Effect of long-term unemployment on the labor participation rate

Alan B. Krueger is Bendheim Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University and an NBER research associate. Here he discusses the effect of long-term unemployment on the declining labor participation rate:

….The SIPP [Survey of Income and Program Participation] data indicate that, irrespective of the business cycle, the probability that an unemployed worker will be “steadily” employed in a full-time job for at least four consecutive months a year later is strikingly low and declines further as the duration of joblessness rises. Even in the strong job market of the late 1990s, the chance of a long-term unemployed worker finding steady, full-time employment after a year was only around 20 percent. This likelihood did not change very much during the 2001 recession, and it didn’t change substantially during the Great Recession. Conversely, the likelihood that an unemployed worker will leave the labor force a year later increases substantially as the duration of joblessness rises. According to the SIPP, 35 percent of workers who became long-term unemployed during the Great Recession were out of the labor force by 2013.

Why does long-term unemployment have such an adverse effect on workers? There has been a long, unresolved debate in the economics profession about whether the job finding rate is lower for the long-term unemployed because of either unobserved heterogeneity in the characteristics of such workers or something about the nature of unemployment that adversely changes people. Although this is an inherently difficult question to answer, the literature suggests that duration dependence plays a larger role than unobserved heterogeneity in explaining this phenomenon….. Much research suggests that long-term unemployment has a negative impact on both the supply side and the demand side.

On the supply side, an individual’s mental health and self-esteem can be affected by the experience of long-term unemployment. Till von Wachter has done good work showing that one’s physical health and mortality are adversely impacted by joblessness. Andy Mueller and I did a longitudinal study where we asked workers who were receiving unemployment insurance about the intensity of their job searches. We found that job search activity tends to decline the longer people are unemployed. We also found that the long-term unemployed tend to be socially isolated…… Furthermore, long-term unemployment tends to be associated with repeated job loss and lower re-employment earnings. All of these findings point to a decline in human capital and disengagement from the labor market as a result of long-term unemployment.

On the demand side, studies have shown that employers discriminate – at least statistically – against the long-term unemployed. Kory Kroft, Fabian Lange, and Matt Notowidigdo conducted a study in which they sent out resumes with varying gaps of joblessness, and they found that the likelihood of receiving an interview depended upon the duration of unemployment. Rand Ghayad also found similar results.

My take on the evidence is that the experience of being unemployed makes it harder for people to get back on their feet, and that even a strong economy doesn’t solve this problem. In addition, once a person leaves the labor force, he or she is extremely unlikely to return. The labor force flows data from the CPS bear this out (Figure 6). According to CPS data, the monthly rate for transitioning from out of the labor force to back in the labor force is unrelated to the business cycle. We didn’t see a wave of people returning to the labor force either in the late 1990s or earlier in the 2000s, and we’re not seeing one now……

Conclusion
To conclude, I will briefly comment on policies to address the problem of long-term unemployment. One of the overriding lessons that I take away from this body of research is that, if left untreated, long-term unemployment can have hysteresis-type effects on the labor market. A cyclical recovery does not cure the problems created by long-term unemployment. Going forward, I think one of the lasting legacies of the Great Recession is that the labor force participation rate will be about one percentage point lower than it otherwise would have been. This analysis argues in favor of using “overwhelming force” in a deep recession to prevent those who lose their jobs from becoming long-term unemployed in the first place.

Since long-term unemployment has been so widespread throughout sectors of the economy, “industry-specific” policies are insufficient to solve the problem. In 2012, for example, only 10 percent of long-term unemployed workers were from the construction sector, and only 11 percent were from manufacturing, despite the fact that these industries were hit particularly hard by the Great Recession.

Instead, I would prefer more targeted measures geared specifically toward helping the long-term unemployed stay in the labor force and find employment, such as a tax credit for employers who hire the long-term unemployed or direct employment. There also has been some research to support the notion that volunteering can help jobless workers make new connections, learn new skills, and stay engaged in the labor force. In the United States, job search assistance has typically been found to be effective in helping workers regain employment. I also think wage loss insurance might be worth considering, especially for older long-term unemployed workers.

