Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: structural unemployment

Job Gains in Texas and Losses in Caifornia and Florida

Yes, at  7.6%, the unemployment rate is almost the same as last month. So too, at 11.7 million is the number of unemployed people. But some analysts think something is changing radically. They are concerned about participation rates.

When we look at unemployment, we see labor force statistics. The participation rate, though, is about people who are not in the labor force.

Think of it this way…

The US labor force is composed of people 16 and over who are gainfully employed or unemployed and looking for a job. No job? Not looking? 16 or over? Then you are not participating in the labor force. Mathematically, the participation rate compares everyone who is or could be in the labor force to those who actually are in it.

It is entirely logical that prime-age workers participate more than the young and the old. Men have a higher participation rate than women. Hispanic males participate more than white or black males.

US Labor Force Participation Rate, 2003-2013.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics, people 16 and older.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Percent of people 16 and older who are in the labor force.

In the graph above, representing just a decade, you can see that declining participation rates parallel the Great Recession. Covering more than 50 years, the broader trend below includes the 1960s-1990s rise in women’s participation rates.

From the San Francisco Fed.

From the San Francisco Fed.

Some look at the 2003-2011 graph and say the participation rate line plunged because of the Great Recession. Laid off and unemployed for a long time because of a GDP contraction, people left the work force. In addition, aging baby boomers retired early after fruitless job searches. Others, though, say we are undergoing fundamental  structural change. Unequipped to do new types of jobs, huge number of workers are leaving the work force. The jobs are there and the workers are there. But they do not match.

With economists that lean to the left supporting the cyclical side and those on the right saying structural, the debate about what ails our economy continues. Perhaps we can all agree, though, that choosing the right economic “medicine” means we have to diagnose our economic illnesses accurately.

Sources and Resources: Two Federal Reserve Reports, one from the Chicago Fed and the other from San Francisco provide excellent analyses of participation rates.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

bank..16554_4.9_000012530676XSmall

The number of bank robberies is plunging. Maybe it’s outsourcing…just like manufacturing?

During 2011, the number of bank robberies declined to a 9-year trough of close to 5000. The reason, according to one analyst, is technology.

As we spend more online and swipe more at Starbucks and elsewhere, we need less currency. Consequently, bank tellers need less cash. The result? Less to rob. A typical bank robbery now nets $8623. Three to five years ago, the total was between 10 and 15 thousand dollars. Maybe hacking, a more lucrative approach, is taking over the trade.

Our Bottom Line: Just like manufacturing, the skills needed for a successful bank heist are shifting. Economists might characterize the trend as structural unemployment. With jobs digitizing, the fundamental structure of the U.S. economy is changing. Whether it’s jobless buggy whip makers when the auto took over or unemployed typewriter workers because of computers, structural unemployment demands new skills.

Similarly, the skills needed by a successful bank robber or lower level assembly line worker have been replaced.

You can see some interesting data from the FBI on bank robberies here. Looking at the numbers, I wondered why Connecticut and Texas had a disproportionately high number of bank robberies. Also, Monday is the least typical day for a heist. For the analyst who formed the hypothesis about declining bank robberies, here is a Bloomberg interview from their “Weird Wall Street” series. And finally, for an historical summary of the structural changes in manufacturing, this Economist article on “The Third Industrial Revolution” was good.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16885_9.1_000009319445XSmall

A friend recently said to me, “The U.S. just doesn’t make anything anymore.”

But we do. It’s just harder to see it.

To observe contemporary U.S. manufacturing, you could go to Greenville, South Carolina. At an auto parts factory making precision parts, the typical skilled worker uses a computer to run a machine, knows calculus, trigonometry, algebra and programming language. To be hired, he also needed formal technical instruction and previous on-the-job experience. By contrast, having had minimal training and education, the unskilled worker interviewed in this Planet Money podcast placed parts in molds and then removed them.

The bottom line? Employing more high technology and fewer people, U.S. manufacturing output is steadily growing. However, if the operation is insufficiently cost effective, it will leave.

This takes us to Apple. When Steve Jobs had dinner with President Obama during 2011 and told him that Apple’s jobs in China will never return, his message was a reality check.  Skilled workers will earn more and work more here while the opportunities for the unskilled move beyond U.S. borders.

The Economic Lesson

In “Race Against the Machine,” MIT researchers Eric Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee explain the structural change that the U.S. economy is undergoing.

Currently 9% of the U.S. labor force, the number of manufacturing jobs has plunged since 1999.

In 1960, the 3 largest U.S. employers and the number of people who worked for them were:

  • General Motors (595,200)
  • the Bell System/aka AT&T (580,400)
  • Ford Motor (260,600)

During 2010, the top U.S. employers and their employees:

  • Walmart (2,100,000)
  • Kelly Services/office temps (538,000)
  • IBM (426,751)

An Economic Question: Comparing 1960 to 2010, what type of fundamental, structural change has the U.S. economy experienced?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

jobs...16865_9.1_000009319445XSmall

99, 26 or somewhere in between?

At the end of February, Congress again will have to decide about the length of unemployment insurance (UI) Described by the state of California to its residents, 99 remains the maximum number of weeks for receiving UI. Had Congress not acted during December, the benefit period would have reverted to 26 weeks.

How to decide what to support? Here are 4 possibilities:

  1. Assess cost: UI is a program that is paid for by state trust funds that receive federal/state taxes. According to this GAP report, a majority of the states (map, p.10) had relatively weak trust funds that needed loans from the federal government. As of the end of 2009, no state had enough to cover 12 months of benefits.
  2. Compare duration with other countries: Explained by University of Chicago Professor Casey B. Mulligan with a 2005 graph, the U.S. provided benefits for a relatively short time. Looking at OECD countries, the 3 at the top, Australia, New Zealand and Belgium, offered unending benefits to those who qualified. At the bottom were Italy, the U.K. and last, the U.S (6 months). 
  3. Compare duration with other recessions: Using 92 weeks as the maximum, Dr. Mulligan displays a spike in Nov. 2011 and Dec 2009. Next were Dec. 2008 and Feb. 1992 with federally mandated benefits lasting close to 72 weeks. After that, Mar. 2002 and Apr. 1975 are at 66 weeks or so.
  4. Consider incentives: People who support longer lasting benefits say that when the money is spent, it stimulates the economy. Those for a shorter time period believe that benefits are a job search disincentive.

The Economic Lesson

Perhaps we should ask if unemployment is cyclical or structural. Cyclical unemployment subsides when the business cycle returns to prosperity. By contrast, structural unemployment will not go away because it reflects a changing economy that has eliminated “outdated” skills and noncompetitive industries.

An Economic Question: How might your opinion about the duration of unemployment benefits relate to whether joblessness is cyclical or structural?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16534_8.6_000011537286XSmall

To better understand unemployment, a Washington Post article tells us to imagine 2 buckets.

One bucket contains firms participating in a global market. Some export goods and services. Others face competition from imports. Examples include:

  • most manufacturing
  • agricultural goods
  • minerals
  • energy
  • a “healthy chunk” of business and financial services

The other is filled with purely domestic jobs such as:

  • construction
  • transportation
  • health care
  • government
  • retailing

This takes us to income and jobs. Between 1990 and 2008, the global bucket generated more income for Americans at home because of worldwide competition and outsourcing. However, the second bucket had no income growth–only job growth.

Now, with cutbacks in construction, government, and consumer spending, the problem of stagnant wage growth and benefits in the second bucket is compounded by lay-offs.

The Washington Post article is based on a paper by Nobel Laureate Michael Spence. You also might look here for an analysis of the July jobs report.

An Economic Lesson

During May 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.4%. 2 1/2 years later (10/09), it peaked at 10.1%. Economists continue debating whether the cause is structural or cyclical. Perhaps our buckets provide another perspective.

An Economic Question: Cyclical unemployment refers to jobs lost because of less demand when the GDP grows more slowly or declines. Structural unemployment is typically caused by technological change. Which examples might you note that relate to current unemployment? 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment