But On the Other Hand…

Edward Lazear maintains that the reason that unemployment remains stubbornly high is the failure to address the problems of inadequate demand:

Research I’ve done with James Spletzer of the U.S. Census Bureau shows that the problems in the labor market are not structural. They reflect slow economic growth, and the cure is a decent recovery.

In 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.4%. Two years later, it reached 10%. The structure of a modern economy does not change that quickly. The demographic composition of the labor force, its educational breakdown and even the industrial mix did not differ much between 2007 and 2009.

More specifically, from 2007 to 2009 unemployment grew dramatically in a few industries, and these changes contributed to the rise in overall unemployment. But the changes were similar to those experienced in prior recessions. As unemployment rates declined somewhat after 2009, the pattern played out in reverse. Industries that saw the largest increases in unemployment were the ones with the largest decreases as overall unemployment fell.

I think that’s an excruciatingly weak argument. For one thing it assumes that the cause of developments in 2007 through 2009 must have occurred in 2007 through 2009. That reminds me of the old joke that I’ve mentioned here before. A guy jumps off of a skyscraper as he passes the 48th floor some wiseacre yells out the window: “How are you?” He replies “So far, so good.” You’ve got to keep in mind that it’s the jumping that will kill him.

The events that caused the recent financial crisis had been developing for decades. They didn’t suddenly occur in 2007. The question he should be asking is why were demand and employment so high?

For another thing a lot of the people who’ve lost their jobs over the period of not just the last 5 years but the last 15 years were involved in the creation of organizational capital. That’s something that companies don’t see as nearly so essential when they’re hunkering down in survival mode. However, as I predicted in 2007 and 2008, some companies inevitably overshoot. Then they re-hired people. That’s no proof of Dr. Lazear’s claims. The dynamics of U. S. job market were just completely different from what he’s suggesting.

The title of this post refers to another old wisecrack. This one was by Harry Truman. When confronted with economists who not only corporately but individually gave him conflicting advice, saying “Well, on the one hand…” he quipped that what he needed was a one-handed economist. The search continues.

10 comments… add one
  • Drew Link

    Let me just throw out a query for all.

    Look at measures of demand in 2007 or 2008, say, GDP, retail sales etc. Look at the level of absolute demand vs the level of absolute employment.

    Can we really blame demand? In addition, there are some who want to point to Europe. I deal almost exclusively in companies where European demand is irrelevant. Yet they are not hiring either.

    I’m well aware that it simply doesn’t fit the narrative to a degree here, but certainly over in discussions at OTB, but the cost and risk (at a bare minimum, perceived risk) to employ has risen. And what do your get when something is more expensive or risky?

  • Drew Link

    I should have said look at the absolute levels then and now.

  • TastyBits Link


    … You’ve got to keep in mind that it’s the jumping that will kill him.

    The landing is more likely to kill him. He could party on the way down.

    I think I may have seen this movie.

  • TastyBits Link

    Mish has a post related to this one.

    Central Bankers Fail to Understand Forces Holding Back the Economy; Ten Major Economic Headwinds

    I do not necessarily agree with him on everything, but he definitely has an alternate view.

  • Icepick Link

    What happened was that millions of people were concussed in a mass trauma in 2007. Concussions can cause memory loss and personality changes. It made us all lazy and we forgot how to do our jobs. Most importantly of all, we all stopped smiling. And we all know the smiling a lot is the key to employment, because if you put on a happy face jobs magically appear.

  • Icepick Link

    The landing is more likely to kill him. He could party on the way down.

    No way! If the party is good he will be smiling SOOOO MUCH that Mother Earth will take him gently into her loamy bosom. Bad things don’t happen to happy dopes so he’ll walk away unscathed. For example they couldn’t touch OJ until he started frowning all the time. So turn that frown UPSIDE down, get away with murder (& suicide) and live forever! Woo hoo!

  • steve Link

    “Can we really blame demand?”

    Sure. Looking back, there were plenty of indicators like dropping hotel occupancy, decreasing restaurant index and a failing housing market preceding the crash. Maybe most importantly we hit record levels of personal debt. Combined total debt for public, private and corporate debt also, IIRC, hit new records. Our credit based binge stopped. I dont know what MMTers think about credit, but I suspect even they think it reaches a point where it cannot be sustained.

    To be sure, there was also a supply side shock. I also think that over time, cyclical unemployment becomes structural. It is not black and white. However, it really, honestly amazes me that people who seem concerned about our public debt seem to not care one whit about the level of private debt we achieved. Do you guys really think we should just go back on the credit binge?

    Steve

  • Icepick Link

    Do you guys really think we should just go back on the credit binge?

    Don’t ask me. I think we need de-leveraging across several sectors, that it will take time and be unpleasant. Also that at the end of it things will get better. But individuals and families mostly need to make those decisions on their own, though public policy can certainly impact those decisions. (Mortgage interest deductions and student loans come immediately to mind, of course.)

    But no one really wants to hear this. The Democrats want way more public sector debt and way more private sector debt, and the Republicans want a little less public sector debt and a little more private sector debt than the Dems. The Dems call the Republican plans “austerity” and the Republicans call their plans “fiscally responsible”.

    But don’t listen to me, listen to Schuler. He’s even been sounding a little desperate lately as opposed to his usual Euclidean planar tones. Surely someone other than me has noticed the shift in tone….

  • Andy Link

    Surely someone other than me has noticed the shift in tone….

    I have, though I think only regulars here would notice. Compared to most people, including me, he’s still a zen master.

  • Icepick Link

    Compared to most people, including me, he’s still a zen master.

    Agreed.

Leave a Comment