Tag Archives: employment growth

Although Improving, Still Many More Unemployed Than Job Openings

Posted on by

Number of unemployed as a ratio to job openings, US data, December 2000 to march 2012

There are many conservatives who argue that the unemployed need not be unemployed if they were only willing, perhaps with a cut in wages, to take one of the many jobs they assert are available.  Help wanted signs are seen, and thus these conservatives believe the unemployed could get a job if they wished.  They believe the unemployed are unemployed by their own choice, either out of laziness or due to an unwillingness to accept a lower wage.  In terms economists would use, they believe that the markets for labor would always clear if only the workers were willing to accept a lower wage.

The problem with this view is that it is not consistent with the fact that in economic downturns there are many more unemployed than job openings.  Even if every single one of the job openings were immediately filled, there would be many unemployed workers seeking jobs still left.  And since it in fact takes some time to fill any job, and since there is also constant turnover in jobs, one will see the help wanted signs posted for a while.

Data for the US on this is now gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the US Department of Labor, in a monthly survey of private establishments (which includes non-profits) and government entities.  The survey is a relatively recent one, having started only with data from December 2000, and gathers data on labor turnover (hirings, quits, firings, and other turnover) in addition to job openings (and is called JOLTS, for Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey).  The labor turnover side of these numbers was discussed in a post on this blog in January, which used the numbers to look at the dynamics of the job market.  The post today will consider the job openings side of this survey.

The graph above, based on the JOLTS data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics coupled with the BLS unemployment figures (from its separate monthly survey of households), shows the ratio of the reported number of job openings to the number of unemployed.  For the most recent month available, the ratio of the number of unemployed to the number of open jobs was 3.4.  That is, there were 3.4 unemployed workers in the US for each open job that employers were seeking to fill.

This ratio of 3.4 is significantly better than the approximately 6.5 ratio of unemployed to open jobs when unemployment was at its peak following the recent economic collapse.  It is interesting to see in the graph the close to straight line downward trend since it hit that peak.  But there are still many more unemployed than available jobs, and the labor market is healing only slowly.  It still has a long ways to go.

Note that when the economy is close to full employment (as in December 2000, at the end of the Clinton presidency, or in late 2006 / early 2007, at the peak of the housing bubble), the ratio is around 1.0 to 1.5.  Note that there is no reason why the ratio necessarily has to be greater than one, as one could in principle have a situation of few unemployed and many open jobs seeking workers.  But in practice, it appears that in the US the ratio will always be greater than one, even when the economy is at full employment.  There will always be some unemployed and some unfilled jobs, and at full employment these are in rough balance.

But the current ratio of 3.4 unemployed for every job opening, while better than the 6.5 ratio seen when unemployment was at is peek, is still well above the 1.0 to 1.5 ratio one sees when the economy is close to full employment.  The unemployed cannot be blamed for being unemployed because they are lazy, or unwilling to accept a lower wage.  They are unemployed because there are too few jobs out there.  And there are too few jobs because there is not sufficient demand for the goods these workers could produce.

As was discussed in postings on this blog on March 3 and on March 12, this insufficiency of demand in the aggregate for what American workers can produce is largely explained by fiscal drag, compounded (although of lesser importance in the aggregate) by the collapse of housing investment following the bursting of the bubble.  Government (mostly at the state and local level) has cut back in this downturn.  This is in contrast to the expansions of government spending and hence government demand seen in other downturns, and very notably in contrast to the strong expansion in government spending during the Reagan period (despite the myth).  As the March 3 post estimated, if government spending (including state and local) during the Obama presidency had been allowed to expand by as much as it had during the Reagan presidency, the economy would now be at full employment.

Private Job Growth Under Obama: Recovery, in Contrast to the Fall Under Bush

Posted on by

Cumulative Private sector employment growth by months from inaugurations, Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I

Cumulative Government sector employment growth by months from inaugurations, Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I

[Update on February 2, 2013:  A more recent analysis of these issues, with these charts now covering the full first term of Obama, is available here.]

A.  Introduction

Mitt Romney and Republican Party leaders have repeatedly and emphatically asserted that Obama and the policies of his administration have been terrible for private sector job growth, and that voters should therefore bring back the Republicans and their policies.  Indeed, Romney has said his campaign is all about jobs.  At the same time, they’ve asserted that government and its bureaucrats have exploded during the Obama years, with this holding back private sector job growth.

