Jobless recovery
A jobless recovery or jobless growth is an economic phenomenon in which a macroeconomy experiences growth while maintaining or decreasing its level of employment. The first documented use of the term was in the New York Times in 1935.[1][2]
Causes
Economists are still divided about the causes and cures of a jobless recovery: some argue that increased productivity through automation has allowed economic growth without reducing unemployment.[3] Other economists state that blaming automation is an example of the luddite fallacy[4] and that jobless recoveries stem from structural changes in the labor market, leading to unemployment as workers change jobs or industries.[5]
Recent employment trends in the USA
Jobs are constantly being created and destroyed in a dynamic economy emphasizing competition like the USA currently has. As a statistical matter, the low number of net jobs created in the decade 2000–2009 is due to a low number of new jobs created, not due to an especially higher than usual number of jobs destroyed (net jobs is new jobs created minus old jobs destroyed)[citation needed]. This was a trend observed even in 1987 and it has accelerated dramatically since, with many US communities dependent on textile manufacturing experiencing "severe hardships".[6][7] But also during that time, a large number of service industry jobs have been created, such as in teaching, in prisons, in food services, in government, in hospitals, and in the computer industry, for an overall continued growth in employment. This reflects comparative advantage.
In the years 2008 and 2009, initial jobless claims in the USA moved up from the usual 350,000 initial jobless claims per week in previous years to 500,000 or more a week.[8][9] This reflected a situation where there was only one new job created for about every six unemployed workers; in some industries the ratio was higher and in others it was lower. This is sometimes depicted as like the "stalling" of some jobs creation engine.[10] This stalling metaphor reflects a political emphasis in a dynamic US economy on creating new jobs rather than preserving existing jobs. It can often be pointless to try to preserve some specific old jobs, as many specific jobs may gradually become obsolete from technological change, like replacing some bank tellers with ATMs.
Industrial consolidation
Some have argued that the recent lack of job creation in the United States is due to increased industrial consolidation and growth of monopoly or oligopoly power.[11] The argument is twofold: firstly, small businesses create most American jobs, and secondly, small businesses have more difficulty starting and growing in the face of entrenched existing businesses (compare infant industry argument, applied at the level of industries, rather than individual firms).
Population growth vs. employment growth
Surprisingly, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does not offer data-sets isolated to the working-age population (ages 16 to 65),[12] including retirement age individuals in most BLS data-sets may tend to obfuscate the analysis of employment creation in relation to population growth.
The following table includes the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, for the Civilian noninstitutional population and corresponding Employment Levels, dating to 1948 and includes October 2013, for the age groups 16 years & over, and 65 years & over. The working-age population (ages 16 to 65 years) is then determined by subtracting those age 65 and over from the Civilian noninstitutional population and Employment Levels respectively. With the working-age population isolated, longer periods, such as decades, can be used to expose historical employment creation ratios.
| Civilian noninstitutional population | Working-age Population | Employment Levels | Working-age Employment | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Age: 16 years & over | Age: 65 yrs. & over | Age: 16 to 65 yrs. | Growth - Decade | Age: 16 years & over | Age: 65 yrs. & over | Age: 16 to 65 | Growth - Decade | Percent Emp. |
| 1948 | 103,468,000 | 10,881,000 | 92,587,000 | 58,554,000 | 2,906,000 | 55,648,000 | |||
