September 15, 2002
Handout--Employment Is a Lagging Indicator

More from Next Year's Analyses

We already know that the number of hours American workers are going to work this year will be at least two percent less than in 2001, when hours worked were some 1.2 percent lower than in 2000. Because the labor force is still growing by about 1 percent per year, labor market slack--the gap between what America's workers would want to work and what they do work--is some five percentage points of the labor force greater this year than it was two years ago, at the peak of the boom.

However, if you look at output, you find that--contrary to the picture painted by hours--the recession is over, and American production is climbing.

The divergence comes from two sources. First, the underlying trend is one of strong economic growth. The 2.5 percent growth in output we expect to see in 2002 relative to 2001 is not enough to reduce the slack in America's economy: actual output is growing at 2.5 percent per year, but potential output is growing even faster. Second, employment is a lagging indicator: at the end of a downturn, businesses typically wait until demand has been strengthening for several quarters and inventories have fallen before beginning to raise overtime and hire more workers.

Posted by DeLong at September 15, 2002 07:26 PM | Trackback

Email this entry
Email a link to this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Comments

There's something I don't understand here. Brad says the underlying trend is one of strong economic growth - some 2.5% pa. Now hours worked will be 2% less. So this leaves us with capital services and TFP. All the information tends to suggest that new capital investment programmes are weak. So doesn't that leave rather a lot of weightlifting work for the poor old (and poorly understood - remember 'the measure of our ignorance')TFP. Is there something I've mised here, or could we be talking about a hell of a lot more outsourcing finding its way into final value added?

Posted by: Edward Hugh on September 16, 2002 04:35 AM

Edward Hugh

Please explain to a non-economist your argument. What is TFP? Do you mean outsourcing abroad?

Thanks

Posted by: on September 16, 2002 08:46 AM

TFP stands for total factor productivity. It's the productivity residual that is left after you've accounted for capital accumulation and changes in the labor force. It's supposed to get at technological innovation. It's not without its critics. One issue among many is where should one stop in accounting for, e.g., changes in the quality of factors of production, changes in the composition of the labor force, etc. That's why some think of it as a measure of our ignorance regarding changes in productivity.

Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on September 16, 2002 01:47 PM

How much of 2002's growth is made of public spending of all sorts, i.e. military, security-related, etc? If this recipee is successful in jump-starting the economy in a sustainable way (i.e. one that does result in job creation), there is no point to this question. But if the root of the problem lies depeer is some king of fundamental imbalance in the private sector then this is just going to turn out to be a costly cosmetic patch...

Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on September 16, 2002 11:39 PM

jobless claims, however, i think are very timely (despite the revisions :) like over the past 15 years or so real GDP growth and jobless claims (inverted) show a very close fit! which suggests a single-factor regression model (hella explanatory power!) that might have good results (R2 :)

Posted by: kenny on September 17, 2002 05:05 PM

Lagging indicator?? I think the NBER Business cycle dating committee might think differently. In fact from their FAQ.

Q: Regarding movements of income as an indicator of recessions, isn't it true that real income has not bfallen substantially during five of the past nine recessions?

A: That is why employment is probably the single most reliable indicator.

By this they me a coincident indicator, not lagging. In fact the date of the recession is March of 01, the peak in non-farm employment.

Although, I kind of buy the argument made by Brad, but then you get into the quandry of defining what lagging really means??

Posted by: TJ on September 18, 2002 05:01 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?