A funny thing about "labor shortages" is that with the end of pandemic UI we just had a very powerful experiment on the effect of changes in work incentives on employment, and yet no one seems to be drawing any broader lessons from it.
If ending pandemic UI did not raise employment, that is not just a fact about pandemic UI. It is very informative about how important labor supply is to employment in general.
A nice example of the refusal to learn from this is the beltway journalist who admits that non-effect of expiring UI on employment is surprising, but then just goes on with his but-this-one-goes-to-11 insistence that employment problems are all about labor supply, not demand. 
If you're asking whether weak demand is holding back employment (i.e. whether economy is under- or over-stimulated) the non-effect of UI expiration is a very important data point. People pointing this out are not "taking victory laps", they are trying to learn from reality.
Lots of people replying "but there are also other things happening." Of course there are always other things happening.
But come on. You're paying people $1,200 a month not to work, then you stop doing that. If work incentives matter for employment, that's got to have an effect.
But come on. You're paying people $1,200 a month not to work, then you stop doing that. If work incentives matter for employment, that's got to have an effect.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
