Sent to you via Google Reader
“Same data, two charts, two different impressions, both fundamentally true yet also fundamentally misleading in opposite ways. When data and politics mix beware the power of graphs to imply their own conclusions, even with the same data. And appreciate the rhetorical success of a graph that does it’s creator’s bidding.”
“This paper provides new evidence on job search intensity of the unemployed in the U.S., modeling job search intensity as time allocated to job search activities. The major findings are: 1) the average U.S. unemployed worker devotes about 41 min to job search on weekdays, which is substantially more than their European counterparts; 2) workers who expect to be recalled by their previous employer search substantially less than the average unemployed worker; 3) across the 50 states and D.C., job search is inversely related to the generosity of unemployment benefits, with an elasticity between −1.6 and −2.2; 4) job search intensity for those eligible for Unemployment Insurance (UI) increases prior to benefit exhaustion; and 5) time devoted to job search is fairly constant regardless of unemployment duration for those who are ineligible for UI.”
Sent to you via Google Reader
Commenting on this post, Daniel Kuehn suggests that when Paul Krugman advocates European-style labor-market restrictions and subsidies, he (Krugman) does so not as a means of increasing employment today – in the midst of a recession – but, rather, as a means of keeping employment from falling as dramatically from its boom-time highs. As Daniel puts it, “Krugman was clearly advocating an unemployment-smoothing strategy across the business cycle, which would increase unemployment in boom times but reduce it in busts.”
Having re-read Krugman’s column several times, I disagree with Daniel regarding Krugman’s intent. Krugman might well believe that such labor-market policies are desirable in part because they are “unemployment-smoothing.” But in his column he talks about what can and ought to be done now to reduce America’s current double-digit unemployment rate.
But for the sake of argument let me grant, during the remainder of this post, that Daniel’s interpretation of Krugman is correct. Alas, such a generous reading of the Princeton professor does little to save him from being justly accused of having infused the column in question with questionable economics.
Below, as reported by the OECD, are annual unemployment rates for Germany and the U.S. for the ten-year periord 1998 through 2007. (I chose this period because I want reliable comparable data for both countries — so I use the OECD’s reported data for both countries, and 2007 is the most-recent year for which the OECD provides annual unemployment rates for each of these countries.)
Year Germany U.S.
1998 9.0% 4.5%
1999 8.3% 4.2%
2000 7.5% 4.0%
2001 7.6% 4.7%
2002 8.4% 5.8%
2003 9.3% 6.0%
2004 9.8% 5.5%
2005 10.6% 5.1%
2006 9.8% 4.6%
2007 8.4% 4.6%
While it’s true that Germany’s unemployment rate today of 7.7% is lower than America’s current rate of 10.2%, it’s very difficult to look at the above numbers on unemployment rates over recent years and conclude that European-style labor-market restrictions are good policies for people seeking gainful employment. The average rate of unemploymen…
Daniel J. SmithSent Via Mobile Phone