Tag Archives: Beveridge Curve

NZ Unemployment up but is it all bad?

Although the recent figures for the rate of unemployment in New Zealand have increased from 6.4% to 6.7% there are some interesting statistics with regards to participation rates and employment rates.

The employment rate increased 64.2% of the total working-age population, from 63.9%. The BNZ highlighted the following:

1. The unemployment rate hasn’t been affected too greatly during the last 4 years as NZ nears the bottom of the economic cycle;
2. NZ employment rate has settled well above that seen following the 1998 recession and significantly above that which was experienced following the early-1990s recession;
3. New Zealand’s early-1990s employment rate is about where a lot of the troubled developed-world economies now find themselves – Greece, Spain, and even the US. See graph below;
4. New Zealand, in contrast now has one of the highest employment rates in the world (testimony to its relatively high participation rate, coupled with a high rate of placement into jobs).

With firms indicating that it is their intention to take on more staff the BNZ estimate that the unemployment rate will be:

6.2% Dec 2012
5.6% Dec 2013

One wonders where the NAIRU is? The rate of unemployment when inflation is stable – maybe 4%. This is much lower than that of the US – see Beveridge Curve postings

US Beveridge Curve – a concern for long-term unemployment.

I did an earlier post on the Beveridge Curve which explained what it shows – The Beveridge curve plots the job openings (vacancy) rate against the unemployment rate. It is downward sloping as job vacancies tend to be low when unemployment is high and vice versa. As you can see from the chart the pink dots indicate that job vacancies are not being taken by those who are unemployed which indicates that there is a mis-match in the US labour market. This suggests that structural unemployment is on the increase and unlike cyclical unemployment cannot be reduced by an expansionary monetary policy. Simply put easing monetary policy to reduce structural unmeployment will just create inflation. As cyclical unemployment becomes structural this does have implications for long-term unemployment and the natural rate of unemployment – that is the level of unemployment that is achievable without generating inflation.

Structural Unemployment – Unemployment arising from changes in demand or technology which lead to an oversupply of labour with particular skills or in particular locations. Structural unemployment does not result from an overall deficiency of demand and therefore cannot be cured by reflation, but only by retraining or relocation of the affected work-force, some of which may find work at low wages in unskilled occupations.

Structural Unemployment – The Beveridge Curve

There are those that see the problem of unemployment in most economies (but especially the US) as a structural issue. This refers to the mismatch between the jobs that are available and the skills that people have. Cyclical unemployment can be reduced by boosting demand – dropping taxes and increasing government spending (fiscal policy) and lowering interest rates (monetary policy). However, if unemployment is mainly structural patience is needed to wait for the market to sort things out, and this takes time.

The Beveridge curve is an empirical relationship between job openings (vacancies) and unemployment. It serves as a simple representation of how efficient labour markets are in terms of matching unemployed workers to available job openings in the aggregate economy. Economists study movements in this curve to identify changes in the efficiency of the labour market. It is common to observe movements along this curve over the course of the business cycle. For instance, as the economy moves into a recession, unemployment goes up and firms post fewer vacancies, causing the equilibrium in the labor market to move downward along the curve (the red arrows in the figure above). Conversely, as the economy expands, firms look for new hires to increase their production and meet demand, which depletes the stock of the unemployed – see graph below.

Careful analysis of Beveridge Curve data by economists Murat Tasci and John Lindner at the Cleveland Federal Reserve shows that it’s behaving much the way it has in previous recessions: there are as few job vacancies as you’d expect, given how desperate people are for work – see graph below. The percentage of small businesses with so-called “hard-to-fill” job vacancies is near a twenty-five-year low, and open jobs are being filled quickly. And one recent study showed that companies’ “recruiting intensity” has dropped sharply, probably because the fall-off in demand means that they don’t have a pressing need for new workers.

According to James Surowiecki from The New Yorker structural issues aren’t irrelevant, of course; there are certainly plenty of construction workers who are going to have start plying a new trade. But what defined the recent recession was the biggest decline in consumption and investment since the Depression. Dealing with that is the place to start if we want to do something about unemployment. The structural argument makes government action seem irrelevant.