Unemployment (or joblessness), as defined by the International Labour Organization, occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.[2] The unemployment rate is a measure
of the prevalence of unemployment and it is calculated as a percentage by
dividing the number of unemployed individuals by all individuals currently in
the labour force.
There
remains considerable theoretical debate regarding the causes, consequences and
solutions for unemployment. Classical, neoclassical and the Austrian School of economics focus on market
mechanisms and rely on the invisible hand of the market to resolve
unemployment.[citation needed] These
theories
argue against interventions imposed on the labour market from the outside, such
as unionization, minimum wage laws, taxes, and other regulations that
they claim discourage the hiring of workers. Keynesian
economics
emphasizes the cyclical nature of unemployment and potential interventions to
reduce unemployment during recessions. These arguments focus on recurrent supply shocks that suddenly reduce aggregate
demand for goods and services and thus reduce demand for workers. Keynesian
models recommend government interventions designed to increase demand for
workers; these can include financial stimuli, job creation, and expansionist
monetary policies. Marxism focuses on the relations between the
controlling owners and the subordinated proletariat whom the owners pit against one
another in a constant struggle for jobs and higher wages. This struggle and the
unemployment it produces benefit the system by reducing wage costs for the owners.
For Marxists the causes of and solutions to unemployment require abolishing
capitalism and shifting to socialism or communism.
In addition
to these three comprehensive theories of unemployment, there are a few types of
unemployment that are used to more precisely model the effects of unemployment
within the economic system. The main types of unemployment include structural
unemployment
which focuses on structural problems in the economy and inefficiencies inherent
in labour markets including a mismatch between the supply and demand of
laborers with necessary skill sets. Structural arguments emphasize causes and
solutions related to disruptive
technologies
and globalization. Discussions of frictional
unemployment
focus on voluntary decisions to work based on each individuals' valuation of
their own work and how that compares to current wage rates plus the time and
effort required to find a job. Causes and solutions for frictional unemployment
often address barriers to entry and wage rates. Behavioral
economists
highlight individual biases in decision making and often involve problems and
solutions concerning sticky wages and efficiency wages.
Economists distinguish between various overlapping types
of and theories of unemployment, including cyclical or Keynesian unemployment, frictional
unemployment,
structural
unemployment
and classical
unemployment.[48] Some additional types of unemployment that are
occasionally mentioned are seasonal unemployment, hardcore unemployment, and
hidden unemployment. The U.S. BLS measures six types of unemployment, U1-U6.
Though
there have been several definitions of voluntary and involuntary
unemployment in the economics literature, a simple distinction is often
applied. Voluntary unemployment is attributed to the individual's decisions,
whereas involuntary unemployment exists because of the socio-economic
environment (including the market structure, government intervention, and the
level of aggregate demand) in which individuals operate. In these terms, much
or most of frictional
unemployment
is voluntary, since it reflects individual search behavior. Voluntary
unemployment includes workers who reject low wage jobs whereas involuntary
unemployment includes workers fired due to an economic crisis, industrial
decline, company bankruptcy, or organizational restructuring.
On the
other hand, cyclical unemployment, structural unemployment, and classical
unemployment are largely involuntary in nature. However, the existence of
structural unemployment may reflect choices made by the unemployed in the past,
while classical (natural) unemployment may result from the legislative and
economic choices made by labour unions or political parties. So, in practice, the distinction
between voluntary and involuntary unemployment is hard to draw. The clearest
cases of involuntary unemployment are those where there are fewer job vacancies
than unemployed workers even when wages are allowed to adjust, so that even if
all vacancies were to be filled, some unemployed workers would still remain.
This happens with cyclical unemployment, as macroeconomic forces cause
microeconomic unemployment which can boomerang back and exacerbate these
macroeconomic forces.
Classical
or real-wage unemployment occurs when real wages for a job are set above the
market-clearing level, causing the number of job-seekers to exceed the number
of vacancies.
Most
economists have argued that unemployment increases the more the government
intervenes into the economy to try to improve the conditions of those without
jobs.[citation needed] For example, minimum
wage laws
raise the cost of laborers with few skills to above the market equilibrium,
resulting in people who wish to work at the going rate but cannot as wage
enforced is greater than their value as workers becoming unemployed.[49][50] Laws restricting layoffs made
businesses less likely to hire in the first place, as hiring becomes more
risky, leaving many young people unemployed and unable to find work.[50]
However,
this argument is criticized for ignoring numerous external factors and overly
simplifying the relationship between wage rates and unemployment- in other
words, that other factors may also affect unemployment.[51][52][53][54][55] Some, such as Murray Rothbard,[56] suggest that even social taboos can prevent
wages from falling to the market clearing level. It is noted that there can be
unemployment when job market is in equilibrium. For example, the salary of
appliance repairman in a city is $3,000. At this salary, the appliance stores
of city want to hire 100 repairmen. But there are 300 repairmen looking for
jobs within the city. So there are 200 repairmen looking for jobs are
unemployed. At this time, job market is not in equilibrium. But six months
later, the salary of appliance repairman in this city drop to $1,000. At this salary,
the appliance stores of city want to hire 200 repairmen. There are 200
repairman want to accept jobs. For the rest 100 repairmen, they no longer want
to work for this kind of job because the salary is too low. By this time, job
market reaches equilibrium. But there are still 100 repairmen unemployed
because they no longer want to work for this kind of job.
In Out
of Work: Unemployment and Government in the Twentieth-Century America,
economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway argue that the
empirical record of wages rates, productivity, and unemployment in American
validates the classical unemployment theory. Their data shows a strong
correlation between the adjusted real wage and unemployment in the United States from 1900 to 1990. However, they
maintain that their data take into account exogenous events.
[edit] Cyclical or
Keynesian unemployment
Cyclical or
Keynesian unemployment, also known as
deficient-demand unemployment, occurs when there is not enough aggregate demand
in the economy to provide jobs for everyone who wants to work. Demand for most
goods and services falls, less production is needed and consequently fewer
workers are needed, wages are sticky and do not fall to meet the equilibrium
level, and mass unemployment results.[57] Its name is derived from the
frequent shifts in the business cycle although unemployment can also be
persistent as occurred during the Great
Depression
of the 1930s. With cyclical unemployment, the number of unemployed workers
exceeds the number of job vacancies, so that even if full employment were attained and all open jobs
were filled, some workers would still remain unemployed. Some associate
cyclical unemployment with frictional unemployment because the factors that
cause the friction are partially due to cyclical variables. For example, a
surprise decrease in the money supply may shock rational economic actors and
suddenly inhibit aggregate demand.
Classical
economists
reject the conception of cyclical unemployment and alternatively suggest that
the invisible hand of free markets will respond quickly to unemployment and
underutilization of resources by a fall in wages followed by a rise in
employment. Similarly, Hayek and others from the Austrian school of economics argue that if governments
intervene through monetary policy to lower interest rates this will exacerbate
unemployment by preventing the market from responding effectively.[58]
Keynesian economists on the other hand see the lack of
demand for jobs as potentially resolvable by government intervention. One
suggested interventions involves deficit
spending to
boost employment and demand. Another intervention involves an expansionary monetary policy that increases the demand of money
which should reduce interest rates which should lead to an increase in
non-governmental spending.[59]
Marxist
theory of unemployment
According
to Karl Marx, unemployment is inherent within
the unstable capitalist system and periodic crises of mass
unemployment are to be expected. The function of the proletariat within the capitalist system is to
provide a "reserve
army of labour"
that creates downward pressure on wages. This is accomplished by dividing the
proletariat into surplus labour (employees) and under-employment (unemployed).[61] This reserve
army of labour
fight among themselves for scarce jobs at lower and lower wages. At first
glance, unemployment seems inefficient since unemployed workers do not increase
profits. However, unemployment is profitable within the global capitalist
system because unemployment lowers wages which are costs from the perspective
of the owners. From this perspective low wages benefit the system by reducing economic rents. Yet, it does not benefit workers.
Capitalist systems unfairly manipulate the market for labour by perpetuating
unemployment which lowers laborers' demands for fair wages. Workers are pitted
against one another at the service of increasing profits for owners.
According
to Marx, the only way to permanently eliminate unemployment would be to abolish
capitalism and the system of forced competition for wages and then shift to a
socialist or communist economic system. For contemporary Marxists, the
existence of persistent unemployment is proof of the inability of capitalism to
ensure full employment.[62]
In The General Theory, Keynes argued that neo-classical
economic theory did not apply during recessions because of excessive savings
and weak private investment in an economy. In consequence, people could be
thrown out of work involuntarily and not be able to find acceptable new
employment.
This
conflict between the neoclassical and Keynesian theories has had strong
influence on government policy. The tendency for government is to curtail and
eliminate unemployment through increases in benefits and government jobs, and
to encourage the job-seeker to both consider new careers and relocation to
another city.
Involuntary
unemployment does not exist in agrarian societies nor is it formally recognized
to exist in underdeveloped but urban societies, such as the mega-cities of Africa and of India/Pakistan. In such societies, a
suddenly unemployed person must meet their survival needs either by getting a
new job at any price, becoming an entrepreneur, or joining the underground
economy of the hustler.[63]
Involuntary
unemployment is discussed from the narrative standpoint in stories by Ehrenreich, the narrative sociology of Bourdieu, and novels of social suffering
such as John Steinbeck's The
Grapes of Wrath.
In
demand-based theory, it is possible to abolish cyclical unemployment by
increasing the aggregate demand for products and workers. However, eventually
the economy hits an "inflation barrier" imposed by the four other
kinds of unemployment to the extent that they exist.
Some demand
theory economists see the inflation barrier as corresponding to the natural rate of unemployment. The "natural" rate of unemployment
is defined as the rate of unemployment that exists when the labour market is in
equilibrium and there is pressure for neither rising inflation rates nor
falling inflation rates. An alternative technical term for this rate is the NAIRU or the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of
Unemployment.
No matter
what its name, demand theory holds that this means that if the unemployment
rate gets "too low," inflation will get worse and worse (accelerate)
in the absence of wage and price controls (incomes policies).
One of the
major problems with the NAIRU theory is that no one knows exactly what the
NAIRU is (while it clearly changes over time). The margin of error can be quite
high relative to the actual unemployment rate, making it hard to use the NAIRU
in policy-making.
Another,
normative, definition of full employment might be called the ideal
unemployment rate. It would exclude all types of unemployment that represent
forms of inefficiency. This type of "full employment" unemployment
would correspond to only frictional unemployment (excluding that part encouraging
the McJobs management strategy) and would thus be very
low. However, it would be impossible to attain this full-employment target
using only demand-side Keynesian stimulus without getting below the NAIRU and suffering from accelerating inflation
(absent incomes policies). Training programs aimed at fighting structural
unemployment would help here.
To the
extent that hidden unemployment exists, it implies that official unemployment
statistics provide a poor guide to what unemployment rate coincides with
"full employment".
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario