John Taylor: Problem is cyclical, not structural

Taylor leaves it vague:

There is no longer debate that the labor market performance in this recovery–and the recovery itself–is unusually weak.  The debate is now over why. I have argued that it is the economic policy.

Research by Christopher Erceg and Andrew Levin is providing solid evidence that the decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 has been due to cyclical factors–the recession and slow recovery–rather than to demographic factors.  In other words, the fact that such a large number of people have dropped out of the labor force is associated with the weak economy rather than to their reaching their retirement years–or some other typical demographic trend.  Because the unemployment rate does not count the people who dropped out of the labor force it no longer gives a good reading of the state of the labor market. The unemployment rate would be much higher without this large decline in labor force participation.

In the latest version of their paper Chris and Andy estimate how large the US unemployment rate would be without this abnormal decline in the labor force, and they produced this amazing chart which summarizes their findings:

Not just policy_1

Taylor talks vaguely about “policy”. To MMs, it´s very much about inadequate monetary policy.

I reproduce Taylor´s chart on the change of the employment population ratio following the recoveries from the 1981/82 recession and the 2007-09 recession. I add a chart that depicts the change in the E/Pop ratio during the downturns that preceded them.

Not just policy_2

Note that in the 2007-09 downturn the labor market situation got really bad (in relative terms) after mid-2008.

Would that be linked to what happened to NGDP, which tanked at that point? The next chart shows for both the downturns and the recoveries the behavior of NGDP. It seems it´s not just “policy” gone wrong, but specifically monetary policy going “off track”!

Not just policy_3

3 thoughts on “John Taylor: Problem is cyclical, not structural

  1. I am surprised…I would have guessed Taylor would say structural. Meaning nothing for monetary policy to do.
    I sometimes suspect Taylor is a closet MM’er just waiting for a GOP president so he can come out of the closet…

  2. OT Krugman’s last post about Sweden actually is great…why is it American economists can look at a Japan and a Sweden and understand what to do…but when they look at the USA they get confused….

  3. Pingback: In Monetary Policy the Problem Is Cyclical, Not Structural - The Corner The Corner

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.