Despite impressive job growth, labor market slack remains.
The employment level continues to flatline (total and prime age) edi.bard.edu/research/notes/
Labor market flows indicate a slowdown.
We watch a few ratios that tell us the distribution of who gets jobs:
fewer people who were outside the labor force and slightly more who were officially unemployed (this ratio dipped for the first time in 2 years)
Third, under-employment remains elevated.
Finally, despite a falling unemployment level, the number of workers not-in-the-labor-force but who want a job (NLF-WJ) has been increasing.
In July, NLF-WJ OUTNUMBERED the officially unemployed for the first time in the series' history.
The economy is not at full employment and there is plenty of labor market slack.
Follow our monthly #JobsReport analysis @EDI_tweets
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The New Deal projects employed millions of people, even if not enough relative to need.
They made a real impact on those who found employment, the economy, and left a lasting legacy.
In just a few short years, they built (a partial list):
🧵
Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942:
2.3 billion trees planted
2,500 cabins built in state & national parks & forests 6.4 million man-days fighting forest fires
68,000 miles of new firebreaks constructed
1 billion fish stocked in lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams
Public Works Administration, 1933-1939:
212 dams and canals
894 sewage disposal plants
384 airports
698 college buildings
406 post offices
Heterodoxy has long criticized the NAIRU and the natural rate, but has not mounted a robust challenge for lack of a clearly articulated policy alternative that can secure full employment without compromising price stability.
MMT has such a proposal.
The federal Job Guarantee
As an anti-cyclical economic stabilizer JG creates employment when it's needed most: downturns. As permanent policy it tackles pandemic, structural, climate related job losses.
JG is self-limiting. It shrinks when other parts of the economy furnish their share of well-paying jobs
The anti-cyclical feature of JG is widely misunderstood. It's not counter-cyclical b/c govt is hiring/firing people, but because the PRIVATE sector is. So long as there's any cycle to private sector activity, the employment safety net will be stabilizing, REDUCING the cyclicality
Lots to like in the #InfrastructureBill, esp that public investment is back.
For me, the Q is always about scale & direction.
E.g.
-US school bus fleet 480,000
-Cost per bus $100,000-$300,000 (electric cost more)
-Fleet replacement cost $48b-$144b +
-Infrastructure bill: $7.5b🧵
Allocation to address inequities from gentrification and the highway system: $1b
That's approx what it costs to build 100-200miles of highway. I.e., a very small amount to redress decades of legacy investments in an interstate hwy system that ripped through many communities.
$1.25b appropriated for Appalachian Development to connect remote communities from 13 Appalachian states from NY to AL. Given above hwy building costs, you know that funding is a drop in the bucket, given objectives.
There was a recent exchange on whether MMT prescribes a certain size deficit. As @KarlWiderquist argues here, the answer is no. But I would go even further.
MMT does not prescribe or aim to estimate a specific size of 'desirable' govt deficit for several reasons.
🧵
The deficit is not under govt's control. Govt can appropriate budgets, but cannot control actual spending. Some line items are automatic. Govt can set tax rates, but cannot control size of tax collections. They are endogenously determined by changing incomes, profits, etc.
Deficit are countercyclical and must change with conditions. Goal is to design effective automatic stabilizers, not hit a specific deficit size in any given accounting period.
Quick comments:
Postwar "Keynesianism" prioritized govt support for private industry & dropped the direct govt employment efforts after the New Deal/WWII. This was a mistake. No direct job creation featured here though there's potential in Biden's platform nytimes.com/2021/02/11/mag…
If "bold efforts" end up meaning only large govt spending, be prepared to be disappointed.
While green manufacturing is critical, manuf employs only 8% of workers. Double it. Impact will still be small. Service sector employs 80%. Tis where the pain is: unstable, poorly paid jobs
if we're going to transform the labor market, services have to be the focus. Where is the plan for stable, well paid service sector jobs? They are what most people live on.
(btw not even China can count on manuf for EMPLOYMENT growth)