| 1949 | 104,524,000 | 11,191,000 | 93,333,000 | — | 57,712,000 | 2,926,000 | 54,786,000 | — | — |
| 1950 | 104,872,000 | 11,534,000 | 93,338,000 | 59,352,000 | 2,845,000 | 56,507,000 | |||
| 1951 | 104,810,000 | 11,918,000 | 92,892,000 | 60,252,000 | 2,858,000 | 57,394,000 | |||
| 1952 | 105,812,000 | 12,334,000 | 93,478,000 | 60,748,000 | 3,000,000 | 57,748,000 | |||
| 1953 | 107,623,000 | 13,257,000 | 94,366,000 | 59,796,000 | 2,882,000 | 56,914,000 | |||
| 1954 | 108,892,000 | 13,520,000 | 95,372,000 | 59,990,000 | 2,963,000 | 57,027,000 | |||
| 1955 | 110,296,000 | 13,925,000 | 96,371,000 | 63,268,000 | 3,213,000 | 60,055,000 | |||
| 1956 | 111,526,000 | 14,215,000 | 97,311,000 | 63,619,000 | 3,213,000 | 60,406,000 | |||
| 1957 | 113,013,000 | 14,516,000 | 98,497,000 | 63,598,000 | 3,089,000 | 60,509,000 | |||
| 1958 | 114,429,000 | 14,821,000 | 99,608,000 | 63,266,000 | 2,855,000 | 60,411,000 | |||
| 1959 | 116,040,000 | 15,148,000 | 100,892,000 | 7,559,000 | 64,927,000 | 3,024,000 | 61,903,000 | 7,117,000 | 94.15% |
| 1960 | 118,001,000 | 15,508,000 | 102,493,000 | 65,287,000 | 3,176,000 | 62,111,000 | |||
| 1961 | 119,214,000 | 15,861,000 | 103,353,000 | 65,531,000 | 2,885,000 | 62,646,000 | |||
| 1962 | 121,236,000 | 16,880,000 | 104,356,000 | 66,585,000 | 2,821,000 | 63,764,000 | |||
| 1963 | 123,360,000 | 17,014,000 | 106,346,000 | 67,791,000 | 2,765,000 | 65,026,000 | |||
| 1964 | 125,468,000 | 17,296,000 | 108,172,000 | 69,543,000 | 2,913,000 | 66,630,000 | |||
| 1965 | 127,294,000 | 17,580,000 | 109,714,000 | 71,819,000 | 2,926,000 | 68,893,000 | |||
| 1966 | 128,730,000 | 17,860,000 | 110,870,000 | 73,600,000 | 2,892,000 | 70,708,000 | |||
| 1967 | 130,936,000 | 18,194,000 | 112,742,000 | 75,337,000 | 3,030,000 | 72,307,000 | |||
| 1968 | 133,120,000 | 18,500,000 | 114,620,000 | 76,699,000 | 3,086,000 | 73,613,000 | |||
| 1969 | 135,489,000 | 18,825,000 | 116,664,000 | 15,772,000 | 78,789,000 | 3,069,000 | 75,720,000 | 13,817,000 | 87.60% |
| 1970 | 138,529,000 | 19,202,000 | 119,327,000 | 78,651,000 | 3,032,000 | 75,619,000 | |||
| 1971 | 141,666,000 | 19,605,000 | 122,061,000 | 80,527,000 | 3,005,000 | 77,522,000 | |||
| 1972 | 145,446,000 | 20,229,000 | 125,217,000 | 83,424,000 | 2,909,000 | 80,515,000 | |||
| 1973 | 148,479,000 | 20,536,000 | 127,943,000 | 86,390,000 | 2,787,000 | 83,603,000 | |||
| 1974 | 151,494,000 | 21,214,000 | 130,280,000 | 86,169,000 | 2,794,000 | 83,375,000 | |||
| 1975 | 154,589,000 | 21,803,000 | 132,786,000 | 86,689,000 | 2,680,000 | 84,009,000 | |||
| 1976 | 157,438,000 | 22,309,000 | 135,129,000 | 89,850,000 | 2,791,000 | 87,059,000 | |||
| 1977 | 160,377,000 | 22,874,000 | 137,503,000 | 94,183,000 | 2,903,000 | 91,280,000 | |||
| 1978 | 163,272,000 | 23,450,000 | 139,822,000 | 97,669,000 | 3,006,000 | 94,663,000 | |||
| 1979 | 166,300,000 | 24,067,000 | 142,233,000 | 25,569,000 | 100,013,000 | 3,002,000 | 97,011,000 | 21,291,000 | 83.27% |
| 1980 | 168,883,000 | 24,597,000 | 144,286,000 | 99,579,000 | 2,907,000 | 96,672,000 | |||
| 1981 | 171,166,000 | 25,109,000 | 146,057,000 | 99,562,000 | 2,928,000 | 96,634,000 | |||
| 1982 | 173,199,000 | 25,619,000 | 147,580,000 | 98,849,000 | 2,878,000 | 95,971,000 | |||
| 1983 | 175,121,000 | 26,160,000 | 148,961,000 | 102,803,000 | 2,878,000 | 99,925,000 | |||
| 1984 | 177,306,000 | 26,712,000 | 150,594,000 | 106,049,000 | 2,797,000 | 103,252,000 | |||
| 1985 | 179,112,000 | 27,266,000 | 151,846,000 | 108,063,000 | 2,841,000 | 105,222,000 | |||
| 1986 | 181,547,000 | 27,791,000 | 153,756,000 | 110,588,000 | 2,909,000 | 107,679,000 | |||
| 1987 | 183,620,000 | 28,362,000 | 155,258,000 | 113,679,000 | 3,126,000 | 110,553,000 | |||
| 1988 | 185,402,000 | 28,875,000 | 156,527,000 | 115,978,000 | 3,264,000 | 112,714,000 | |||
| 1989 | 187,165,000 | 29,462,000 | 157,703,000 | 15,470,000 | 117,698,000 | 3,352,000 | 114,346,000 | 17,335,000 | 112.06% |
| 1990 | 190,017,000 | 29,453,000 | 160,564,000 | 118,110,000 | 3,256,000 | 114,854,000 | |||
| 1991 | 191,798,000 | 29,893,000 | 161,905,000 | 117,395,000 | 3,193,000 | 114,202,000 | |||
| 1992 | 193,784,000 | 30,396,000 | 163,388,000 | 118,990,000 | 3,341,000 | 115,649,000 | |||
| 1993 | 195,794,000 | 30,784,000 | 165,010,000 | 121,578,000 | 3,394,000 | 118,184,000 | |||
