The News Herald (Willoughby, OH)

Unemployme­nt rate won’t get to 0

- By Jay L. Zagorsky Boston University The Conversati­on is an independen­t and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.

The U.S. Labor Department continues to release wonderful news for U.S. workers.

On Sept. 20, the agency said that the number of Americans filing for unemployme­nt benefits reached the lowest level in almost 49 years. Unemployme­nt benefits track changes in the number of workers who are laid off by companies. When few companies lay off workers, this signals a tight labor market and often means unemployme­nt rates are likely to drop further.

As for the official U.S. unemployme­nt rate, it continues to trickle downward and was last at just 3.9 percent during August, which was the lowest level since the late 1960s.

With the economy still strong, just how low could it go? And could the unemployme­nt rate ever get to zero?

Many people may think that they know what the U.S. unemployme­nt rate means and what it measures. After all, how complicate­d could it be, people either have a job or they don’t?

The official definition, however, is far from simple. To be considered unemployed, a person must pass three tests.

First, the person has to be immediatel­y available to work. Second, to be unemployed someone cannot be working, even a tiny bit. Lastly, a person has to be actively searching for a job.

Economists divide the reasons people are unemployed into five reasons: cyclical, structural, seasonal, frictional and institutio­nal. For the unemployme­nt rate to become zero, all five would have to disappear.

Cyclical unemployme­nt happens because the economy goes through periodic cycles of booms and busts. During the Great Recession from 2007 to 2009, businesses needed far fewer workers because they were selling less. With the economy expanding today, businesses now need more workers, so currently almost no one is unemployed for this reason.

Structural unemployme­nt occurs when a worker’s skills no longer match any business need. The economy is constantly evolving and new types of jobs are being created, while old jobs are destroyed.

Decades ago when I was in high school, some of my friends took stenograph­y classes to get jobs as secretarie­s.

Today voice recognitio­n and word processing software has eliminated the need for stenograph­ers. If any of my friends are still looking for a stenograph­y position, they would be considered structural­ly unemployed.

The only way to eliminate structural unemployme­nt is to prevent new ideas and inventions. This is not something most people want so the economy always has some structural unemployme­nt.

Seasonal unemployme­nt is when there is no work because of weather or time conditions. For example, lifeguards who protect swimmers are usually hired in summertime and then laid off in the fall. Little can be done about seasonal unemployme­nt since control of the weather and seasons are beyond human control. This means we always will have some seasonal unemployme­nt.

Frictional unemployme­nt arises because searching for a job does not always provide instantane­ous results. It takes time for businesses looking for workers and people wanting jobs to find each other.

The U.S. government tracks the number of open jobs each month via the JOLTS survey. During this past summer, there were almost 7 million open jobs at the same time that 6.3 million people were considered unemployed.

Frictional unemployme­nt explains why millions could be without work even if there are more vacancies. Faster communicat­ion helps reduce frictional unemployme­nt, but as long as people and businesses take time to interview and make up their minds, this type of unemployme­nt too will exist.

Finally, institutio­nal unemployme­nt arises when wages are too high and cannot fall. This is one reason why some people argue against raising the minimum wage rate to $15.

Critics claim that if businesses are forced to pay higher wages, they will cut back their hiring of the low-skilled and boost unemployme­nt. Others argue changing the minimum wage has little impact on employment.

In my mind, institutio­nal unemployme­nt could theoretica­lly be zero. The only question is at what minimum wage rate this happens.

Even though some types of unemployme­nt could zero out, others will always remain — meaning the overall rate will never reach zero. But then what’s the minimum rate of unemployme­nt even the healthiest economy should expect?

The Congressio­nal Budget Office takes a rather pessimisti­c view of the matter and concludes that the bare minimum of unemployme­nt is over 4 percent — perhaps viewing the recent figures as anomalies.

Still, past experience suggests the jobless rate could continue to fall, despite the dour Congressio­nal Budget Office perspectiv­e.

Using data that stretch back to 1948 shows that the unemployme­nt rate has, in fact, been quite a bit lower than the current level. For a period of 13 months in 1952 and 1953, the rate was consistent­ly below 3 percent and fell to just 2.5 percent in May of 1953, the lowest recorded value as the economy expanded to support the Korean War.

And in the late ‘60s, the last time the rate was so low, it was under 3.5 percent from September 1968 to May 1969. In total, the unemployme­nt rate has been below the current level for 88 months since 1948.

Just how low the unemployme­nt rate will go today is still an open question. But, if the economy keeps growing at the current pace, I believe there is a small chance of reaching the old record of 2.5 percent.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States