Skip to main content

Parts One, Two, and Three.

In the first three parts of this series, I analyzed views on the Job Guarantee (JG) idea offered by Cullen Roche and Peter Cooper in conjunction with a post by John Carney,  which kicked off an explosion of blogosphere posts and commentaries on the JG. In Part Three I began an analysis of John Carney's views by taking exception to his claims that the JG would be inflationary, a bureaucratic nightmare, and would cause economic stagnations

In this post, I'll begin analyzing John's further take on the JG in a second post of his.  His reasoning in this post, focuses on the problem of a mismatch between demand and the skills needed to fulfill it, the possible inflationary impact of this mismatch, and also amplifies his claims on the JG and stagnation. My interleaved replies from an MMT perspective to his assertions and arguments are provided in this and upcoming posts. All my replies assume that the JG would not be “paid for,” but would occur through deficit spending.

The Mismatch Problem

In commenting on the Government's efforts to fight unemployment since “The Great Depression” John Carney writes about the Government's efforts to achieve full employment through monetary policy. He starts his narrative with:

”. . . there was little reason to think that the additional demand created would be for the skills and services the unemployed possessed. If the cause of unemployment was not just a lack of demand but a lack of demand for what the unemployed could do, job growth would not result. What would happen instead was that there would be more money chasing the goods and services actually in demand. This created the potential for high unemployment and high inflation.

Comment: I don't think it's true to say that the US Government was trying to achieve full employment using monetary policy during the post-war 1945-1970 period. Instead, fiscal policy and monetary policy advocates contended with one another about whether monetary policy could possibly produce full employment. During the Kennedy/Johnson Administrations fiscal policy certainly held the upper hand, and even during the 1970s Nixon famously asserted that “we are all Keynesians now,” conceding that fiscal policy was the key to full employment.

During the 1970s, however, neoliberalism began to gain traction, as did Milton Friedman's monetarism. By the time of the Carter Administration, and in the face of cost-push inflation introduced by the Oil Cartel, monetary policy to reduce inflation was the order of the day, and the Government backed off using Keynesian fiscal policy to create full employment.

The closest thing we've had to aggressive Keynesian fiscal policy since that time was the present Administration's attempt to use deficit spending to recover from the crash of 2008. But most Keynesian and MMT- inspired stimulus advocates believed in early 2009 that a stimulus bill twice the size of the ARRA act, with far less emphasis on tax cuts, and far more emphasis on public sector spending was necessary to enable recovery. Experience since 2009 has refuted the view that the $800 billion ARRA fiscal initiative was large enough to enable full employment, or anything near it. The view among many macro-economists now is that the Administration, probably due to its unwillingness to be aggressive with the Democratic Senate, and partly due to its admitted underestimation of the severity of the balance sheet recession, injected far too little aggregate demand and/or direct job creation into the economy.

Experience has also once again refuted the view that monetary policy can bring about full employment, or that aggressive monetary policy, designed to do that, would cause inflation or hyperinflation, since it is hard to imagine a more aggressive monetary policy than that practiced by the Fed since the crash, and we see that its policies have produced neither full employment nor any serious across-the-board inflation. This is consistent with MMT predictions, which viewed monetary policy as primarily impacting portfolio composition in the private sector, without however, adding any Net Financial Assets (NFA) to it. The Fed's expansion of the money supply, has added to reserves, but its hasn't added to  the NFA stock and therefore to aggregate demand (AD).

In other words, MMT predicted that Fed policy would neither contribute to increased employment nor contribute to significant inflation, since trading bank reserves for assets of equal value held by the private sector increases the money supply in a very narrow sense, but doesn't increase AD in the private sector because it doesn't add to NFA. The question raised by this is whether Carney's view, quoted above, is even relevant to our present situation, since the real issue wasn't a mismatch between demand created by monetary policy and the skill composition of the labor force; but whether any significant demand at all was created by the Fed's monetary policy.

Mismatch and Hayek's Theory

John Carney goes on with his “mismatch” theory, quoting Hayek, he says:

"In other words, the core problem of most unemployment is a distribution problem. The distribution of labor did not match the distribution of demand. Increasing aggregate demand would not necessarily decrease unemployment. What is typically required to actually decrease unemployment is relocation and retraining of workers, something which many of the temporary measures intended to ameliorate the effects of unemployment actually interfere with.”

Comment: This is an assertion of theory, and one that is rather indirect in its construction of the problem. The creation of demand from a Job Guarantee program funded through deficit spending comes from paying JG workers, i.e. providing them with NFA in the form of high-velocity money, they did not have have prior to their participation in the JG program. At that point, those workers/consumers are the source of demand for further products/services in the private sector, not the Government directly.

These are likely to be products and services the JG workers could afford to buy before the crash resulted in their unemployment. So, if the capacity to supply those goods and services existed before the JG went into effect, there is no reason to believe that the same capacity would not be used to fulfill the new demand created by the JG provided that one is started before the recession causing unemployment has atrophied previously existing productive capacity. If the capacity is lacking because the recession caused lay-offs, then the workers necessary to satisfy the new demand can be re-hired as needed, as long as the private sector businesses are willing to exceed the JG floor on salaries and benefits.

The assertion that re-training and re-location are needed to lower unemployment assumes that some proportion of the people who want full-time private sector jobs can't get them because their skills don't fit businesses close to where the unemployed live, whose products and services would be demanded in the context of an operating JG program. This is probably true to some extent at a micro-level, but from a macro point of view, the actual size of that segment of the potential JG pool is what's important and that's an empirical question. John Carney doesn't even address that question. So, he doesn't even tell us what the size of his “problem” is.

And he also doesn't make explicit that he clearly has in mind local private sector for-profit businesses, that he thinks will not be able to employ that part of the JG pool whose skills don't fit the new demand these businesses will want to satisfy. Finally, he tacitly assumes, in the quoted passage, that Government-funded employment in the JG program isn't “actual employment”, when clearly the purpose of the JG is to create a buffer stock of fully employed people.

Next, there certainly will be some people whose skills don't fit the current labor market among those who want full-time employment, and there will be a consequent need to train these people. But, JG programs can make provision for re-training, and even for re-location within the US, if that's really what's needed. Many jobs these days, can be performed at a distance over the Internet. This will become increasingly the case over time, so that the relocation issue will become less and less important as the years go by as an important factor in employment decisions.

Hayek's argument about mismatch of demand and skills is now more than 60 years old, and re-location is far less important as a factor in structural unemployment than it once was. If it were still true to any significant degree, American businesses wouldn't be able to outsource consulting, marketing, advertising, software, accounting, and other private sector work to India and China, so clearly local businesses that can use these skills can certainly “outsource” them to other local areas within the United States, if that's what they want to do.

In fact, if John Carney is so keen about this problem of the JG program perhaps a partial solution is to pass laws requiring that businesses selling and operating in the US not to outsource services like the above to companies whose employees are resident in other nations. Some might think that such a proposal accompanying the JG is out of the MMT paradigm, since it's the MMT position that trade deficits add to the real wealth of nations, sovereign in their own fiat currencies. But if there's really a serious contention that the JG program might be less effective because of such a skills mismatch, then it seems to me that in a conflict between increased profits for US companies coming from that kind of outsourcing, which mostly serve to increase inequality in the United States, democracy in this country would be much better served by “outsourcing” to people in other local areas of the US, who are in the JG program, in order to minimize any possible “skills/demand mismatch” that may decrease the effectiveness of the JG, rather than by “outsourcing” to people of other nations.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  That's a nice point about outsourcing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ian S, Letsgetitdone

    Capital is far more mobile than labor, especially in today's world.  If there were simply a mismatch between the labor that capital wishes to purchase and the labor available in the place where capital happens to reside, then the capital will move itself to where the labor supply meets its needs.  The fact that there are still unemployed in an era of near infinite capital mobility shows that the core issue of employment is not a regional mismatch between the skill sets of employees and the needs of employers, but that there exists a group of potential workers whose labor is simply not demanded, regardless of their skills.  

    Still, rather than a Job Guarantee, I'd prefer something more like a livable income guarantee tied to enrollment in some sort of accredited degree program, vocational or otherwise.  It solves the problem of what work you'd have the Job Guarantee enrollees doing (educating themselves) and preserves the demand stimulus of maintaining a basic livable income for everyone.  And it preserves the flexibility of the labor force so that mismatches can't really occur even at the margins.

    From such crooked wood as that which man is made of, nothing straight can be fashioned. -Immanuel Kant

    by Nellebracht on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 09:40:36 PM PST

    •  I like that proposal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nellebracht

      But I'd offer it in addition to the JG. The reason why is that some people just want work to do. Don't want what they consider 'charity," and alo don;t want education. Also the Government has many projects to do which need to be funded by deficit spending on a counter-cyclical basis. The counter-cyclical function of the JG as an automatic economic stabilizer is very important. A BIG does that to some degree, but a BIG would be very negative psychologically for some people in America who would rather have work they can point and that can transition them to private sector jobs.

      I'm all for BIGs for people who think they'rd entitled to that and have a perfect right to that. I think they a right to it myself. But may people don;t agree and don't want a BIG for themselves, so, again, I think they should have the alternative of work.

      Finally, I like your point about the mismatch fallacy a lot, too. It's very important in the context of Carney's obvious bias toward not disturbing international "free" trade.

      •  Well, that's part of why... (0+ / 0-)

        I would tie it to enrollment in some sort of accredited degree program.  It's not charity because you still have to do something to get it, or at least, it's no more charity than a JG is.  And, I would argue, a guaranteed income tied to ongoing self-improvement is socially better and psychologically more acceptable than a guaranteed "job" that's only created as an excuse to guarantee someone an income.

        As for the projects that need to be deficit funded on a counter-cyclical basis, I assume you mean things like infrastructure projects and the like.  These things can still be funded in the same way and on a counter-cyclical basis, but you won't have to worry about JG enrollees doing the work of existing government employees or taking work from potential private contractors.  This is important because if you have JG enrollees doing work that would otherwise be done by government employees or private contractors, you're going to have conflicts between the JG and public/private labor unions.  After all, it was conflicts with labor unions that ultimately killed the WPA.

        Basically, both a JG and a BIG like I envision are appropriately counter-cyclical, but my BIG is much more counter-cyclically stimulative because you'd still have to hire private contractors or more public employees to do the projects that the government and people would like to see done.  And a government might decide they just don't want to do those projects, but the JG enrollees are still getting their paychecks, essentially becoming enrolled in a BIG, but without keeping them trained or competitive for re-entry into the private workforce.  And then there's the question of whether even the government can find enough work for all the people who are currently unemployed.

        Now I'm rambling again, but as I see it, it comes down to which sort of program you think has the potential to be more productive, both in itself and in the downstream economic production that's stimulated in response to it.  I think a BIG tied to enrollment in ongoing re-training and education is far more valuable for a society, both in a political sense of having a well-educated citizenry and in an economic sense of having a highly trained and adaptable labor force.  A JG at best can only mitigate the drain on training and adaptability that occurs due to unemployment, and there's no guarantee that the skills required for the JG job will match up at all with the skills demanded by the private workforce.  In short, a JG is a program that is merely defensive against economic downturn and unemployment.  But an IGTTE (income-guarantee tied to enrollment) is proactive in not only protecting against economic downturn and unemployment but in setting up the conditions necessary for the next phase of growth.

        From such crooked wood as that which man is made of, nothing straight can be fashioned. -Immanuel Kant

        by Nellebracht on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 10:38:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Outsourcing. (0+ / 0-)

    Letsgetitdone,   I’m baffled by your last sentence. You claim that stopping US firms outsourcing to other countries, and diverting the “outsource contracts” to JG schemes solves the problem.

    First, this breaks international trade agreements.

    Second, how are JG schemes (given your assumption that they have a skill mix problem) going to fulfil the outsource contracts?  E.g. a typical outsource contract might consist of making clothes (or doing some other fabric sewing operation). That contract is ideal for a  firm  anywere in the world (including possibly the US) with hundreds of skilled clothing machine operators. The idea that a JG scheme in some US town where there are loads of unemployed plumbers, carpenters and agricultural workers can do the work is not realistic.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site