Today, we’re faced with continued high unemployment and slow economic growth. The unemployment rate dropped slightly to 8.6%, but considering the holiday season and influx of temporary workers this drop is only temporary not to mention that the real unemployment is much higher than 8.6% the government reports.
The problem with the high unemployment is that there is an abundance of labor but the demand for labor is still quite low. There are a few reasons for such a high and persistent unemployment rate. The cost of labor is just too high for employers. Not only has the government made low-skilled workers artificially more expensive but certain policies have contributed to additional costs that make employing people in general more expensive. Another contributing factor is that unemployment has been made more financially attractive to individuals causing them to have unreasonable expectations in their search for employment.
If we break it down to the basic economic principles of supply and demand we can see that our nation has a surplus of labor due to a low demand for it. Demand is always a function of price. The higher the price, the lower the demand. These principles apply to the labor market just as much as any other industry.
The high cost of labor could be a contributing factor to the decrease in demand. When employers are analyzing their labor and capital needs, it is cost that is the major factor in determining what their course of action will be. If the cost of hiring a low-skilled worker exceeds the benefit they would receive, jobs are priced out. Lowering the minimum wage would contribute to a lower cost which would result in an increase in the demand for labor.
These low-paying jobs allow a lower-skilled worker to improve one’s skills for future employers and future higher paying jobs. Raising the minimum wage just above that threshold results in no job for the low-skilled worker at all and no foot in the door for future advancement. Although, removing the minimum wage would effect the unemployment rate somewhat, it is only one factor contributing to the overall cost of labor.
There are other costs associated with labor other than wages. Minimum wage laws effects the employment of lower-skilled workers, but lowering these other costs could effect a wider spectrum of employment. Payroll taxes, healthcare and other benefits as well as liability costs, and regulations, all contribute to the overall cost of labor.
If one were to implement fiscal policy and regulatory policy that would decrease these costs for employers (lowering taxes, deregulation) it would result in the overall cost of labor decreasing which would then lead to an increase in the overall demand. Instead, these higher costs force employers to look for alternative ways to do more with less. They resort to outsourcing certain skills, invest more in capital that would require fewer employees or they do without completely due to the costs.
In addition, the incentive of earning a living has been replaced by the incentive to not earn a living. Unemployment insurance has made being out of work fiscally acceptable. The unemployed spend more time searching for jobs because they receive these payments. This additional time spent searching raises the unemployment rate. In recent times, unemployment payments have continually been extended causing these individuals to have unreasonable standards in their job search turning beggars into choosers.
High costs of labor and the over-extended unemployment benefits are but two factors that could be perpetuating the high unemployment rate. Addressing these two factors directly would be significant enough to increase labor demand. By following the law of supply and demand and its effect on the relationship between cost and employment and the powerful effect of incentives we should be able to affect positive change in the labor market.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments












I see the problem of number of job openings vs. the number of people who want work as being a function of aggregate demand in the economy and lackthereof is associated with the plunge in nominal GDP of nearly 15% in 2008. The last time NGDP was allowed to plunge by that amount was in 1938, and it is still ~10% below historical trend.
The entirety of the economic problem we currently have is a shock in nominal income from the loss of cash substitututes in the financial system (MBS and CDO market collapse) that is still being constrained by the monetary authority. In this situation, debt burden is amplified because nominal income expectations were baked into the contracts at the time the debt was contracted; nominal income shrinks and the real value of all debt increases. This is the real effect of a nominal shock. Government, business and individuals had heavy debt loads going into the crisis and it will take longer to unwind than if NGDP had been stabilized.
From monetary and public policy perspective, we have a clear choice between two options of alieveating economic distress. The first is to wait until the older contracts are either refinanced, paid off or discharged, and nominal wages fall into equillibrium with the new nominal income trend which we can help along in the public policy arena with supply-side reforms. The second is we can restore nominal GDP to its historic trend, or some combination of both of these.
I take issue with the criticizm of UI considering that the cause of prolonged economic distress is entirely at the feet of the Federal Reserve as it was back in the Great Depression because it has complete control over nominal issues. Unless that governing body does something appropriate to solve the nominal income problem, there will be nothing for the bulk of people who are on UI to go to once their benefits expire. There is no empircal evidence to suggest that UI causes more unemployemnt in the atmosphere of nominal shocks because the last time a such a dramatic nominal shock happened was in the 1930s before we had UI and there is no study that can be done to cover similar monetary conditions. Cutting off the lifeline to those who are former taxpayers through little fault of their own would only shrink the workforce in bulk rather than raising the level of employment and self sufficiency.
My suggestion is that if we do not want the adverse effects of UI on the budget and adding to supply side issues we need to solve the real problem. Congress created the Fed and it can change its mandate to target NGDP at a level that boosts demand but does not allow rampant inflation. There is simply no reason to allow unfettered discretion at the central bank considering that every time it has abused that discretion, either intentionally or through incompetence, it has had disaterous consequences to our national well being.
All I could add to this is that women should be given the right of their own "personhood" and the new law is just too complicated and more complications will arise from the different definitions of "life"
PhD Assignment | MBA Assignment | GCSE Assignment
^^ That's a different Bonnie than me, by the way.
Is the ratio of bad breath a scam? The answer is definitely EST.Bad Breath Report With the subtitle attractive Beat Breath Poor ingredients with household! It seems a bit of mystery.
This web site is really a walk-through for all of the info you wanted about this and didn’t know who to ask. Glimpse here, and you’ll definitely discover it. Shop Vac Acesssories
Good aviator. I hear something writer difficult on divergent blogs quotidian. It gift e'er be invigorating to indicate communication from remaining writers and go to site