Monday, March 23, 2009

Unemployment versus Contraction

We were reviewing the statistics at Shadowstats - a service that reports relatively honest economic data for the USA - and noticed a 19% unemployment rate (ouch!) and a 4% rate of GDP contraction (bad, but not that bad). Two points immediately leapt up: one, there is a fairly wide divergence; and two, this is divergence in an opposite direction from the Great Depression.

The divergence points to the chronic unemployment and underemployment that exists in the US. Even at the peak of the economy in 2000, approximately 12% of the workforce was redundant. If GDP is to contract in this Depression as much as in the Great Depression (50%), and unless there is to be 60% or more unemployment, more currently employed workers are going to have to take reduced hours or rates of pay.

The nation is faced with a highly problematic scenario. At some point in the not-too-distant future, the Federal Government will have exhausted its borrowing power to maintain welfare payments and its own operations. We have discussed in prior posts how both welfare payments and government salaries will have to be cut. We expect these to be cut through price inflation.

Many private sector organisations will be facing the task of whether to cast redundant workers into a fraying social safety net, or 'sharing the pain' by cutting hours accross the workforce. Self-employed persons will be facing involuntary 'part-time' status. Price inflation will also deliver pay cuts to the private sector.

The course the nation takes to adjust the population to lower economic output will have a decisive impact on how orderly the adjustment is. The more desperately 'turf' is defended and groups attempt to clutch onto their income, the greater the polarisation of income and the potential for social disruption. If there is a consensus to 'share the pain' - even if through inelegant methods such as inflation and higher taxes on the remaining productive elements - there is less potential for acute stife. Unfortunately, the more coercively the pain-sharing is achieved, the more long-term harm is done to the economy: inflation distorts investment decisions, and taxation inhibits productivity.

Clearly, the nation is still sufficiently affluent to handle some economic abuse - but there is a limit to how much. We are not optimistic that there is any collective will to institute a sounder basis for economic development. Alert individuals, on the other hand, will find even in a less benign environment adequate possibilities of prosperity.

1 comment:

Thai said...

You are not addressing the most difficult discussions we all know are never the less very real- the type of immigration that is coming into this country and the nature of the work for today.

For a country's economy is not independent of genetics, culture, etc...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0206/p02s01-legn.html

The America of tomorrow will not be the same as the America of yesterday.

No matter how much I hate to admit it, I will never be a world class electrical engineer. Many of the people who enter America today will sadly also similarly not become world class electrical engineers. Not sadly, MAY their children http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001952.html

And there are only so many low paid jobs America needs (and this number may actually shrink as many of these jobs get more and more automated).

Note: we are not the only nation on this planet facing this issue.