Posts Tagged ‘unemployment’


Special mention

149762_600 149712_600

Screen Shot 2014-06-06 at 11.30.08 AM

With 217,000 new jobs created in May, the U.S. economy is finally—finally, after 50 months!—back to the pre-recession employment level.

Except it isn’t. Not by a long shot. Not when we consider the “jobs gap”—which we can calculate in one of two ways: by the amount of time it will take at this rate to get back to pre-recession employment levels while also absorbing the people who enter the labor force each month (4 years) or by the difference between payroll employment and the number of jobs needed to keep up with the growth in the potential labor force (6.9 million jobs).



And that’s not even considering the kinds of jobs that have been created or the pay for those jobs or the percentage of the unemployed who have been without a job for 27 weeks or more.

Or, for that matter, the fact that all those how have been lucky enough to keep their jobs or to get a new job are forced to have the freedom to work for a small number of employers who are able to capture and do what they will with the profits their workers create.


Special mention

148841_600 148857_600



Right now, almost five years into the U.S. economic “recovery,” there are about 9.7 million workers who are officially (U3) unemployed, 3.5 million of whom have been without a job for 27 weeks or more (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics).

For most Americans, the plight of the millions of their fellow citizens who have lost their jobs and have had a great deal of difficulty finding another one is a pressing political problem and social disaster—an indictment of current economic arrangements, which simply haven’t been able to provide an adequate number of jobs for those who are willing and able to work. There’s simply not much to debate: current economic institutions and policies have failed to generate the appropriate level of employment or path to employment, especially for the millions of workers who have been rendered superfluous and remain so after months and sometimes years of looking for another job.

But for mainstream economists and policymakers there is a debate to be had: are the long-term unemployed actually part of the labor force, and do they serve to dampen increases in wages and therefore to slow inflation? For Alan Krueger, Judd Cramer, and David Cho, the long-term unemployed are on the margins of the labor market, with diminished job prospects and high labor-force withdrawal rates, and as a result they exert little pressure on wage growth or inflation. Therefore, it is the short-term unemployment rate that is a much stronger predictor of inflation and real-wage growth than the overall unemployment rate in the United States. William C. Dudley, however, sees things differently: the long-term are “simply unlucky,” having been rendered jobless during a particularly difficult time. But, as the short-term unemployed pool becomes depleted, the long-term unemployed will become more relevant to the labor market supply. So, their impact on wages and the labor market will likely increase as the labor market tightens.

As it turns out, what is interesting is not the different conclusions of the participants in this debate but, instead, the shared terms of the debate. First, both sides of the debate presume that the line of causality runs from wages to inflation. Neither side is willing to admit that the profit rate, the return on capital, plays any role in determining the level of prices. It’s as if the only cost of production is the price of labor, and the price of capital is entirely irrelevant. Therefore, if and when wages rise, they expect the overall level of prices to go up. In other words, the presumption is that capital will get its “normal” rate of return, which can only be safeguarded from wage increases by raising the price of output.

But the second shared term of debate is perhaps even more interesting: both sides presume that the number of unemployed workers determines the wage rate. This runs counter to the usual neoclassical model according to which it’s the level of wages that determines the amount of unemployment. The shared presumption of both Krueger et al. and Dudley is that causality runs in the opposite direction: from unemployment to wages. For them, the size of the relative surplus population or reserve army of labor determines the ability of workers to command higher wages. The only remaining point of debate, then, is whether the long-term unemployed will remain unemployed (and therefore exert no influence on the wages of employed workers) or if they will return from the margins, overcome their “unlucky” status, and become part of the active labor force.

What is missing, of course, is an analysis of where the reserve army of labor itself comes from. But, for that, we need to move beyond the discussion of the relationship among unemployment, inflation, and job openings (and therefore of Phillips and Beveridge curves) and conduct an investigation of how the accumulation of capital operates on both sides of the labor market. We would then understand, as that trenchant critic of political economy did almost 150 years ago, that the entire reserve army of labor—including both short-term and long-term unemployed workers—”belongs to capital quite as absolutely as if the latter had bred it at its own cost.”


Special mention

Jeff Koterba color cartoon for 7/8/2011 "Tweet Obama" LoweC20140502_low


Special mention

147869_600 147850_600

global risks

A persistent topic of discussion with my once-a-week lunch partner is whether or not the elite is aware of economic inequality. Are they aware of inequality and choose to do nothing about it, or are they so sheltered they don’t even see the grotesque levels of inequality the current economic and social system has produced?

Well, to judge by the latest Global Risks report from the World Economic Forum (pdf), economic inequality has appeared from nowhere and has jumped to the head of queue for the last three years. (And it’s now joined, in third position, by unemployment and underemployment.)

However, as you can see from the chart below, inequality doesn’t even figure in terms of the significance of the impact, with the highest spot occupied by fiscal crises, after many years of focus on financial crises.

global risks-impact

One interpretation of this disjuncture between the high likelihood but low impact of inequality is that the members of the global elite are well aware of the growing gap between the tiny group at the top and everyone else but it’s not really a pressing problem. It’s simply their reward of how the economic and social system is currently organized.