Americans for Free Trade.

 

Unfortunately, the Phase One agreement did not end the tariffs, but only prevented them from going higher. The average tariffs on goods affected is still about 20 percent on each side.  Not only did the tariffs on Chinese parts, components, and materials not make our manufacturing sectors stronger and more competitive, it also did the opposite.

 

Our companies needed those Chinese intermediate products (now on the tariff lists) to manufacture finished goods here. Companies found that without them, competing with companies in Japan and Europe, which continued to have access to those cheaper Chinese inputs, made our products more expensive in the open market. Our companies continued to lose market share globally as a result. Those losses continue today.

 

Some may question why President Biden has continued Trump's misguided policies, despite the damage it has caused the U.S. economy, while doing little to hurt China's economy. The simple answer is politics.

 

Being "tough on China" is a popular stance among Americans, even if it means a weaker economy. If you throw in China's growing authoritarianism, suppression of human rights, oppression of minorities, and military ambitions in Asia, the Biden administration would need some strong counter arguments to justify an easing of tariffs.

 

Given the rising inflation rate and cooling economy in the U.S., President Biden may now have the political cover to roll back some of those tariffs. President Biden is hoping that reducing tariffs would lower the costs of everyday merchandise to consumers. Unfortunately, economists are expecting that tariff reductions will only have a modest impact on inflation, but in my opinion, every little bit helps when inflation is topping 8 percent.

 

This week, the U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, and China's Vice Premier Liu He, held talks focusing on economic policy and relieving global supply chains. Words such as "pragmatic," "constructive," and "substantive" seemed to indicate that some movement on tariffs is in the offing. Let's see what develops throughout the week.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

There are roughly 817,000 unique and different programs available via streaming services in the U.S. The median streaming household pays for three to four such subscriptions costing between $20 and $30 per month. Most consumers claim the choices are overwhelming and cumulatively expensive, so why don't they plan to do anything about it?

 

Those were the findings of a Nielson report titled "State of Play" published in April 2022 that analyzed the state of streaming entertainment in America. The number of programs (movies, series, specials, etc.) has increased by 26.5 percent since the beginning of 2020.

 

The amount of content that we couch potatoes have consumed has also increased by 18 percent since 2021. To put that in perspective, in just one month (February 2022), Americans consumed 169.4 billion minutes of content. Obviously, there is a strong correlation between the amount of content available, and the amount we consumed.

 

Personally, there isn't a day that goes by that I am not bombarded with ads on television, radio, the internet, and emails from one streaming service or another. Most of them promise a week or so of free viewing and then automatically bill me each month via credit card for as long as forever. Honestly, when I examine the offerings, I discover that much of what they offer is old shows and series with one or more new series thrown in that were popular once upon a time.

 

Nielson says almost half of all users they surveyed felt overwhelmed by the quantity of programming available. I concur. My list of shows on the four services I subscribe to continues to build to the point that it would probably take me a year of constant binging to get through it all!

 

So, with all of this content, you would think that I would cut back, discontinue a service or two, and save some money. But true to form, no matter how much I complain, I have no plans to cut back, or reduce the amount of streaming content I consume each night. And that is exactly what most of those surveyed by Nielson said as well. A full 93 percent of respondents said they planned to either keep the streaming services they had or add more over the course of the next year.  

 

If you asked me right now how much I pay a month and over the course of a year for my subscription services, I couldn't tell you. How about you, can you even guess? It turns out that almost a third of U.S. consumers underestimate how much they spend on subscriptions by $100 to $199 per month, according to a study by market research firm, C+R Research. 

 

It is also true that many people (42 percent) have forgotten that they are paying for a streaming service that they no longer use. I am guilty once again. My wife and I enjoy foreign films, so about four months ago, we decided to fork over another $6.99 a month for a British service. We watched maybe one or two shows and that was it. Because we charged the fee to our credit card, the amount was automatically debited, making it easy to go unnoticed. Since 86 percent of consumers have at least some, if not all, of their subscriptions on autopay, I suspect many readers have similar experiences. TV and movie streaming came in third, after mobile phone and internet charges as the most forgotten types of subscriptions.

