Friday's jobs report showed a drop in the
unemployment rate, a growth in payroll employment, and a decline in the average
wage. Many observers cannot understand
why the wage would go down when the unemployment rate and pay-rolled employment
indicate a tightening labor market. The
reason is obvious. However, before one
can see it, one has to discard the notion that there is an aggregate labor
market.
Unfortunately, many observers, especially economists,
are blinded by the Marxist notion that there is a great lump of something
called labor. If you assume all labor is
homogeneous and all jobs are homogeneous, then a tightening labor market should
increase wages, but no such homogeneity exists.
The theory was wrong when Marx advanced it and it is still wrong. People are individuals. Each job requires a different set of skills
and contributes a different amount to the output of the organization hiring the
individual.
It never occurs to observers that as markets tighten,
they increasingly draws in individuals who are less productive, less willing to
work, and less skilled. Not
surprisingly, those individuals cannot command the same wages as the individuals
who are already employed.
What is surprising about this inability to see the
obvious is that there has been considerable handwringing about the loss of
skills attended with long-term unemployment.
Also, anyone paying attention has noticed that the unemployment rate
among the prime working age population has been consistently lower than the
unemployment rate of demographic groups more marginally attached to the labor
market. The young and those with less
education, as well as those most inclined to just drop out of the labor market,
represent a disproportionate share of the available labor.
Also, as the economy expands it becomes profitable
to employ people to work on things that would not be worth it if the economy
were not expanding. There is also what is referred to as the composition
issue. Put simply, the composition issue
is the question of what firms are hiring and whether those firms are in high
wage industries hiring for high wage occupations.
For those who love to see a political issue in any
economic data, there is also the impact of the incentives our government
provides to employers to avoid hiring people for full-time jobs. Part-timers tend to earn less than full-time
employees. Finally, lest we forget,
wages are quite different from employee compensation, and we have enacted
legislation that mandates the substitution of health insurance for higher wages
in many instances.
So, let the handwringing continue; it is easier than
giving up an obsolete theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment