FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Three Paths to Full Employment

by

The jobs numbers released by the Labor Department last week were good news. The economy generated 288,000 jobs. This was the fifth consecutive month that job growth exceeded 200,000, the first time that has happened in since before the recession.

While this is better news than we have seen for a while, the economy still has a long way to go before the labor market gets back to its pre-recession level. The economy needs almost 7 million jobs to make up for the jobs lost in the downtown and the growth in the labor market in the last six and half years.

To keep pace with underlying population growth we need roughly 90,000 jobs a month. Even if the economy were to create jobs at the 270,000 rate of the last three months, which no expects, we would not get back to full employment until the middle of 2017. At a more realistic but still optimistic pace of 200,000 jobs a month, we wouldn’t get back to full employment until late 2019.

The prospect of waiting another five years to reach full employment is not acceptable. It means that millions of people are being needlessly denied the opportunity to earn a living. Also, since most workers are not able to see wage gains in a weak labor market, continued high unemployment means that most of the gains from economic growth will go to those at the top. Telling the public that the situation is better than the worst of the downturn is not an adequate response.

The absurdity is that we know how to get back to full employment. The basic problem is that there is inadequate demand in the economy. The housing bubble had been driving the economy before the recession, leading to huge amounts of construction and a consumption boom based on bubble generated housing wealth. When the bubble burst there was nothing to replace this lost demand.

There are three ways to deal with this shortfall in demand. The first is the simplest and most obvious: get the government to spend more money. That one doesn’t fly well with the balanced budget cult types who get scared by big numbers. But those grounded in reality know that in a badly depressed economy the government can boost output and employment by spending more money.

This was shown by FDR’s New Deal programs which had the economy growing at more than a 10 percent annual rate. The massive spending associated with World War II made the case even more dramatically. Those looking for more recent examples might focus on Japan. It has a debt burden almost three times as large relative to its economy as ours. Yet it adopted an aggressive stimulus program that pushed its unemployment rate below 4.0 percent and created the equivalent of more than 4 million jobs in a bit more than a year.

While there are many areas where government spending can usefully be directed, an obvious target for near-term stimulus is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. There is no excuse not to be paying workers to retrofit buildings, to install solar panels, and to construct windmills to generate energy. We can also pay for free bus service and the construction of special bus lanes to encourage people to use mass transit rather than drive.

But if the balance budget cultists won’t let us increase demand through more government spending we also have the route of trade. One of the main reasons who have inadequate demand in the economy is the trade deficit. We spend roughly $500 billion (@3 percent of GDP) a year more on imports than foreigners spend on our goods and services. This is money creating demand in other countries, not the United States. If we had balanced trade, we would get almost all of the way back to full employment.

There is a simple way to reduce the trade deficit, reduce the value of the dollar against foreign currencies. This makes our exports cheaper to other countries and makes imports more expensive relative to domestically produced goods. Theevidence on this point is rock solid; when the dollar rises in value the trade deficit goes up, when the dollar falls the trade deficit gets smaller.

We also know how to reduce the value of the dollar. There are many routes to a lower dollar, but the most obvious is to negotiate a reduction with our major trading partners. This was done successfully in the mid-1980s under President Reagan; it can be done again today. It’s worth mentioning here that trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership have nothing to do with the trade deficit and everyone knows this.

Finally, if we can’t increase demand we can reduce supply. The way to do this is by encouraging firms to reduce work hours as an alternative to laying people off. Germany has successfully pursued this work-sharing path to bring its unemployment rate down to 5.1 percent even though its growth has been no better than ours.

The great aspect of this policy is that it can be done at the state level. Most states now have short work programs as part of their unemployment insurance system. These should be promoted. The federal government even picks up the tab at least through the rest of this year.

Other policies that can be pushed at the state and even local level include mandated family leave, sick days, and even vacation days. People in the United States work far more on average than workers in other wealthy countries; bringing our work habits more in line is both a way to create more jobs and create better lives for working people.

The disaster that hit our economy when the housing bubble collapsed in 2007-2008 was entirely predictable and preventable. Tens of millions of people have seen their lives uprooted from this preventable tragedy. There is no excuse not to do everything we to bring this needless suffering to an end.

Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University.

This column originally ran on Al Jazeera.

 

Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University.

More articles by:
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail