skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Our great, horrible, indifferent labor market
From Scott Sumner.
"The 4-week moving average of layoffs came out today at 287,750.
Total civilian employment in September was 146,600,000. The ratio of
the two, i.e. the chance of being laid during a given week if you had a
job, was below 2 in 1000. That’s only happened once before in all of
American history–April 2000. (We don’t have data going all the way
back, but the ratio was considerably higher in the booming 1960s, and
I’m confident layoffs were much more common in earlier decades for which
we don’t have data. (“Gilded Age” bosses could lay off workers
whenever they wanted.) And it seems very likely that we will soon break
the April 2000 record, maybe this month.
The Horrible:
Total employment has barely budged in 7 years, while the employment
population ratio has plunged much lower. We are even seeing a lower
employment/population ratio in the key 25-54 demographic, compared to
seven years ago. The U-6 unemployment rate is a very high 11.8%
The Indifferent:
The unemployment rate (U-3) is 5.9%, slightly above the Fed’s 5.6% estimate for the natural rate.
Thanks President Obama, you’ve given us a European labor market.
Workers with good jobs need not fear layoffs; the rest will have to be
satisfied with part time work or unemployment.
Of course I’m half joking about Obama. But just how good is his economic record? The Washington Examiner has an article that quotes me.
The newest talking point of President Obama and his supporters, such as Paul Krugman,
is that we are doing better at job creation than other developed
countries. I don’t think we are doing as well as Australia/New
Zealand/Canada/Britain, but it’s surely true overall for one very
obvious reason. The eurozone.
Let’s examine that Obama/Krugman claim more closely. Everyone seems
to agree that since 2010 the US has done considerably more austerity
than the eurozone. No debate there. And the huge divergence between
the US and the eurozone has occurred since 2011. The initial recession
and initial recovery were quite similar in the US and eurozone.
The GOP Congress did exactly the opposite of what Obama wanted on
austerity, and the result was that we grew dramatically faster than the
eurozone. That’s Obama’s success? The big difference was of course
monetary policy. Obama’s comparing us to a region ruled by a central
bank that is more incompetent that the central banks of the 1930s
(Krugman has some graphs on that point.)
So yes, we are doing better than the eurozone. Does Obama deserve
credit for the fact that our monetary policy was less incompetent than
the ECB? That doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Even Obama supporter
Matt Yglesias says he’s been horrible on monetary policy. He left
multiple seats empty, when he had 60 votes in the Senate in 2009. He’s
doing the same today. He never appointed a single person to the board
who favored the sort of expansionary monetary policy that I favor, that
Yglesias favors, that DeLong favors, that Krugman favors, that Christina
Romer favors, and that any progressive with half of brain favors. He
almost picked bubblephobe Summers to head the Fed, and had to be stopped
by a storm of protest that began here and then spread through the
progressive blogosphere. (Yes, some progressives always opposed him for
other reasons; I’m talking about his monetary policy views.)
President Obama may or may not be a good President. I think he’s
been above average on foreign policy. I’m willing to concede the
Obamacare (which I opposed as a missed opportunity) did some good things
like the Cadillac tax on health plans and helping the uninsured. I
think the financial reform was a missed chance, but others disagree. I’m
disappointed with his record on drugs and civil liberties.
But there can’t be any serious question about the fact that he did
NOTHING effective to help the economy. The US recovery is less than the
old trend rate of growth. Has that ever happened before? The Fed’s
been less inept than the ECB—that’s all.
And the supply-side? Even his supporters would admit he did nothing
there. They might disagree with the view that a heavy dose of extra
regulation, higher MTRs, and no Keystone pipeline slowed the recovery.
But no one claims those actions sped up the recovery. And the fracking boom (“drill baby drill”) fell on his lap.
Just a few months ago Obama called for an “emergency” unemployment
benefit of up to 73 weeks, much longer than during the President Clinton
recovery, all because the labor market was doing so poorly nearly 6 years after he was elected. And now a few months later they are touting their success in creating jobs—unbelievable.
It will be interesting to see how many liberals agree with him."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.