Posts tagged as:

Labour economics

A steady meme over the past month has been the zero sum game that comprised the U.S. economy over the past decade. Net job creation was at zero; GDP, adjusted for inflation, grew less than 20%; and, household net worth (through November 2009) was down 4%.

The Washington Post ran a great graphic contrasting the performance of the last decade to the previous six decades. The contrast is astounding: the last 10 years were the least productive by a wide margin.

177B16CC-D93B-435A-9CC7-D2AD2B64C128.jpg

A cursory look at the chart makes you wonder whether we hit the top for the U.S. economy and are at the beginning of a long decline, or whether we’re simply poised at a critical inflection point for change. The disconnect for me is reconciling the sense that we’ve experienced remarkable changes in tools, processes and outcomes over the past decade, but have experiences virtually no  net tangible economic benefit.

One theme is that changing nature of work in our economy. A lot has been written about how we’ve transitioned from a manufacturing to a service base. The trend has been significant over that past 40 years, with manufacturing jobs dipping to below 10% of total employment this past March.80798B12-F34B-4EAC-8EF6-4F3A4E1703E2.jpg

Economies have to make something in order for its participants to consume things. Our service economy relies on Americans having enough money to buy things — fast food, flat screen TVs, clothing, cars, homes and everything else. A lot of people spending money creates a lot of jobs for people, creating more people who can spend money.

But somewhere in our economy we have to make something. The shift away from manufacturing over the past 40 years has been partly offset by the shift towards creating information products — technology and media primarily — that are broadly consumed, at home and abroad.

After a decade of standing still, a disproportionate amount of hardship falls on groups that traditionally are less qualified to participate in the information economy.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

In November, both the number of unemployed persons, at 15.4 million, and the unemployment rate, at 10.0 percent, edged down. At the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons was 7.5 million, and the jobless rate was 4.9 percent.

Among the major worker groups, unemployment rates for adult men (10.5 percent), adult women (7.9 percent), teenagers (26.7 percent), whites (9.3 percent), blacks (15.6 percent), and Hispanics (12.7 percent) showed little
change in November. The unemployment rate for Asians was 7.3 percent, not seasonally adjusted.

One characteristic of the lost decade is the stagnation of educational levels. The chart below shows the change in the percentage of people who have graduated high school and college from 1947 to 2003.D885A407-86E5-4356-93DD-BD87ECCE24E8.jpg

There’s clearly incentive for getting an education. The economy provides higher rewards and security to people who have more education. (The chart below shows the figures for 2006 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

It’s striking that since 1970, when higher-paying jobs for unskilled labor (read manufacturing) began to decline as a portion of the overall economy, the level of educational attainment has shown relatively little growth.

A204177C-45D3-494E-B02E-F22A2D3C457C.jpg

Our economy is paying the price right now for an absence of vision and commitment to creating a workforce with the skills to push and innovate on an even wider margin than we have before.

The test of the next 10 years will be our ability as an economy to find new ways to make things and to put people in the position to do the work.

The technology skills of the newly educated are formidable. The broad absorption of social media tools into the population is an ultimate benefit for creating real-time training in the kind of skills and interactions that are going to be needed to these new ways of making things.

Take a look at one Millenium’s take on the lost decade of music

Share

{ 0 comments }

The New York Times this weekend had a stark picture of the imbalance of supply and demand in the employment. Nearly 14.5 million people are out of work and there are only about 2.4 million job openings in the U.S.

4F8C3646-DEED-4E99-A0F7-64004A778026.jpg
Coincidentally, John Mauldin’s letter this Saturday takes a close look at the scale of unemployment and discusses what kind of job growth will be required to return our economy to a state of more robust employment.

Mauldin has been thoughtful and analytical in his series of letters details what he terms The New Normal. His overriding message is that a statistical recovery in the economy is masking serious weakness in the consumer economy. As a result, a recovery will be slow and painful, with ongoing economic risk, Mauldin says.

Picture 79.jpg

Look past the current unemployment figures, as dire as they are, and a formidable challenge lies in front of the U.S. as we work to recover from this downturn, Mauldin says. The workforce is continually expanding, so on the rebound the economy will have to make enough jobs to accommodate the new workers, as well as the unemployed and under-employed workers. This challenge of job creation comes in the face of a current workforce that is working a record-low number of hours.

Let’s assume that we would like to get back to a 5% unemployment rate. That would not be stellar, but it would certainly be better than where we are today. Five percent unemployment in late 2014 will mean 8.1 million unemployed. To get to 5% unemployment we will have to create 14 million jobs in the five years from 2010-2014. (163 million in labor pool minus 8 million unemployed is 155 million jobs. We now have 139 million jobs, so the difference is roughly 15 million.) Plus the equivalent of 3 million jobs that Rosenberg estimates, just to get back to an average work week. And maybe the
extra 1.5 million a year I mentioned above.

The problem? To get back to 5% unemployment in the next five years, the economy will have to average 250,000 jobs created a month, a pace that is well more than two times higher than the average pace of the last decade.

Picture 80.jpg

The implications of this are significant. First, consumer spending will recover slowly. Households will have fewer incomes and a smaller pool of income-producers will need to support a larger group of people in each household. In real dollars, consumers are earning the same amount they did in 1982. Second, government entitlement programs will need to grow in order to support basic services to the large pool of unemployed. Third, government policies will be politically influenced by short-term job creation, rather than supporting longer-term innovation that will create new industries.

The implications on government revenue are discouraging. In order to generate the tax receipts to pay for the entitlement services, the tax rate on high earners will inevitably need to rise. This burden will fall square on business owners and entrepreneurs, groups that are important generators of job growth.

I highly recommending reading his letter. You can subscribe to it here.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Share

{ 3 comments }