dagblog - Comments for "Structural Unemployment"

I guess there's an echo ...

Donal — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 23:56:38 +0000

In reply to I thought that is what I said

I guess there's an echo ... echo ... echo ...

I thought that is what I said

EmmaZahn — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:34:00 +0000

In reply to Pay people to build

I thought that is what I said -- were you just clarifying?

Also, a new category in which to think --- people are the most basic infrastructure of a society.

Pay people to build

Donal — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:29:41 +0000

In reply to Interesting choice of words:

Pay people to build infrastructure, because the money men are just going to play games with the QE money.

Interesting choice of words:

EmmaZahn — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:16:00 +0000

In reply to Two comments As Obey says, it

Interesting choice of words: "believe in Keynesian remedies". I have nothing against Keynes. Smart guy. He certainly knew how money flowed and the economy worked when he was alive and how it mostly still does. I believe if Keynes were alive he would examine the situation and prescribe the remedy he thought would work best whether it was his, someone else's or something completely new.

As a matter of fact I do think a Keynesian remedy is more appropriate to the situation regardless of whether or not unemployment is structural. Pay people directly instead of paying corporations to pay people. Cut out the middlemen -- or become the middleman by reversing the process, but that is a very hard sell. I would bet it sounds outrageous even here on this progressive blog. :)

Sure the economy functioned

Flavius — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:58:51 +0000

In reply to Thanks for this, Flav. I

Sure the economy functioned 50 years ago when the work force had less formal education. For an awful lot of jobs the only training you really need is on setting the alarm clock. Then if need be you can sit next to Nellie.

The German economy functions very well. Check out the shop floor.. A lot more turkish and croatian than german spoken there .

One comment above was that we don't want to train construction workers for non- construction jobs. True. They'd be bored. They're used to using their ingenuity adjusting to impossible to standardize tasks.

My cynical assumption is that the structural unemployment ploy is an example of "any stick to beat a dog"... A handy argument against a stimulus.If this doesn't work, they'll shift to another.

Gotta get a winner one day..

Two comments As Obey says, it

Flavius — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:03:41 +0000

In reply to Anyone else notice that the

Two comments

As Obey says, it would be wrong to say there's no structural unemployment.

What Krugman is saying and his ratios are meant to show is that even if there is structural unemployment -which might not respond to typical Keynsian remedies -there is plenty of non structural employment that will. That of course assumes you believe in Keynsian remedies, if you don't this whole discussion is irrelevant.

As to the loss of confidence of course it's a chicken and egg situation. The lack of confidence reduces investment. The lack of investment reduces confidence.

Most of the existing

EmmaZahn — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:05:25 +0000

In reply to Thanks. Serious issues:This

Most of the existing unemployment represents mismatch that is not readily amenable to monetary policy.¹
Could well be true, Or not. It's an assertion rather than a conclusion.

At present, I do not think the FRB's monetary policy can do much about existing unemployment whether structural or not. There is still too much money looking for the safest harbor until this storm passes for quantitative easing to do anything more than drive up the prices of second 'safest' investments after US Treasuries. Bernanke basically said that at his press club appearance. He just cloaked it in vaguer language.

Anyone else notice that the

EmmaZahn — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:53:37 +0000

In reply to Structural Unemployment

Anyone else notice that the sector with the highest ratio of unemployment from 2010 to 2007 was Information? Seemed like that would relevant to this audience.

Can someone explain to me why that ratio indicates that there is no structural unemployment. Could it not as well mean that what structural unemployment there may be is foundational to the entire economy. Not saying that is the case; just wondering why not? Oh, and because it's Paul Krugman is not the answer I am looking for. :)

Krugman's bar chart indicates the sectors with the highest ratios are information and construction, both white and blue collars. It is not surprising that the loss of confidence in the economy as reflected in unwillingness to invest or hire is across the board.

I tend to think it's a floor

Donal — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:27:32 +0000

In reply to Structural Unemployment

I tend to think it's a floor wax and a dessert topping. Anecdotally, I know that construction is hurting. We have industry reps come in week after week to display their stuff, and they are palpably more curious about whether we are busy and not shy about admitting how slow they are.

But even though we still see sluggish increases in the GDP, I think that we have stopped being a growth economy in any way that matters, which is bound to hurt the employment picture across the boards.

Thanks for this, Flav. I

Michael Maiello — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:57:47 +0000

In reply to Structural Unemployment

Thanks for this, Flav. I think the "structural unemployment" malarkey is just good old fashion American defeatism and self-loathing. The real truth is that most American workers are insanely overqualified for their jobs and they work hard at them. Can we improve our educational system and skills? Sure. But we've actually done a very good job at producing an educated and motivated population of workers.