 

Way back when, if you recall, cable companies offered preset packages to subscribers that included several premium services in addition to network television for a bundled price. In a similar move back to the future, many of Nielson's surveyed consumers (64 percent) said they would be interested in bundling competing streaming services to save money if they could choose the streaming services they want. It seems to me that as winners and losers begin to become apparent among streamers some sort of bundling will make economic sense. In the meantime, I will probably continue to complain about, pay for, and accumulate additional services.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

The stock market does not perform well in the year leading up to midterm elections. This year's election may just add to the overall woes besetting equities.

 

Historically, the average annual return of the benchmark S&P 500 Index in the 12 months before the Nov. 5 election is 0.3 percent, versus the historical average of 8.1 percent in non-midterm years. In 2022, of course, with the S&P 500 down more than 20 percent, those historical numbers look pretty good. Unfortunately, volatility also tends to rise before and after midterm elections.

 

But this year is different, you might say, since we are witnessing the first European war in decades, as well as the highest inflation rate in 40 years. And let's not forget the continued existence of the coronavirus, a pandemic the world has not seen in more than a hundred years.

 

While all of this is true, it does not contradict the data. For more than a century, the second year of the four-year presidential election cycle has always been the weakest in performance, so investors should brace for an even worse year than most.

 

Consumer sentiment is in the dumps and a growing list of issues — political, social and economic — are plaguing voters. The economy is giving off conflicting signals. It is still growing, although that growth is moderating. But right now, U.S. GDP remains strong enough to keep employers hiring and wages rising, but for how long?  

 

Two big negatives are posing a growing threat to the economy; inflation and the Fed's determination to fight it through tighter monetary policy. Both elements are impacting the wealth effect of American voters. Higher interest rates are hurting the stock market, and with it the average Americans retirement portfolios. Housing prices, another bright spot for homeowners, are also leveling off as mortgage rates climb. The two combine to inflict a general feeling of diminishing wealth among many households. We are feeling poorer.

 

 Inflation adds to that feeling. At the gas pump and in the supermarket, skyrocketing inflation has dramatically increased the cost of living for most voters. Workers are finding that recent pay raises are not covering the effects of inflation on the family budget. 

 

 What is worse, more and more economists are beginning to worry that the Fed's monetary tightening will ultimately lead to a recession sometime soon, whether this year or next. If so, the macroeconomic data will likely make that apparent just in time for the lead up into November's mid-term elections in 2022.

 

The makeup of the Congress and the Senate adds even more uncertainty to the midterm equation. If we look back at midterm elections since 1934, the president's party has lost at least 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate. There are only three years in history where the president's party gained seats. Democrats cannot afford to lose any seats in the Senate and few seats in the House if they hope to maintain their majority. At this point, history is against that happening.

 

Investors tend to dislike uncertainty and like the status quo within their governments. The stakes are high. If the Democrats hold firm in both houses of Congress, the chance of new legislation (and possibly new taxes) becomes a higher probability. If Republicans win one or both Houses, gridlock becomes the likely result within government. In that case, investors can expect little in the way of new legislation or downside surprises. Either way, we can be sure that the markets will be anything but calm leading up to Nov. 5.

 

Of course, there are a host of social issues, which may help determine the outcome. However, the economy usually takes precedence over all else in voters' minds. In any case, readers can expect that politicians on both sides of the aisle will be sure to add to the market's volatility in the months ahead. Starting now.

 

Only recently have investors' focus shifted from $120 a barrel of oil to the soaring price of natural gas. Given the many uses of natural gas, from heating and cooling and generating electricity to the production of plastics and petrochemicals, the direction of prices could be critical to our economic well-being.

 

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022, natural gas prices fell over 10 percent after a fire at a Texas liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminal shut down the Freeport LNG facility for at least three weeks.  The terminal accounts for 16 percent of U.S. export capacity. Gas prices fell because for a brief time, that gas will flow into the domestic market depressing prices in the short term.

 

Thus far in 2022, Henry Hub natural gas futures are trading at $8.23 Metric Million British Thermal Unit (MMBtu) down from $9.44 MMBTU but still up 10 percent, which is a fourteen-year high.  Many analysts believe the present price rise is unsustainable, but summer heat, export demand, and a robust hurricane season may continue to pressure prices higher. 

 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) estimated that U.S. demand for natural gas would outpace supply this summer. FERC expects that U.S. demand for natural gas production will increase by 3.4 percent over the summer, compared to a projected 4.8 percent increase in consumption during that same period.

 

Overall, a drop in the U.S. supply of natural gas in storage is driving the price gains and the prospect for storage gains is dismal at best. How did the U.S. end up in this predicament? Blame the pandemic or regulation or both. There was a large decline in production in 2020, when extraction of gas, oil and most fossil fuels fell off a cliff. Many small gas producers went out of business during that period, while larger companies trailed off production to protect profit margins. Government regulations did their part as well. Wall Street bankers also wanted more dividends and stock buybacks and less production from the gas companies that survived the downturn. 

 

As supply dwindled, demand for U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) continued to increase to record levels. This year (2022), the U.S. has become the world's largest exporter of LNG. However, the majority of the world's LNG supply is sold under contract. Many of these contracts are decades long. As a result, most of the U.S. LNG supply is already spoken for. No one counted on the Ukraine War.

 

As Russia invaded Ukraine, the price of natural gas in Europe exploded higher. Traders initially thought Europe's price hikes would have an impact on this side of the pond. But over time, higher European prices had only a minor impact on the price of natural gas here in North America. As gas markets go, the U.S. is an isolated market. The U.S. natural gas market produces 97 billion cubic feet per day (BCFD) of natural gas, which is just enough for domestic consumption with another 12 BCFD available for LNG exports.

 

However, President Joe Biden has since promised to supply more natural gas to Europe to replace Russian fossil fuels. The problem with this pledge is that no one knows where the additional supplies are going to come from. There is little LNG available and even if there were it is extremely difficult to re-route LNG from one region to another.

 

One might think that with rising prices, why not simply increase production? That is easier said than done. Labor and material shortages, in addition to a more cautious approach to drilling (as a result of finance and regulation), have conspired to bring on some production, but at a much slower rate. In February 2022, monthly production hit 115.2 BCFD, but that was down from 118.7 BCFD in December 2021. Since then we have seen a steady decline. Average gas production output in the lower 48 states fell to 94.7 BCFD in June 2022 from 95.1 BCFD in May 2022.

 

As a result, storage levels are 18 percent lower than last year, and 16 percent lower than the five-year average. The way gas storage works, some storage historically is left unused in preparation for the winter when more gas is normally consumed. That is not happening this year. And all the above supply constraints could be exasperated by climate change.

 

The National Weather Service is already warning of another summer season of record-breaking heat waves in the Southern states. That wave has already commenced in places like Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. The nation's utilities, which are charged with supplying the electricity necessary to run all those air conditioners, have switched in times past to coal for power, but coal is now even more expensive than gas.

 

We have not even spoken about this year's hurricane season (June 1 to November 30, 2022). Historically, major hurricanes have disrupted both oil and gas production, refining, and delivery in many areas of the U.S. NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (a division of the National Weather Service), is predicting above-average activity this year with between 14 to 21 named storms on the horizon.

 

At the very least, I would suspect that down the road we will all be paying higher utility bills. As utilities grapple with higher natural gas costs, it will take some time to pass the costs through to the consumers. Depending on how tropical the summer gets, those higher monthly bills could persist well into the winter.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.