Lastly, given that many of the long-term unemployed have already left the labor force, we should consider policies that address the structural decline in labor force participation. For example, more family-friendly policies might help greater numbers of women either enter or remain in the labor force. Likewise, reforms to the disability insurance system could possibly prevent some workers from permanently exiting the labor force.

Source: NBER Reporter Online

Why Fixed Investment is Critical to the US Recovery

The financial sector normally acts as a conduit, channeling savings from private investors to the corporate sector. When the conduit works effectively, the injection of demand from corporate Investment is sufficient to offset the ‘leakage’ from demand caused by Savings. Savings patterns alter during a financial crisis, however, with concerned households cutting back on expenditure and using any surplus to pay down debt, rather than depositing with the bank or buying stocks. Household Savings rise but corporate Investment contracts. The resulting ‘leakage’ from demand causes GDP to spiral downward.

When Investment contracts, unemployment rises. The relationship is evident on the graph below, but it could also be said that Investment rises when employment grows — businesses invest in anticipation of rising demand. Either way, it is safe to conclude that rising investment and job growth go hand-in-hand.

Employment Growth and Private Nonresidential Fixed Investment

Fixed Investment and Corporate Profits

Rising corporate profits also lead to increased investment. The lag on the graph below — investment growth follows profit growth — clearly illustrates the causative relationship.

Employment Growth and Private Nonresidential Fixed Investment

This is an encouraging sign, as the current surge in corporate profits is likely to be followed by rising investment — and further job growth.

Weekly Earnings and GDP

Rising weekly earnings already point to improving aggregate demand and consequent investment growth.

Weekly Earnings Growth

All that is missing is for the federal government to increase investment in productive* infrastructure to further boost job growth.

*Infrastructure investment needs to generate a sufficient return to repay debt incurred to fund the spending. Something many politicians seem to forget when preoccupied with buying votes for the next election.

More….

The Long War [podcast]

The Impunity Trap by Jeffrey D. Sachs | Project Syndicate

RIP ZIRP | PIMCO

How much longer can the global trading system last? | Michael Pettis

Crude retraces

Gold breaks $1180 support

Itzhak Perlman: Schindler’s List (video)

There are two kinds of discontented in this world, the discontented that works and the discontented that wrings its hands. The first gets what it wants and the second loses what it has. There is no cure for the first but success and there is no cure at all for the second.

~ Og Mandino

Why Fixed Investment is Critical to the US Recovery

The financial sector normally acts as a conduit, channeling savings from private investors to the corporate sector. When the conduit works effectively, the injection of demand from corporate Investment is sufficient to offset the ‘leakage’ from demand caused by Savings. Savings patterns alter during a financial crisis, however, with concerned households cutting back on expenditure and using any surplus to pay down debt, rather than depositing with the bank or buying stocks. Household Savings rise but corporate Investment contracts. The resulting ‘leakage’ from demand causes GDP to spiral downward.

When Investment contracts, unemployment rises. The relationship is evident on the graph below, but it could also be said that Investment rises when employment grows — businesses invest in anticipation of rising demand. Either way, it is safe to conclude that rising investment and job growth go hand-in-hand.

Employment Growth and Private Nonresidential Fixed Investment

Fixed Investment and Corporate Profits

Rising corporate profits also lead to increased investment. The lag on the graph below — investment growth follows profit growth — clearly illustrates the causative relationship.

Employment Growth and Private Nonresidential Fixed Investment

This is an encouraging sign, as the current surge in corporate profits is likely to be followed by rising investment — and further job growth.

Weekly Earnings and GDP

Rising weekly earnings already point to improving aggregate demand and consequent investment growth.

Weekly Earnings Growth

All that is missing is for the federal government to increase investment in productive* infrastructure to further boost job growth.

*Infrastructure investment needs to generate a sufficient return to repay debt incurred to fund the spending. Something many politicians seem to forget when preoccupied with buying votes for the next election.

When good news is bad news

“The U.S. economy added 295,000 jobs in February, a strong gain that beat expectations by a mile. Unemployment fell to 5.5%.” You would expect stocks to surge on the strong employment numbers. Instead the S&P 500 fell 1.4% on Friday. Penetration of support at 2080 warns of a correction.

S&P 500 Index

I can only ascribe this to fear of a rate rise. The stronger the employment data, the closer the prospect of the Fed raising interest rates. But Janet Yellen is likely to err on the side of caution, only raising rates when she is sure that the economy is on a sound footing and inflationary pressures are rising. That is far from the case at present, despite the good job numbers.

There is plenty of short-term money in the market, however, that seems to think otherwise.

Surprising lack of inflation as unemployment falls | Bank of England

Sir Jon Cunliffe, Deputy Governor for Financial Stability at the Bank of England:

“The big surprise, therefore, for the [Monetary Policy Committee] … has been the extent to which employment has been able to grow without generating more inflationary pressure through higher pay increases. Understanding why that has happened and how long it will persist is, in my view, now key to deciding policy.”

One possible explanation may be a longer-than-usual lag between falls in unemployment and pay pressure emerging, which could mean that inflationary pressure is building in the pipeline that will be more difficult to curtail if the Bank does not act now. However, another is that a combination of factors has caused labour supply – the amount of hours of labour available to the economy – to be much stronger than in previous recoveries, for example due to the increase in women’s state pension age and changes to the incapacity benefits regime. And the fall in unemployment has included a high number of long-term unemployed, who probably act as less of a drag on pay.

Yet despite the biggest squeeze on real incomes for nearly a century, there appears to be little evidence that workers are demanding a catch-up in pay, Jon observes, possibly due to a shift in the psychology of UK workers resulting from the sharpness of the recession and the years of austerity that have followed it.

Read more at Bank of England | Publications | News Releases | News Release – Monetary policy one year on – speech by Sir Jon Cunliffe.

Is unemployment really falling?

US unemployment has fallen close to the Fed’s “natural unemployment rate” of close to 5.5%. Does that mean that all is well?

Not if we consider the participation rate, plotted below as the ratio of non-farm employment to total population.

Employment Participation Rate

Participation peaked in 2000 at close to 0.47 (or 47%) after climbing for several decades with increased involvement of women in the workforce. But the ratio fell to 0.42 post-GFC and has only recovered to 0.435. We are still 3.5% below the high from 14 years ago.

When we focus on male employment, ages 25 to 54, we exclude several obscuring factors:

  • the rising participation rate of women;
  • an increasing baby-boomer retiree population; and
  • changes in the student population under 25.

Employment Rate Men 25 to 54

The chart still displays a dramatic long-term fall.

Full Employment and the Path to Shared Prosperity | Dissent

Great summary of the current political gridlock by Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein:

There are many policies that can reduce inequality, but there is none as straightforward conceptually and as difficult politically as full employment. The basic point is simple: at low rates of unemployment, the demand for labor allows workers at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution to achieve gains in hourly wages, annual hours of work, and thus income.

Levels of unemployment are not the gift or curse of the gods; they are the result of conscious economic policy. The decision to tolerate high rates of unemployment is a choice. It is one that has enormous implications not just for the millions of people who are needlessly unemployed or underemployed but also for tens of millions of workers in the bottom half of the wage distribution whose bargaining power is undermined by high unemployment.