But as the figures above show, private sector jobs have recovered under Obama, reversing the freefall that was underway as he was taking the oath of office, while government employment has contracted sharply.  In contrast, private jobs were stable when George W. Bush took office, but then started to fall and fall sharply, while government jobs rose.  By 38 months into his first term, there were 2.4 million fewer private sector jobs in the US economy than on the day Bush was inaugurated.  Yet Romney repeatedly lambasts Obama for his jobs record, while he argues for bringing back the policies of Bush.

They figures show the cumulative change in private and in government jobs between January of the year the Presidents were inaugurated, to the March that was 38 months (a little over three years) later.  The March date 38 months later was chosen as that is the most recent date for which data is available for Obama.  The data all come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  The graph on government jobs is similar in presentation to that used by Paul Krugman in a posting on his blog yesterday.  The government jobs issue was also reviewed in a posting on this blog site over four months ago, which noted the collapse in government jobs during the Obama years (while they grew under Bush), and discussed how this has hurt overall job growth in the economy.

B.  Private Sector Jobs

Private sector jobs were falling rapidly in the period leading up to Obama’s inauguration in January 2009, as has been discussed before in this blog (see in particular the figure at this posting).  While the pace of decline was turned around almost immediately (within three months of Obama taking office), the number of private sector jobs continued to decline in Obama’s first year.  But jobs in the private sector then began to grow, and by March 2012 (the most recent figure available) they are almost back to where they were when he took office.  While this represents a growth of over 4 million private jobs over the past two years, the hole was a deep one.  The economy was hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs per month at the end of the Bush administration.  One would have of course wanted a more rapid recovery from this deep hole, but Republican opposition in Congress has blocked the measures that would have been needed to get this done (such as further stimulus).

But while one would have wanted a more rapid recovery from the 2008 economic collapse, contrast the record of Obama with that of George W. Bush in the first term of his administration.  Private jobs were growing in the final months of the Clinton administration, and were flat in the first two months of the Bush administration.   But they then began to fall (with the fall well underway before the September 11 attacks, so one cannot blame them).  The steady decline in private sector jobs continued for two and a half years, and at the trough there were 3.4 million fewer private jobs than when Bush took office.  They then began a slow recovery, but by 38 months into his term there were still 2.4 million fewer private jobs than when Bush took the oath of office.   Yet Romney and his economic advisors (most of whom held high positions in the Bush administration) advocate bringing back the policies of Bush.

The graph also shows private job growth for similar periods in the Clinton administration and in the administration of the elder George Bush.  Under the Democratic administration of Clinton, there was steady and strong private sector job growth throughout the period being followed here (and indeed throughout his two terms).  Under the Republican administration of the elder George Bush, there was some, but weak, private job growth in his first year and a half in office, but then private jobs fell, so that by 38 months into his term they were close to where they had been when he started.  Put another way, after one year in office up to the point 38 months into their respective terms, private jobs rose by over 4 million under Obama, but fell by 1.4 million under the elder Bush.

C.  Government Jobs

The story commonly told about growth in government jobs under the different Democratic and Republican administrations is also a false one.  Total government jobs have fallen during the Obama term, but grew sharply during the terms of both Bush administrations.  They also grew during the Clinton period, although by less than in either of the two Bush terms.  (Note that the sharp spike, and then after a few months a reversion to the previous trend, at a little over a year into both the Obama and first Bush administrations, is due to temporary hiring for the decennial census.)  Keep in mind that government employment in the US is mostly state and local government employment, with federal employment only a small share (13% currently).  But under Obama, non-defense federal employment has fallen as well (discussed in this blog posting).

Positive government job growth during the Obama period, similar to that seen during the two Bush administrations, would have helped spur the recovery.  But federal support which would have saved the jobs of teachers, police, and others has been blocked by Republican opposition, while cuts at the state and local level have been driven not only by deficit concerns but also by ideology.  Indeed, prominent Republican governors such as Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Chris Christie in New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio, Rick Perry of Texas, Rick Scott of Florida, and others, have celebrated their slashing of state and local government employment, often while cutting taxes at the same time.  The job cuts have been unprecedented.

D.  Conclusion

The Republican stories on jobs are myths, and not consistent with the facts.  Private sector jobs have recovered under Obama, and have grown by over 4 million jobs once the downturn Obama inherited was stopped.  One would have hoped for a faster recovery, but further efforts to spur the recovery have been blocked by Republican opposition in Congress.  And the story should be compared to that in the first term of George W. Bush, where there were 2.4 million fewer private sector jobs than when he took office, at the comparable point in his term.

