"Structural Unemployment" Is an Excuse for Inaction
Paul Krugman: the claim that current high levels of U.S. unemployment is "structural" is a fake excuse for not pursuing real solutions.* In this column, Krugman offers no solutions (though he does elsewhere), so ...
... The Constant Weader proposes a solution! --
The problem, then, is that demand is low. Americans aren't buying widgets & washing machines because they can't afford them, or think they can't afford them.
There are a couple of ways to increase demand.
Plan A is the George Bush way: tell everybody to go shopping. The trouble is, too many people took his advice (true, they were shopping till they dropped way before Bush suggested it). Americans ran up huge debts, often ballooning under the weight of absurd interest rates. Especially when the recession hit, they (1) either found themselves out of work or underemployed & really could not afford to pay off their debts, or (2) they still had jobs but realized they had better start paying off their usurious debts rather than buying a new car on credit. People who are fortunate enough to be in Category 2 are doing the right thing for their families by beginning to live within their means, even if they are constricting the economy.
So, let's go to Plan B. I call it redistributing the wealth. (And you may label me a socialist if you like.) If we want more money in circulation, let's tax the you-know-what out of the super-rich. That's the best way the government can increase demand: put the tax dollars of the rich to work employing the not-rich (that would be 97% of us).
High taxes for the rich aren't a "punishment" as Republicans &, last week, Ben Stein, complained. They're a privilege & an honor -- a badge of recognition that a taxpayer has done mighty well for himself. Congratulations are in order. Send the payers of high taxes fancy certificates. Send super-high payers engraved plaques. Let's spring for fancy silver loving cups for billionaires like Bill Gates & Warren Buffett. They deserve it for the great contributions they'll be making to the American economy.
Or, there's Plan C, advocated by Herbert Hoover & the Fed guy from Minnesota -- Kocherlakota. Plan C, of course, will bring on a full-blown 1930s-style depression, wherein we become officially a third-rate country, a hopeless debtor nation, unable to sustain our own people or to keep up with more robust economies.
The correct answer is "B."
If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions.
-- Winston Churchill
* On the One Hand. Krugman presents evidence there are no major labor shortages anywhere in the U.S., & there are no "major industries that are trying to expand but are having trouble hiring, [no] major classes of workers who find their skills in great demand, [and no] major parts of the country with low unemployment even as the rest of the nation suffers." ...
... On the Other Hand. Rana Foroohar of Newsweek says just the opposite. She says that "three fields — construction, manufacturing (particularly in the automotive sector), and finance — have been hit much harder than others." She says the housing crisis has also cost the labor force flexibility: "...with so many homeowners underwater on their mortgages, their ability to relocate has diminished."