The Jobless Trap
F.D.R. told us that the only thing we had to fear was fear itself. But when future historians look back at our monstrously failed response to economic depression, they probably won’t blame fear, per se. Instead, they’ll castigate our leaders for fearing the wrong things.
For the overriding fear driving economic policy has been debt hysteria, fear that unless we slash spending we’ll turn into Greece any day now. After all, haven’t economists proved that economic growth collapses once public debt exceeds 90 percent of G.D.P.?
Well, the famous red line on debt, it turns out, was an artifact of dubious statistics, reinforced by bad arithmetic. And America isn’t and can’t be Greece, because countries that borrow in their own currencies operate under very different rules from those that rely on someone else’s money. After years of repeated warnings that fiscal crisis is just around the corner, the U.S. government can still borrow at incredibly low interest rates.
But while debt fears were and are misguided, there’s a real danger we’ve ignored: the corrosive effect, social and economic, of persistent high unemployment. And even as the case for debt hysteria is collapsing, our worst fears about the damage from long-term unemployment are being confirmed.
Now, some unemployment is inevitable in an ever-changing economy. Modern America tends to have an unemployment rate of 5 percent or more even in good times. In these good times, however, spells of unemployment are typically brief. Back in 2007 there were about seven million unemployed Americans — but only a small fraction of this total, around 1.2 million, had been out of work more than six months.
Then financial crisis struck, leading to a terrifying economic plunge followed by a weak recovery. Five years after the crisis, unemployment remains elevated, with almost 12 million Americans out of work. But what’s really striking is the huge number of long-term unemployed, with 4.6 million unemployed more than six months and more than three million who have been jobless for a year or more. Oh, and these numbers don’t count those who have given up looking for work because there are no jobs to be found.
It goes without saying that the explosion of long-term unemployment is a tragedy for the unemployed themselves. But it may also be a broader economic disaster.
The key question is whether workers who have been unemployed for a long time eventually come to be seen as unemployable, tainted goods that nobody will buy. This could happen because their work skills atrophy, but a more likely reason is that potential employers assume that something must be wrong with people who can’t find a job, even if the real reason is simply the terrible economy. And there is, unfortunately, growing evidence that the tainting of the long-term unemployed is happening as we speak.
One piece of evidence comes from the relationship between job openings and unemployment. Normally these two numbers move inversely: the more job openings, the fewer Americans out of work. And this traditional relationship remains true if we look at short-term unemployment. But as William Dickens and Rand Ghayad of Northeastern University recently showed, the relationship has broken down for the long-term unemployed: a rising number of job openings doesn’t seem to do much to reduce their numbers. It’s as if employers don’t even bother looking at anyone who has been out of work for a long time.
To test this hypothesis, Mr. Ghayad then did an experiment, sending out résumés describing the qualifications and employment history of 4,800 fictitious workers. Who got called back? The answer was that workers who reported having been unemployed for six months or more got very few callbacks, even when all their other qualifications were better than those of workers who did attract employer interest.
So we are indeed creating a permanent class of jobless Americans.
And let’s be clear: this is a policy decision. The main reason our economic recovery has been so weak is that, spooked by fear-mongering over debt, we’ve been doing exactly what basic macroeconomics says you shouldn’t do — cutting government spending in the face of a depressed economy.
It’s hard to overstate how self-destructive this policy is. Indeed, the shadow of long-term unemployment means that austerity policies are counterproductive even in purely fiscal terms. Workers, after all, are taxpayers too; if our debt obsession exiles millions of Americans from productive employment, it will cut into future revenues and raise future deficits.
Our exaggerated fear of debt is, in short, creating a slow-motion catastrophe. It’s ruining many lives, and at the same time making us poorer and weaker in every way. And the longer we persist in this folly, the greater the damage will be.
失業的陷阱
羅斯福總統曾經說,我們唯一要恐懼的是恐懼本身。然而當未來的歷史學家回顧我們對經濟衰退的失當反應時,他們可能不會歸咎於恐懼。相反的,他們會責備我們的領導人恐懼不該恐懼的的事。
因為主導經濟政策的首要恐懼是負債。根據這種心理,如果我們不減支,隨時可能淪為另一個希臘。畢竟,經濟學家不是已經證明,一旦政府負債超過GDP的90%,經濟成長將急遽惡化?
事實證明,這條負債的紅線是人造的可疑統計數字,加上錯誤計算強化的結果。美國不是,也不會是另一個希臘,因為以本國貨幣舉債的國家有別於必須仰賴他國資金的國家。儘管部分人多年來一再警告財政危機迫在眉睫,美國政府仍然以極低的利率舉債。
儘管對負債的恐懼心理出於誤導,我們卻忽略一種真正的危險:失業率居高不下所產生的社會與經濟腐蝕效應。就在恐懼負債的理由已經不攻自破時,我們對長期失業造成傷害的恐懼也已到證實。
如今,在不斷改變的經濟環境下,我們無法避免一些失業。即使在好時光,現代美國的失業率往往保持在5%或更高。不同的是,這些時期的失業通常為期短暫。2007年失業的美國人大約700萬人,其中約僅120萬人失業六個月以上。
後來危機發生,經濟隨即大幅衰退,繼之以疲弱的復甦。五年後,失業仍然嚴重,將近1,200萬名美國人找不到工作。然而真正嚇人的是,多達460萬人失業超過六個月,逾300萬人失業一年或更久。還有,這些數字還不包括因為毫無就業機會而放棄找工作的失業者。
對失業者而言,長期失業大增當然不幸。然而它可能也是更廣泛的經濟災難。
關鍵問題是,勞工長期失業會不會被視為已不能雇用,就像沒有人購買的瑕疵品。這有可能,因為他們的工作技能可能退化。但更可能的理由是,即使真正的原因是經濟嚴重衰退,雇主可能認為長期失業的勞工自己有問題。越來越多證據顯示,長期失業者被貼上標籤的現象正在發生。
證據之一來自新增工作機會與失業之間的關係。一般情況下,這兩個數字呈反向關係:新增工作機會越多,失業的美國人越少。如果我們檢視短期失業,這種傳統的關係成立。然而正如東北大學的狄更斯與賈亞德最近指出,對長期失業的勞工而言,這種關係已經消失。許多新增工作機會似乎無助於降低他們的人數,似乎雇主已完全不考慮雇用長期失業的勞工。
我們就這樣創造出一群永久失業的美國人。
明確地說,這是一種政策決定。導致經濟復甦如此疲軟的主要原因是,在負債恐懼心理驅使下,我們的對策正好與基本總體經濟學理論的主張背道而馳:在經濟衰退下,大刪政府開支。
這種政策的自我破壞力大得難以形容。的確,長期失業的陰影揮之不去意味即使純以財政層次而言,撙節政策就會產生反效果。畢竟勞工也是納稅人。如果我們對負債的恐懼導致無數的美國人失去就業機會,未來的政府歲入一定會減少,赤字則會增加。
簡言之,我們對負債的誇大恐懼已經製造一場慢動作的災難。它毀掉許多人的生活,同時導致我們更貧窮、虛弱。我們繼續這種愚行愈久,傷害必定愈大。
原文參照:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/opinion/krugman-the-jobless-trap.html
紐時中文版翻譯:
http://cn.nytimes.com/article/opinion/2013/04/24/c24krugman/zh-hk/
2013-04-23/經濟日報/A4版/焦點 編譯陳世欽