Posts Tagged ‘unemployment’

Figure 1A-lori

As Andrew Schaefer [pdf] explains,

While the unemployment rate has slowly receded after a peak of about 10 percent during the Great Recession between December 2007 and June 2009, the long-term unemployment rate remains staggeringly high at more than a third (39 percent) of all unemployed. This is cause for concern given that workers in most states are eligible for a maximum twenty-six weeks of basic unemployment insurance, and the federal extension of unemployment benefits that would have provided, at most, thirty-eight weeks of benefits expired on January 1 of this year.

mike2feb

Special mention

1 117TzZ.AuSt.79

college graduates

According to a new study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York [pdf],

by historical standards, unemployment rates for recent college graduates have indeed been quite high since the onset of the Great Recession. Moreover, underemployment among recent graduates—a condition defined here as working in jobs that typically do not require a bachelor’s degree—is also on the rise, part of a trend that began with the 2001 recession. To be sure, our comparison of the experience of new graduates today with that of new graduates in earlier periods shows that fairly high unemployment and underemployment are not uncommon for young people just after they obtain their degrees; this pattern arises because college graduates generally require some time to transition into the labor market. However, when we delve further to examine the quality of jobs held by the underemployed, we find that recent graduates are increasingly working in low-wage jobs or working part-time. We conclude that while elevated rates of unemployment and underemploy- ment may be typical for recent college graduates, finding a good job has indeed become more difficult.

missing-EPI

The official unemployment rate fell to 6.7 percent in December not because of strong job growth but because of the growing number of “missing” workers.

The Economic Policy Institute defines missing workers as potential workers who, due to weak economic opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking work. They totaled almost 6 million in December.

If those workers who have been sidelined were, instead, looking for work, the official unemployment rate would be 10.2 percent.

 

The-Rat-Race

Special mention

142810_600 Climate-Science-Deniers

300dpi rgb jpg 7.47"x10"

Special mention

142903_600 142942_600

Chart of the day

Posted: 8 January 2014 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

eu-unemployment-11-13

According to Eurostat [pdf], the euro area unemployment rate was a stubbornly high 12.1 percent in November 2013, unchanged since April. What this means is that 19.24 million workers in the euro area were without jobs, an increase of almost half a million since November 2012.

The countries with the highest unemployment rates were Greece (27.4 percent) and Spain (26.7 percent). Those countries also had the highest youth unemployment: an astounding 54.8 percent in Greece (September) and 57.7 percent in Spain (November).

mcfadden-headlines

Special mention

ineq_590_356 142699_600

142618_600

Special mention

142633_600 toles01052014

profits-wages

source

The current situation—what I continue to refer to as the Second Great Depression—presents a real problem for mainstream economists. Corporate profits (and, with them, the stock market and salaries at the top end of the income distribution) continue to soar while workers’ wages stagnate (based on high levels of unemployment and a declining value of the federal minimum wage).

Clearly, the modeling tools of mainstream economics are useless in analyzing these trends. For example, the only way you can get involuntary unemployment in a neoclassical world is for wages to be too high (that is, above the equilibrium wage rate), such that the quantity supplied of labor is greater than the quantity demanded of labor.

This has forced an economist like Paul Krugman to look elsewhere and to stumble on a tradition that looks a lot more like Marx and Kalecki than traditional neoclassical (and, for that matter, Keynesian) economics. In this alternative tradition, there’s a fundamental conflict between labor and capital, the Reserve Army of labor regulates the level of wages, and corporations prevent the state from enacting the kinds of stimulus measures and social programs that would decrease the economy’s dependence on the “state of confidence” of private employers and investors.

The question is, how does one model fundamental features of the Second Great Depression in this alternative tradition? Krugman seems to think he can do it in with an efficiency-wage model. But, remember, that model was invented to make sense of situations in which employers offer wages above the equilibrium wage rate (in order to purchase worker loyalty, decrease “shirking,” and increase effort) and, by extension, employers choose not to decrease wages as much as they might in the face of massive unemployment.

But the problem, as I’ve explained before, is not downwardly rigid nominal wages but upwardly rigid real wages. That is, even as the economy recovers, firms are not willing to bid up the prevailing wage rate. As a result, real wages remain constant while, with increasing productivity and economic growth, corporate profits rise. The real coordination failure is exactly the opposite of the one posed in the efficiency-wage story: each employer actually wants to pay the lowest wages possible, while hoping that all other employers offer higher wages, in order to buy back the goods and services being produced. All you need to do is work through Nick Rowe’s attempt to use an efficiency-wage model to make sense of Krugman’s problem to realize it’s probably not going to get us very far.

So, if the efficiency-wage model is a nonstarter, where else might we look? One possibility, it seems to me, is the labor-surplus model first developed by W. Arthur Lewis. I understand, the purpose of that model was quite different: it was designed to make sense of “dual economies” in which peasant workers trapped by “disguised unemployment” and receiving a “subsistence” wage (equal to the average product of labor) in the “backward,” noncapitalist rural/agricultural sector could be induced via a higher “industrial” wage rate (equal to the marginal product of labor) to move to the “modern,” capitalist urban/manufacturing sector, which would absorb them as long as capital accumulation increased the demand for labor.

Lewisgraph

That’s clearly not what we’re talking about today, certainly not in the United States and other advanced economies where agriculture employs a tiny fraction of the work force (and much of agriculture is organized along capitalist lines). But, in my view, a suitably modified labor-surplus model might be a better starting point than the efficiency-wage model for making sense of what is going on in the world today.

What I have in mind is redefining the subsistence wage as the federally mandated minimum wage, which regulates compensation to workers in the so-called service sector (especially retail and food services). That low wage-rate serves a couple of different functions: it’s a condition of high profitability in the service sector while keeping service-sector prices low, thereby cheapening both the value of labor power (for all workers who rely on the consumption of those goods and services) and making it possible for those at the top of the distribution of income to engage in conspicuous consumption (in the restaurants where they dine as well as in their homes). In turn, the higher average wage-rate of nonsupervisory workers is regulated in part by the minimum wage and in part by the Reserve Army of unemployed and underemployed workers. The threat to currently employed workers is that they might find themselves unemployed, underemployed, or working at a minimum-wage job.

In addition, the profits captured from both groups of workers are distributed to a wide variety of other activities, not just capital accumulation as presumed by Lewis. These include high CEO salaries, stock buybacks, idle cash, and financial-sector profits (with a declining share going to taxes). And, if the remaining portion that does flow into capital accumulation takes the form of labor-saving investments, we can have an economic recovery based on private investment and production with high unemployment, stagnant wages, and rising corporate profits.

Now, I can’t say the labor-surplus model is the only way to model some of the stylized facts of the Second Great Depression. But, to my mind, it’s certainly a better starting-point than the efficiency-wage model.