| 1994 | 197,765,000 | 31,181,000 | 166,584,000 | 124,729,000 | 3,641,000 | 121,088,000 | |||
| 1995 | 199,508,000 | 31,629,000 | 167,879,000 | 125,136,000 | 3,676,000 | 121,460,000 | |||
| 1996 | 201,636,000 | 31,902,000 | 169,734,000 | 127,903,000 | 3,807,000 | 124,096,000 | |||
| 1997 | 204,098,000 | 32,071,000 | 172,027,000 | 130,785,000 | 3,933,000 | 126,852,000 | |||
| 1998 | 206,270,000 | 32,275,000 | 173,995,000 | 132,732,000 | 3,855,000 | 128,877,000 | |||
| 1999 | 208,832,000 | 32,538,000 | 176,294,000 | 18,591,000 | 134,696,000 | 3,984,000 | 130,712,000 | 16,366,000 | 88.03% |
| 2000 | 213,736,000 | 33,590,000 | 180,146,000 | 137,846,000 | 4,244,000 | 133,602,000 | |||
| 2001 | 216,315,000 | 33,823,000 | 182,492,000 | 136,269,000 | 4,300,000 | 131,969,000 | |||
| 2002 | 218,741,000 | 34,004,000 | 184,737,000 | 136,599,000 | 4,248,000 | 132,351,000 | |||
| 2003 | 222,509,000 | 34,432,000 | 188,077,000 | 138,556,000 | 4,711,000 | 133,845,000 | |||
| 2004 | 224,640,000 | 34,796,000 | 189,844,000 | 140,278,000 | 4,902,000 | 135,376,000 | |||
| 2005 | 227,425,000 | 35,208,000 | 192,217,000 | 142,918,000 | 5,263,000 | 137,655,000 | |||
| 2006 | 230,108,000 | 35,841,000 | 194,267,000 | 146,081,000 | 5,617,000 | 140,464,000 | |||
| 2007 | 233,156,000 | 36,603,000 | 196,553,000 | 146,334,000 | 5,787,000 | 140,547,000 | |||
| 2008 | 235,035,000 | 37,522,000 | 197,513,000 | 143,350,000 | 6,084,000 | 137,266,000 | |||
| 2009 | 236,924,000 | 38,362,000 | 198,562,000 | 22,268,000 | 137,953,000 | 6,193,000 | 131,760,000 | 1,048,000 | 4.71% |
| 2010 | 238,889,000 | 39,045,000 | 199,844,000 | 139,159,000 | 6,376,000 | 132,783,000 | |||
| 2011 | 240,584,000 | 40,364,000 | 200,220,000 | 140,681,000 | 6,893,000 | 133,788,000 | |||
| 2012 | 244,350,000 | 42,695,000 | 201,655,000 | 143,060,000 | 7,412,000 | 135,648,000 | |||
| October 2013 | 246,381,000 | 43,887,000 | 202,494,000 | 3,932,000 | 144,144,000 | 7,689,000 | 136,455,000 | 4,695,000 | 119.40% |
| Bold denotes datum used to produce "Working-Age: Growth Decade" calculation Decade example = End of Year 1949 to End of Year 1959 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey [12] | |||||||||
| Series Id: LNU00000000 Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Population Level Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population Age: 16 years and over | |||||||||
| Series Id: LNU02000000 Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level Labor force status: Employed Age: 16 years and over | |||||||||
| Series Id:LNU00000097 Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Population Level - 65 yrs. & over Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population Age: 65 years and over | |||||||||
| Series Id: LNU02000097 Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level - 65 yrs. & over Labor force status: Employed Age: 65 years and over | |||||||||
See also
Notes and references
- ↑ U.S. Heads for Third Straight Jobless Recovery. Morning Edition, National Public Radio. 16 Oct 2009.
- ↑ "INDUSTRY ADOPTS POLITICAL PLANKS FOR NEW DEAL WAR; OLD ORDER IS UPHELD". New York Times. 6 December 1935. Retrieved 10 November 2013. "Pay Articles from December 1935 Part 7 - Site Map - The New York ..."
- ↑ Automatic Reaction, The Economist, 2010-09-09
- ↑ Easterly, William (2001). The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 53–54. ISBN 0-262-55042-3.
- ↑ Erica L. Groshen; Simon Potter (Aug 2003). "Has Structural Change Contributed to a Jobless Recovery?" 9 (8). Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
- ↑ The U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry: A Revolution in Progress
- ↑ About the U.S. Textile Industry: U.S. Employment Stats
- ↑ Chart of Initial Jobless Claims
- ↑ Jobless Claims Jump To 3-Month High, In Latest Troubling 2010 Economic Data
- ↑ America's Job Creation Engine Was Stalled
- ↑ Who Broke America’s Jobs Machine? Why creeping consolidation is crushing American livelihoods., by Barry C. Lynn and Phillip Longman, Washington Monthly
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 "Bureau of Labor Statistics". Current Population Survey. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved 9 November 2013.