Arnold Kling writes:
I challenge any supporter of the sticky-wage story (Bryan? Scott?) to write a 500-word essay explaining how this graph does not contradict their view. If employment fluctuations consisted of movements along an aggregate labor demand schedule, then employment should be at an all-time high right now.

My working story:
The graph helps tell the story. Labor’s share began a secular collapse sometime in the 1990s, leading to a large run-up in loanable funds. That run up put large downward pressure on the natural rate of interest. This was offset for a time by finding ways of expanding the pool of credit worthy borrowers through financial innovation. Once a major set of those methods was revealed to be untenable the natural rate of interest collapsed not only below the Funds rate but well below zero. The large gap between between the natural rate and the Funds rate put large downward pressure on aggregate labor demand resulting in the Great Recession.
To have cleared the labor market with the pool of borrowers available in 2009, real wages would have had to make up for over a decades worth of missed decline. This was exacerbated by the fact that falling nominal wage disbursements (whether from pay cuts or layoffs) further depress the pool of eligible borrowers by raising real debt levels, requiring even further falls in the real wage.

10 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ February 22nd, 2012 at 6:50 am
Sid
If the 1990′s collapse in labor’s share was secular, what caused it?
Wednesday ~ February 22nd, 2012 at 7:35 am
Bill Woolsey
Is a low and maybe negative natural interest rate consistent with a low and falling labor share of output?
Profit rising and interest falling sounds more like finance than factor shares. (risk issues)
Is it rent–return on natural resources?
Wednesday ~ February 22nd, 2012 at 8:39 am
thelondonflowerlover
just wow, you are not afraid to ask the questions and come up with solutions, you inspire us here, you reallly do. thank you for your blog
Wednesday ~ February 22nd, 2012 at 11:01 am
Becky Hargrove
“over a decades worth of missed decline” – clarity is a good thing after the first cup of coffee in the morning.
Wednesday ~ February 22nd, 2012 at 11:36 am
reason
Karl,
I have a problem with the following two sentences:
“Labor’s share began a secular collapse sometime in the 1990s, leading to a large run-up in loanable funds. That run up put large downward pressure on the natural rate of interest. ”
I suspect it is because I come from what is generally regarded as a small open economy (Australia). Are you treating the US as a completely closed economy here? Because otherwise the truth of the logic step is not obvious. In fact my view point is that this fall in the domestic natural rate of interest has a lot to do with neo-mercantilism and the USD status as a reserve currency. If that is what you are assuming, maybe you should be explicit about it.
Wednesday ~ February 22nd, 2012 at 12:27 pm
reason
In fact Karl,
if I compare the graph above with the one from this:
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/02/22/892201/why-mmt-is-like-an-autostereogram/
(http://av.r.ftdata.co.uk/files/2012/02/Sector-Financial-balances.jpg)
I seem to see a correlation with the GREEN bits (i.e. the capital account balance). Maybe this isn’t a coincidence.
Wednesday ~ February 22nd, 2012 at 12:28 pm
reason
OK – not with the levels shown (which are flows) but with accumulated balances.
Wednesday ~ February 22nd, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Joshua
I am completely confounded by this chart.
What exactly is it telling us?
What does it have to do with Industrialization?
What are the implications for the short & long term?
Thursday ~ February 23rd, 2012 at 4:14 am
reason
Thinking about this – I think the main issue is one of interpretation.
Given that average price markup relative to average unit labour cost is rising there are several possible interpretations
1. Profits are rising across the board
2. Some profits (really economic rents rising are rising)
3. Interest costs are high (they aren’t)
4. Net imports are growing
5. Foreign demand is driving prices
Why is the concentration only on one possible interpretation (1) instead of drying to look at the others.
Thursday ~ February 23rd, 2012 at 4:15 am
reason
oops
drying should be trying.