It is pretty obvious that low unemployment would enhance wage growth amongst middle- and low-income workers. But the policies to create low unemployment are not as clear:

  • Raising inflation to lower real interest rates would not get strong support in many quarters. It would seem that you are manipulating market signals to dupe business investors to act in a fashion that may not be in their long-term best interest.
  • Infrastructure spending is the key to a sound recovery, but beware of raising public debt to fund anything other than productive assets that can generate a market-related return (to service the debt).
  • The trade deficit is a big part of any solution. We need to penalize currency manipulators like China (Japan before them) for buying US Treasurys to suppress their exchange rate and undermine US manufacturers.
  • Job sharing is not a long-term solution, but it does enable unemployed workers to retain skills that would otherwise be lost.
  • Overall, an excellent summary of what needs to be done. But it omits one vital piece of the puzzle. How do we get politicians and interest groups to act in the best interest of the country rather than their own?

    Read more at Full Employment and the Path to Shared Prosperity | Dissent Magazine.

Full Employment and the Path to Shared Prosperity | Dissent

Great summary of the current political gridlock by Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein:

There are many policies that can reduce inequality, but there is none as straightforward conceptually and as difficult politically as full employment. The basic point is simple: at low rates of unemployment, the demand for labor allows workers at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution to achieve gains in hourly wages, annual hours of work, and thus income.

Levels of unemployment are not the gift or curse of the gods; they are the result of conscious economic policy. The decision to tolerate high rates of unemployment is a choice. It is one that has enormous implications not just for the millions of people who are needlessly unemployed or underemployed but also for tens of millions of workers in the bottom half of the wage distribution whose bargaining power is undermined by high unemployment.

It is pretty obvious that low unemployment would enhance wage growth amongst middle- and low-income workers. But the policies to create low unemployment are not as clear:

  • Raising inflation to lift real interest rates would not get strong support in many quarters. It would seem that you are manipulating market signals to dupe business investors to act in a fashion that may not be in their long-term best interest.
  • Infrastructure spending is the key to a sound recovery, but beware of raising public debt to fund anything other than productive assets that can generate a market-related return (to service the debt).
  • The trade deficit is a big part of any solution. We need to penalize currency manipulators like China (Japan before them) for buying US Treasurys to suppress their exchange rate.
  • Job sharing is not a long-term solution, but it does enable unemployed workers to retain skills that would otherwise be lost.
  • Overall, an excellent summary of what needs to be done. But it omits one vital piece of the puzzle. How do we get politicians and interest groups to act in the best interest of the country rather than their own?

    Read more at Full Employment and the Path to Shared Prosperity | Dissent Magazine.

How Hitler’s roads won German hearts and minds | VOX

Interesting conclusion from Hans-Joachim Voth and Nico Voigtländer, writing at VOX.

Long before the Nazi regime committed its singular crimes, it had become remarkably popular in Germany (Evans 2006). Voting records from 1933 and 1934 reveal the effect of one factor that, according to many historians, boosted support for the regime – the building of the Autobahn. Using detailed information on the geography of road-building, we isolate the effect of construction on voting behaviour by analysing the ‘swing’ in favour of the regime over a nine-month period (November 1933 to August 1934). We find that opposition declined much faster where the new ‘roads of the Führer’ ran.

Direct economic benefits for residents in Autobahn districts may have played a role, but they were probably small. More importantly, the new roads provided concrete proof of the regime’s actions, delivering on its promise to get ‘Germany moving again’. Within a couple of months of taking power, a highly ambitious highway construction project was under way at 17 different locations all over the country, affecting more than 100 electoral districts. In other words, the visible progress of road construction made the regime’s ability to follow through on its promises salient for many Germans.

Combined with effective propaganda trumpeting the regime’s successes, the roads succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of many Germans. Nor were they the only ones to be impressed. When the US Army rolled into Germany at the end of World War II, one of the officers taken with the ease of transport on motorways was Dwight D. Eisenhower. When he became President of the United States, he lead the initiative to built the country’s interstate highway system.

Read more at Nazi pork and popularity: How Hitler’s roads won German hearts and minds | vox.