The story told about government job growth under the different administrations is also false.  Government jobs have been slashed sharply (mostly at the state and local level) during the Obama period, which has hurt the economic recovery.  In contrast, government jobs grew significantly under both Bush administrations, and grew but by somewhat less during the comparable Clinton period.  Positive government job growth during the Obama period, had it happened, would have helped spur the economic recovery.

Employment in the Recession: The Problem is Slow GDP Growth, Not Productivity

Posted on by

I.  Introduction

The recovery in employment has been exceedingly weak in the on-going, but slow, recovery from the 2008 collapse.  The recovery of GDP has been weak as aggregate demand has simply not been there to absorb increased production.  Household consumption has been weak following the collapse of the housing bubble, and monetary policy has been pushed to the limit with Fed interest rates now almost zero but the economy still in a liquidity trap.

The one instrument that could have been used to create demand for output and hence employment would have been increased fiscal expenditures.  But as noted in a March 3 posting on this blog, total government spending (including that from state and local governments) has been flat or falling since Obama was inaugurated.  Indeed, that blog found that if fiscal expenditure had been allowed to grow as fast as it had in the Reagan years following the downturn that began in July 1981, GDP at the end of 2011 would have been close to full employment output.

The oft repeated Republican alternative view, however, is that the slow recovery in GDP and jobs has been due to overbearing new regulations, and not due to fiscal drag or some other demand side issue.  Indeed, Republicans have argued strongly that government expenditures should be cut even further.  They have asserted that the recovery in jobs has been weak due to expensive and excessive new regulations instituted by the Obama administration, which have deterred businesses from creating jobs.  While more than a bit confused, as we will see below, the argument is that these new regulations have hurt productivity, so businessmen could not profitably employ new workers and hence did not hire new workers.

A convenient summary of this view appeared today in the Washington Post, in the “Right Turn” column of the conservative columnist/blogger Jennifer Rubin (link here to the on-line version).  She wrote:  “Get Obama out of the way — and with him Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank legislation, a chunk of discretionary spending and the planned tax hikes — and instead put in place his agenda — tax cuts, entitlement reform, reduced regulation, and domestic energy development — and the economy will take off.”  The argument falls apart if these measures, and the rest of what has been done during Obama’s period in office, did not result in a collapse in productivity.

This blog will look at whether there is any factual support for this Republican alternative view on the cause of the slow recovery in employment.  Did productivity go down after Obama took office?  What path has productivity taken over the course of this downturn, and how does this compare to the paths taken in previous downturns?  And in reviewing this, we will examine the confusion in this argument on the links between productivity and job growth.

II.  GDP and Employment Growth in the Downturns

To start, it is helpful to see what the paths of GDP and employment have been in this downturn, and in comparison to previous downturns.  The path of real GDP was shown in the March 3 blog cited above, and is repeated here for convenience:

As was noted before, the path of GDP recovery has been especially slow following the 2008 financial collapse.  GDP fell sharply in the first five quarters of the downturn, in the last year of the Bush presidency and into the quarter that Obama was inaugurated (the first quarter of 2009).  GDP stabilized soon after Obama took office and then started to grow, but has since grown only slowly.  The recovery has been the weakest of any among the six recessions in the US of the last four decades.  The earlier blog noted that this can be explained by weak demand for output, due to government spending that has been flat or falling since Obama took office, and exacerbated by the collapse of the housing market.

With the weak growth of GDP, it should not be surprising that employment growth in this weak recovery has been exceptionally weak as well:

Employment fell sharply in the year before Obama took office, more than in any of the other downturns of the last forty years.  And then, despite the stabilization of GDP, employment continued to fall through 2009 before stabilizing.  But the recovery in employment since then has been poor.  This employment path has been by far the weakest of any of the six downturns of the last forty years.

III.  Labor Productivity in the Downturns

Can this weak recovery in employment in the current downturn be explained by poor productivity growth (a result of excessive regulation), as the Republican argument asserts? Has the path of labor productivity also been an outlier in the current downturn?

