19 January 2014

Measuring Employer Market Power

In a recent post, I looked at one measure of current job market slack. I've reproduced the graphic from that post below. It shows the difference between the number of unemployed persons and the number of job openings.

Unemployed minus Job Openings since 2008 (in millions)

What this shows is that there are still over seven million more unemployed than there are job openings, down from a peak of around 13 million at the end of 2009. To get some perspective on this number, I extended the line as far out as the data allow. The graphic below is the same measure from 2001 to present.


         Unemployed minus Job Openings since 2001 (in millions)

In this graphic, we can see the recovery after the 2001 recession. There is no demographic story here. No "baby-boomers exiting the workforce" explanation is possible here. Neither is there a population growth story here. For population to explain this difference, for example, the US population would have to be roughly twice the level it was ten years ago.

To really show what I and others mean by "slack," we have one other measure to observe. The chart below is total unemployed persons divided by total job openings. 


Unemployed Persons per Job Opening since 2008

What we see here is that there are still three unemployed persons for each job opening. This is what I mean when I say that employers enjoy market power in the labor market. This is why, for example, wages are under no upward pressure. Who would dare ask for a raise under these conditions?

Another notable observation, regarding the "great vacation" theory of unemployment: What do you suppose happened in early 2008? Either the jobs were pulled out from under the workers (decrease in job openings), or many more people began to look for work (the exact opposite of the "great vacation" theory).

We can also put the Employer Market Power Ratio in perspective as well. For these data, we can all the way back to 2001 as well.


                  Unemployed Persons per Job Opening since 2001

What we see here is that the ~3 persons per opening of today is roughly equal to the worst time after 2001.

The elephant in the room in this analysis is that all of these metrics use Total Unemployed Persons, which is an entirely inadequate measure, but it's all we've got for now. If we were to include discouraged workers in these calculations, the picture would likely be far worse.

14 December 2013

Reagan and the role of the past in shaping the future

My colleague Ziyi Mai writes that critics of today's slow economic recovery should not look to the policies of the Reagan administration for any explanations. He cites the similar (or better) unemployment and inflation numbers of the late 1970s and early- to mid 1980s, and says that the policies of the second Bush administration have more to do with today's lackluster recovery than those of the Reagan administration. He also claims that consumption inequality, which is lower than income inequality, is a better measure of economic equality.

While it is true, as Mai writes, that unemployment has remained persistently high for a longer period after the 2008-09 recession than after the 1982 recession, much of this persistence is attributable to the different dynamics of recovery from financial panics. Political intransigence has also led to contractionary fiscal policy in direct contradiction to textbook macroeconomics. Had the Congress taken up the monetary 'slack' provided by unconventional monetary policy over the last five years, it is likely that unemployment would be significantly lower today. It is worth noting, as well, that this intransigence has its roots in the political style of Mr Reagan, whose language of class warfare and racially incendiary rhetoric and actions sought to undermine the value of government as an institution, and whose fruits are borne today.

None of this, however, is related to the criticism that Mai seeks to address, which is that income inequality has inhibited this recovery. It is clear that income inequality has skyrocketed since 1980. It doesn't seem as if Mai would disagree with this; but he would rather talk about consumption inequality. That's fine; there are plenty of good reasons to do that. The best reason is that the ultimate purpose of income is to spend it. Various macro models address the utility of bequeathment, and the concept of discounting future consumption is at the heart of any dynamic macro model, but it is safe to say that we seek income so that we (or our heirs) may spend (today, tomorrow, whenever).

So, why not focus on consumption inequality? I think the best reason is that, contrary to Mai's assertion, consumption inequality has risen right alongside income inequality. The argument implicit in the focus on consumption inequality is that "if people can spend, it doesn't matter if they cannot save." This has unfortunate consequences both individually and macroeconomically. Households that are income-constrained, and which therefore must spend to their limits rather than save, face tremendous financial uncertainty. The rise in bankruptcies due to medical emergencies demonstrates this clearly. As Mai cites, the decrease in the national saving rate, while beneficial in the short-run during the recovery, will eventually have dire ramifications in terms of private investment.

There is, of course, a mechanism by which consumption equality could persist in the face of rising income inequality. The trend toward "cash-out refinancing," an equity-draining loan option popular during the housing boom of the early 2000s, allowed the income-constrained to treat their homes like ATMs in order to boost consumption. This was made possible by the outsized demand for collateralized debt obligations, the mortgage bonds whose bubble most directly led to the financial panic of 2007-08.

Mai is right that we cannot look solely to the past to explain our current economic trouble. He is too quick, however, to absolve Mr Reagan and his political descendants of blame for their role in setting the table for the rotten meal we're all staring at now.

Links of the Week - 13 December 2013

A weekly collection of links from the Conscience Warrior Newsfeed


Yes, the government should spend more each year
Mike Konczal

Structural Problems With Economese
Paul Krugman

The central banker who changed his mind
John Aziz

When Someone Claims the War on Drugs Is a War on Minorities…
Mike the Mad Biologist

[John Derbyshire] Hasn’t Seen ’12 Years A Slave,’ But He’s Sure It’s Too Hard On Slavery
Alyssa Rosenberg

Why guru ETFs beat human gurus
Felix Salmon

Does your job create real value?
Noah Smith

The Answer to the Crisis in Democracy Is More Democracy
Ta-Nehisi Coates

Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims
William J. Sutherland, David Spiegelhalter, and Mark Burgman

The GOP’s Obamacare Playbook Has One Football Play, and It Makes No Sense
Jonathan Chait

09 December 2013

A brief note on unemployment















This graph shows the gap between the number of unemployed and the number of job openings, measured in millions. This is about the best indication there is that the time for stimulus (monetary, but especially fiscal) is not over. The good news, of course, is that the gap is shrinking, but 7.5 million more unemployed than job openings is staggering. At the current rate, we should be back to the previous high (~6 million) in about 12-18 months. What this says above all is that the assertion that we can reduce unemployment by cutting unemployment benefits, a dubious notion in the best of times, is downright insane right now.