The U.S. Labor Department
announced job growth of 215,000 for March in line with expectations. Given a
working-age population of over 200 million, it doesn’t seem to be a significant
number of jobs. But 215,000 new jobs are the net increase of many moving parts.
Annually, the U.S. creates
a little less than 13 million jobs, but also destroys about 10 million jobs. If
there was a net increase of 215,000, it means that approximately 1.05 million
jobs were created and 833,000 destroyed for the net increase of 215,000 in
March. Even during the Great Recession, 10 million jobs were created annually
but unfortunately 16 million jobs were destroyed. In the U.S., job creation
peaked out at 16 million in 2000 and hit 14 million in 2006, so the economy has
not recovered in terms of job creation. Fortunately job destruction of 10
million is a three-decade low.
Since the labor market hit
bottom in February 2010, a net of 14.4 million jobs have been created over the
73 months, a record for the longest period of sustainable job growth. The
unemployment rate rose to 5.0% in March from 4.9% in February. As perverse as it
may sound, the rise in the unemployment rate was considered good news because
the civilian labor force participation rate increased to 63% from a 39-year low
of 62.4% in September, meaning more people are entering the work force. The
labor participation rate of workers ages 25-54 was 81.2% in the first quarter,
a three-year high, but still down from 83.3% in 2007. There still is some slack
in the labor market.
The mood of many Americans
doesn’t reflect the lowest unemployment rate in nearly a decade. While a net 14.4
million jobs have been created, only 5.6 million new jobs have been created
since January 2008, which was the job peak before the Great Recession of
2008-2009. Job growth relative to population growth makes the 14.4 million look
less impressive. The U.S. working-age population grew by 15.8 million since
2010 and 20 million since 2008. Job creation has not kept up with population
growth. The Labor Department also reported that average hourly earnings
increased 2.25% in March, relative to a year ago. This is below the last
6-month average of 2.5% but better than the 2.0% annual average over the prior four
years.
Wages are subdued
primarily because labor productivity remains close to zero. Productivity is
weak because corporations have not invested in efficiency-enhancing equipment
and may be substituting labor for capital because of low wages. Also the cause
of the productivity problem may be structural; the service sector of the
economy has become more dominant relative to the goods sector, and it is more
difficult to increase productivity in the service sector. Also, less
experienced millennials are replacing more experienced baby boomers in the work
force.
Regardless of stimulative monetary and fiscal policies, the key to enhancing economic growth lies in the labor market. Economic output is a function of the number of workers times the productivity of each worker. The civilian labor participation rate needs to continue on its upward trajectory and labor productivity must improve. Increases in both are needed to get U.S. economic growth out of its lethargic 2.1% pace. Labor-force growth of 2% and productivity increases of 1% would produce a more desired 3% economic growth.
That sums it all up. The question is how to set a way to create better labor productivity given the alternatives for labor that are growing much faster. Training people to handle the new digital market is and will continue to be a challenge. Less people? When all of the boomers retire and work retirement jobs (cash only) that will create a shadow economy. The educated replacements are not there yet.
ReplyDeleteThanks Hoot...that's what I like about the free enterprise system. It doesn't work perfectly and it doesn't always work fast but it has inherent tendencies to solve problems -- if we just let the people work on them. Sometimes some of us think a government planner can do better in dealing with major secular changes -- but I like how imbalances in supply and demand generate price signals that help to fill the need. The market system makes mistakes and is slow but it seems to me if we let it work, the errors are smaller than when we produce a permanent government infrastructure whose purpose is to keep most of us employed.
Delete