Actually, the path of labor productivity has been well within the paths seen in the other downturns:

Labor productivity did in fact fall at first, during the last year of the Bush presidency, although this was not uncommon among the downturns.  The fall while Bush was still president was relatively high, but similar to the downturns seen after November 1973 (Nixon/Ford) and July 1981 (Reagan).

But it is interesting to note that labor productivity began to rise quite rapidly immediately after Obama took office.  I would not argue that this was entirely due to Obama, especially in the first few months of his term.  I am merely pointing out that there is no basis for the assertion that Obama instigated regulations hurt productivity and hence job growth (under the Republican argument) after he took office.

This becomes even more clear if one re-bases the series so that labor productivity in the fifth quarter after the start of a downturn is set equal to 100:

Starting from when Obama took office (in the fifth quarter after the start of the downturn), labor productivity growth has been high, and indeed grew at about the same rate as that seen following the 1981 downturn (during the Reagan presidency).  Productivity growth during these two recoveries were not only similar but also the most rapid by a significant margin among the six downturns tracked.  The main difference between the two is that productivity growth has slowed in the current cycle over roughly the last year (i.e. starting in quarter 13), while it continued to grow at that point in the recovery from the downturn that began in July 1981.  But the difference is not large, and one should not draw strong conclusions from it.

It is a firmly held position in Republican dogma that the “reforms” instituted by Reagan of deregulation, cuts in taxes, undermining of labor unions, and other such measures, led to a miracle of productivity growth from which the economy still benefits.  I noted in an earlier posting (see here) that productivity and output growth in the US was in fact slower in the 30 years following Reagan than in the 30 years before.  Over a long term perspective, Reagan was not such a miracle.  And from the diagram above, we see that over the short term, starting from the same point in the business cycle (five quarters after the peak), the record in terms of productivity growth for the vilified Obama is basically the same as for the sanctified Reagan.

It is not a coincidence that the employment picture finally started to improve in 2011, precisely when productivity growth, which had been strong, started to level off.  And this points to the basic confusion in the Republican argument, which some of you may have already seen.  By basic arithmetic, the number of employees one needs to produce a given amount of output depends on productivity, but depends on it negatively.  That is, if productivity has increased, one needs fewer workers to produce a given amount of output.  If one can only sell so much of output due to slack demand, and if productivity growth is strong, then employment growth will be weak.  This has been the story of the recovery during the Obama term, and it is only in the last year, when the pace of productivity improvement slowed, that one has seen a more steady increase in the number of employed.

Productivity growth is due to many factors, and for the economy as a whole it will not change quickly due to any policy action.  It will vary over the course of the business cycle, as seen in the diagrams above, where it will normally (although not necessarily always) fall at the onset of the downturn (as firms will usually be slow to lay off workers as demand for output slows), and then rise significantly once the recovery begins (as firms will usually also be slow to hire additional workers as demand for output increases, but instead use existing workers more).

The current downturn and recovery was not that much different, although the swings were more extreme this time as the downturn was more extreme.  But what was different in the current cycle is that in the recovery (as discussed in the March 3 blog posting), demand from government spending did not increase as it had in previous recoveries, but rather was flat and then fell.  Furthermore, demand from housing construction was extremely depressed, due to the size of the housing bubble and subsequent collapse.  Recovery in GDP, and hence in employment, has therefore been slow.

IV.  Conclusion

There is no factual support for the Republican assertion that overbearing new regulations from the Obama administration has led to weak job growth, due to the negative impact of such regulations on productivity.  Indeed, the argument is quite confused, since for any given level of output, higher (not lower) productivity means fewer workers are needed to produce that output, which hurts immediate job growth.

The path of labor productivity in the current downturn and recovery has in fact been within the bounds seen in other downturns and recoveries in the US over the past four decades.  If anything, productivity fell somewhat more sharply than in most of the others during the last year of the Bush presidency, and more rapidly than most of the others after Obama took office.  And it is this relatively rapid growth of labor productivity during the Obama term, coupled with weak GDP growth (due to fiscal drag and the collapse in housing) which explains the weak recovery in employment.

It should be emphasized that productivity growth is good over the longer term, as it leads to a higher level of output and hence overall income at the full employment level of GDP.  But when the economy is operating at less than full employment GDP, higher productivity will translate into fewer jobs than otherwise.  The way to resolve this is to bring the demand for output back up to the level of output that could be produced if all resources (in particular labor) were fully utilized.  It is a terrible waste, as well as a human tragedy, to allow such unemployment when the needs are so great.