> > “This still is a very big puzzle,” said Lawrence F. Katz, a Harvard > professor who was chief economist at the Labor Department during the > Clinton administration. He called the severe downturn in jobs “the > million-dollar question” for the economy.
Katz is an imbecile. This is no "puzzle." It is the inevitable outcome of non-employment policies that Katz has himself has championed. Perhaps it is a puzzle to Katz why his policies have the results they do. In that case, he should stop being a "Harvard professor". According to "Professor" Katz most advocates of cutting the work week to reduce unemployment believe in something he calls the "lump of output fallacy," which "implicitly" assumes a fixed level of output and thus an unchanged total number of hours of work. The "million dollar question" is how such an unqualified hack could get a job at all, let alone a Havard professorship and a position of chief economist to the U.S. Labor Department. On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > NY Times May 3, 2013 > The Idled Young Americans > By DAVID LEONHARDT > > WASHINGTON > > THE idle young European, stranded without work by the Continent’s > dysfunction, is one of the global economy’s stock characters. Yet it > might be time to add another, even more common protagonist: the idle > young American. > > For all of Europe’s troubles — a left-right combination of sclerotic > labor markets and austerity — the United States has quietly surpassed > much of Europe in the percentage of young adults without jobs. It’s not > just Europe, either. Over the last 12 years, the United States has gone > from having the highest share of employed 25- to 34-year-olds among > large, wealthy economies to having among the lowest. > > The grim shift — “a historic turnaround,” says Robert A. Moffitt, a > Johns Hopkins University economist — stems from two underappreciated > aspects of our long economic slump. First, it has exacted the harshest > toll on the young — even harsher than on people in their 50s and 60s, > who have also suffered. And while the American economy has come back > more robustly than some of its global rivals in terms of overall > production, the recovery has been strangely light on new jobs, even > after Friday’s better-than-expected unemployment report. American > companies are doing more with less. > > “This still is a very big puzzle,” said Lawrence F. Katz, a Harvard > professor who was chief economist at the Labor Department during the > Clinton administration. He called the severe downturn in jobs “the > million-dollar question” for the economy. > > Employers are particularly reluctant to add new workers — and have been > for much of the last 12 years. Layoffs have been subdued, with the > exception of the worst months of the financial crisis, but so has the > creation of jobs, and no one depends on new jobs as much as younger > workers do. For them, the Great Recession grinds on. > > For many people with jobs and nest eggs, the economy is finally moving > in the right direction, albeit a long way from booming. Average wages > are no longer trailing inflation. Stocks have soared since their 2009 > nadir, and home prices are increasing again. But little of that helps > younger adults trying to get a foothold in the economy. Many of them are > on the outside of the recovery looking in. > > The net worth of households headed by people 44 and younger has dropped > more over the past decade than the net worth of middle-aged and elderly > households, according to the Federal Reserve. According to the Labor > Department, workers 25 to 34 years old are the only age group with lower > average wages in early 2013 than in 2000. > > The problems start with a lack of jobs. In 2011, the most recent year > for which international comparisons exist, 26.2 percent of Americans > between ages 25 and 34 were not working. That includes those for whom > unemployment is a choice (those in graduate school, for example, or > taking care of children) and those for whom it is not (the officially > unemployed or those who are out of work and no longer looking). The > share was 20.2 percent in Canada, 20.5 percent in Germany, 21 percent in > Japan, 21.6 percent in Britain and 22 percent in France. > > The European economy has deteriorated over the last two years, and the > American economy has strengthened modestly. But the job growth here has > been fast enough merely to keep pace with population growth, which > suggests that this country still lags in the employment of young adults. > In 2000, by contrast, the United States led Germany, Britain, France, > Canada and Japan — as well as Australia, Russia and Sweden — in such > employment rates. The nation now trails them all. Older American workers > have also lost relative ground, but not as much. > > As Mr. Katz, Mr. Moffitt and others note, an explanation of the root > causes remains elusive. But there are obvious suspects, and each > probably plays a role. > > The United States, for example, has lost its once-large lead in > producing college graduates, and education remains the most successful > jobs strategy in a globalized, technology-heavy economy. It is no > accident that the most educated places in the country, like Boston, > Minneapolis, Washington and Austin, Tex., have high employment rates > while the least educated, including many in the South and inland > California, have low ones. The official unemployment rate for 25- to > 34-year-old college graduates remains just 3.3 percent. > > Beyond education, the nation has also been less aggressive than some > others in using counseling and retraining to help the jobless find work. > To take one small example, a recent study in France by the renowned > M.I.T. economist Esther Duflo and four colleagues found that placement > programs for unemployed workers helped not only the workers but the > economy too. The counseled workers were more likely to find work, and > they did not simply take jobs from other candidates. Overall employment > rose more quickly in the regions with job counseling. > > Other research notes that the United States has expanded parental leave > and part-time work less than other countries — and, perhaps relatedly, > employment rates among women here have slipped. > > Whatever role these trends are playing, they do not appear to fully > explain the employment decline. It is too big and too widespread. > Existing companies are not adding jobs at the same rate they once did, > and new companies are not forming as quickly. > > What might help? Easing the parts of the regulatory thicket without > societal benefits. Providing public financing for the sorts of > early-stage scientific research and physical infrastructure that the > private sector often finds unprofitable. Long term, nothing is likely to > matter more than improving educational attainment, from preschool > through college (which may have started already). > > Many business executives and economists also point to immigration > policy. Done right, an overhaul could make a difference, many say, by > allowing more highly skilled immigrants to enter the country and by > making life easier for those immigrants already here. Historically, > immigrants have started more than their share of new companies. > > Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the jobs slump is that the > Americans in their 20s and 30s who have been most affected by it remain > decidedly upbeat. They are much more hopeful than older generations, > polls show, that the country’s future will be better than its past. > > Based on what younger adults have been through, that resilience is > impressive. It’s probably necessary, too. The jobs slump will not end > without a large dose of optimism. > > David Leonhardt is the Washington bureau chief of The New York Times. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
