Reasons for Jobless Recoveries

[A18]

"Jobless recovery." Must we abuse the English language?

Contrary to popular dogma, there is no reason whatsoever to think that higher levels of employment are per se more desirable. But if we want to spend time on this rather pointless question, relevant factors would be (1) population growth, (2) the diminished number of non-working women who might contemplate entering the labor force, and (3) retirement patterns.

[A18]

To be non-employed is not per se to be miserable, as a great many retirees, housewives, and full-time college students—as well, I suppose, as yourself—can attest.

[A18]

I said that to be non-employed is not per se to be miserable. I did not claim that no non-employed person is miserable. The difference is not especially subtle.

[A18]

Tone notwithstanding, your post is not a rebuttal to mine. Indeed, you have actually conceded my point—that joblessness is not per se bad. Why, then, are we to fear marginally lower rates of employment? (It must be stressed that "unemployment"—as opposed to "non-employment"—is not implicated here. Ninety percent of the population could be jobless without there being any unemployment.)

An amusing side-effect of your doctrine is that it would denounce the abolition of child labor. Think of the effect on the job creation figures!

Too often we conflate employment with material well-being and joblessness with misery. In fact, one can be jobless and wealthy; and one can be employed and miserable (even materially).

[A18]

All correct sir - I did intend to concede your point, but only to ridicule its obviousness and obtuseness.

We are discussing "job creation" numbers. Once you have conceded that non-employment is not per se bad, "more employment" is not automatically to be preferred to "less employment."

It is your commentary that is beside the point. I do not deny that there are a vast number of people for whom employment is absolutely imperative. And if you want to post some data that speaks to their situation, it will be worth paying attention to. This data does not. It is consistent with a situation in which many are struggling, but it is also consistent with a situation in which no one is (and with everything in between).

[A18]

Low, and even negative, "job creation" numbers are consistent with each and every one of those people having work.

[A18]

What is the point of your question? Nothing I have said suggests anything of the sort.

Of course, if 50% of the employed segment of the labor forced retired tomorrow, unemployment would probably all but disappear while the number of jobs (and level of output) diminished astronomically.

[A18]

The point of my extreme example was simply to show that unemployment and job growth—while inversely correlated in practice—are not definitionally tied to one another. If we want to discuss unemployment, let's discuss unemployment—not job growth figures.

But perhaps we should get back to the actual issue—whether "more employment" is to be preferred to "less employment." For the reasons I've given, the answer to that question is no. Let's look at the actual problem, rather than at data that is loosely related to it. I'm not denying that there is human suffering—I'm simply suggesting that we look at actual measures of it.

[A18]

If you refer back to the original post, you will see that the thread is explicitly about job-growth numbers. If we define "jobless recovery" as you do, then it is indeed something to be concerned about—but the data under consideration do not speak to that issue.