The Unassuming Economist

In the New York Times, Paul Krugman writes that “In the first half of last year a strange delusion swept much of the policy elite on both sides of the Atlantic — the belief that cutting spending in the face of high unemployment would actually create jobs. I went after this stuff early and hard (I suspect that the confidence fairy will be one of my lasting contributions to economic discourse); still, it’s good to have a steadily mounting weight of evidence about just how wrong that view was. The latest entry is a comprehensive review of past episodes of austerity by economists at the IMF, from which the figure above [below, Chart 3] is taken. Yes, contractionary policy is contractionary.” 

Alexander EIchler of the Huffington Post summarizes the article: “The report, published in the new issue of Finance & Development, the IMF’s quarterly magazine, argues that moving too rapidly to enact so-called austerity measures — in other words, taking steps to shore up national finances and bring down debt by cutting spending and raising taxes — will hurt income in the short term and worsen unemployment in the long term.”

And, Brad Plumer of the Washington Post writes that “More specifically, an austerity program that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real incomes by about 0.6 percent and raises unemployment by almost 0.5 percentage points. What’s more, the IMF notes, the losses are twice as big when the central bank can’t cut rates (a good description of the present.) Typically, income and employment don’t fully recover even five years after the austerity program is put in place. There’s also a class dimension here: A deficit cut of that size tends to cause real wage income, where lower-income folks get their money, to shrink by 0.9 percent, whereas rents and profits, which higher-income folks depend on, decline by just 0.3 percent. And, as the chart on the right shows [below, Chart 4], profits tend to bounce back faster than wages.”

WHEN British Prime Minister David Cameron announced his government’s deficit reduction plans earlier this year he said, “Those who argue that dealing with our deficit and promoting growth are somehow alternatives are wrong. You cannot put off the first in order to promote the second” (Cameron, 2011).

The challenge facing the United Kingdom and many advanced economies is how to bring debt down to safer levels in the face of a weak recovery. Will deficit reduction lead to stronger growth and job creation in the short run?

Recent IMF research provides an answer to this question. Evidence from data over the past 30 years shows that consolidation lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.

For the advanced economies, there is an unmistakable need to restore fiscal sustainability through credible consolidation plans. At the same time, we know that slamming on the brakes too quickly will hurt the recovery and worsen job prospects. Hence the potential longer-run benefits of fiscal consolidation must be balanced against the short- and medium-run adverse impacts on growth and jobs.

Read full article on the IMF website.

See my presentation video on where do the industrialized nations stand in regard to the effect of long-term unemployment after the Great Recession of 2009-2011? And trends related to the effects of long-term unemployment on western industrialized nations.

At the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) hearing, Georgetown University public policy professor Harry Holzer said that “the ratio of job vacancies to new hires in manufacturing is higher than we find in any other major industry group, suggesting that employers are having some difficulty filling their newly created jobs (…) On its own, our system of higher education will not produce enough skills needed by American workers to prosper. Our education and work force systems largely operate in isolation from one another.” Indeed, BTE Technologies President Chuck Wetherington concurred with Holzer who said that “my job is getting a bit more technical. There are some micro and macroeconomic issues. Occasionally we have to recruit from abroad. There is a mismatch between skills and workers.” See the full article on the New York Times website. Also, a webcast of the hearing is available at the Joint Economic Committee site.

In an article for the Atlantic, Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute links the problem of structural unemployment with the lack of quality job training/workforce development. He writes “economist Prakash Loungani of the International Monetary Fund has estimated that 25 percent of the unemployed are out of work today due to skill-job mismatches. Georgetown’s Harry Holzer has calculated that today’s unemployment rate of 9.1 percent would be nearer to 8 percent if a majority of these jobs were filled (…) Fact is, America’s community colleges, job training, and workforce development are a mess. Community colleges suck up nearly $36 billion in taxpayer subsidies to provide training of uncertain quality, retain a balky and inconvenient academic calendar, and frequently do a lousy job of linking their instruction to local workforce needs (…) it can be hard for workers seeking retraining to find convenient, cost-effective, high-quality options (..) Absent high-quality retraining, it’s easy for workers in dying industries to get stuck, for their skills to atrophy, and for their networks and work habits to erode.”