Skip to content

We are at full employment, more or less

Last night I was chatting with some friends about all the recent problems with air travel. This led to someone mentioning the lack of workers to fully staff flights and then to the usual denouement of conversations like this: "No one wants to work anymore. They just want to sit at home and collect unemployment/stimulus checks/etc."

I responded, of course, for all the good it did me. (1) The unemployment rate is currently 3.6%, which is as low as it's been since before I was born. (2) The Labor Force Participation Rate among prime age workers is 82.6%, the best it's been in a decade aside from a few months at the end of 2019. (3) Real wages have been declining for the past year, which suggests there is not really a huge demand for more workers. (4) The raw employment level is just above 158 million, the same as it was before the pandemic. All of these things point in the same direction: we are at or near full employment. People are not sitting at home on their butts (at least, no more than usual).

As for airlines, here are the numbers:

Commercial airlines have more workers today than they did before the pandemic. And just in case you're curious, here are the numbers for restaurants:

Restaurants are one of the sectors that was hardest hit by the pandemic, and it's also the one that most visibly seems to be short of workers. But even at that employment is only down by 5% compared to the pre-pandemic era. That's not nothing, but it's also not a massive shortage.

Now I want to show you yet another way of looking at the employment level. This chart shows the number of workers required to produce $1 million in GDP:

This is my usual favorite way of looking at things: draw a trendline using only data through March 2020, extend it to the current month, and then see how it compares to reality. When reality is above the trendline, the economy is strong (as during the Clinton and Obama years). When it's below the trendline, the economy is in trouble (as during the jobless recovery of the aughts and the Great Recession of 2008-11).

For the past year, however, the number of workers has been right on trend, and at the moment it's a bit above. Given the amount of goods and services we're producing, we have exactly the number of workers you'd expect.

Now, maybe if we had more workers we could produce more and GDP would be higher. Maybe. But GDP is generally demand driven. If demand was there, wages would go up and non-workers would be drawn off the sidelines. But that hasn't been happening and still hasn't.

We're more or less at full employment right now. We can quibble over the last percent or so, but people are working, and they're working at about the level we'd expect. We don't have a "lazy butts on sofas playing video games" problem.

Of course, if the Fed has its way they'll engineer the recession they so desperately want and then we really won't have enough people working. But that will be Jerome Powell's fault, not anyone else's.

66 thoughts on “We are at full employment, more or less

  1. rick_jones

    Restaurants are one of the sectors that was hardest hit by the pandemic, and it's also the one that most visibly seems to be short of workers. But even at that employment is only down by 5% compared to the pre-pandemic era. That's not nothing, but it's also not a massive shortage.

    Well, that depends doesn't it? On whether the restaurant sector was "flush" with workers before the pandemic. And while it may not be completely accurate to apply queuing theory, if demand outstrips capacity, the depth of the queue infinite. Even if demand is only a tiny fraction larger than capacity.

    1. KenSchulz

      Even if humans behaved as queuing theory would have it (they don’t), the population of the world is finite, and so are our appetites. Hence the lack of infinite waits at your favorite restaurant.

      1. George Salt

        When I see a line at a restaurant, I usually go to another restaurant. I hate standing in line when I'm hungry -- it reminds me of the chow line during my time in the military.

      2. rick_jones

        Literalism aside, I trust the point came through. The restaurant sector could be facing a serious shortage even if it is down “only” 5% from before the pandemic.

        1. RZM

          "The restaurant sector could be facing a serious shortage "
          Yes, it could , but is it ? Lots of things "could" be true. Is demand down as well, in which case, fewer restaurant workers than pre-pandemic would be expected. I believe that take out orders are still a disproportionate amount of restaurant business and that would require fewer workers, yes ?
          It seems to me that Kevin's central point is correct. Do you disagree ?

          1. rick_jones

            I don't believe he's sufficiently supported his assertion the restaurant sector is indeed in decent shape. And in that vein I'll toss-in this anectote, which on its own signifies epsilon: The Subway sandwich shop I went to a couple few days ago was being run by one person. Said person was performing admirably, filling online and in-person orders. Still, the line was literally out the door.

        2. KenSchulz

          Could. Other factors: Is demand back, or are Covid-cautious former patrons still refraining from dining out? How much impact has increased automation made (kiosks in counter-service establishments, QR menus and smartphone order entry in table-service restaurants)? The latter, along with remote online ordering, has a significant effect on queue lengths, which influence decisions for George Salt and also a lot of folks who never stood in a chow line.

    2. kaleberg

      The restaurant sector does have a labor shortage. It had a labor shortage even before COVID. When Seattle raised its minimum wage in the late 20-teens, people predicted restaurant closures. Instead, more and more restaurants opened. Those that closed usually reported being unable to afford new higher rents as the area was booming with Amazon, Microsoft and others bringing in new workers.

      Restaurants, even those at the high end, are tightly staffed. Losing one worker out of a staff of twenty sounds minor, but it means changes in the kitchen to simplify meal preparation (e.g. menu changes) and having fewer workers on the floor serving customers. It can mean shorter hours for the restaurant. Even before COVID, there was a problem getting kitchen workers because the pay has been lousy, the work is hard and they aren't tipped. COVID did not make this problem easier to solve, nor did our robust recovery.

  2. spatrick

    We don't have a "lazy butts on sofas playing video games" problem.

    Especially if they're over 70. Read a story today that after the pandemic forced a lot of older workers into retirement (early and or otherwise), those same workers are starting to make their way back into the workforce as inflation starts to affect their incomes. Could help alleviate a lot of worker shortages in some fields.

    It amazes me that some people can't comprehend that you can't just remove more than half-million people still capable of working from the labor force due to COVID-19 and not have it affect your labor supply. Bottom line is we need to let in more immigrants and we need to expand more opportunities in different job fields through licensing and regulation reform.

    Here's a good example that ties into flying: One of the reasons for all the delays and cancelled flights is a pilot shortage. A lot of them are old, retiring and the number of newly licensed pilots is small. Would this be a great opportunity to find more pilots, help diversify the field (nearly all-white) which could close the wealth gap among different races with such a well-paying job. Let's get it done. Or be satisified or flight actually takes off in the next decade.

    1. Spadesofgrey

      Eh, nope. Inflation isn't effecting their incomes and frankly, inflation has lost steam. Once energy prices correct and oh that is starting, the main crash still to come. Your inflation is toast. Underlying inflation isn't there.

      1. skeptonomist

        Social Security payments are adjusted by the CPI as are some other retirement payments, but savings are reduced by inflation, as are the assets of many pension plans. If your only income is Social Security you're practically starving.

    2. Jasper_in_Boston

      Someone on Twitter told me the airlines encouraged a lot of pilots to retire during the height of the pandemic. This was pointed out (or claimed) in the context of making a criticism about bailout money (the implication being the airlines used the money to pad their own profits, even as they reduced capacity).

      I have zero idea if it's a valid claim.

      1. Frederic Mari

        That's what I'd like to know too.

        If employment in the airlines is the same, why do they have problems with dealing with demand in line with pre COVID levels?

        What changed? And why?

        And if it was execs padding their compensation - shoot them.

      2. kennethalmquist

        Here are the Bureau of Labor Statistics counts of airline pilots, copilots, and flight engineers employed by the scheduled air transportation industry:

        May 2019 - 72,780
        May 2020 - 72,290
        May 2021 - 69,170

        The May 2022 data is not out yet, but we can see that employment did decline during the pandemic. One factor would be the lack of new hiring. As I understand it, the PSP (payroll support program) paid to keep existing pilots on the payroll but didn't provide funding for airlines to hire new pilots, so we would expect the number of pilots to decrease as pilots retired and were not replaced. It's probably also the case that pilots retired at a higher rate than they would have if there had been work for them to do.

    3. lawnorder

      Labor shortages are a good thing; they put upward pressure on real wages, which have not kept up with increases in productivity for decades. The government should NOT increase immigration to alleviate labor shortages.

    4. kaleberg

      This doesn't take into account that a lot of people WANT to retire. The current retirement cohort, the baby boomers, is a big one. A lot of them were contemplating retirement even before COVID. Since one only has so many years on this earth, after a certain age retirement decisions are less about whether one can continue working than about whether one wants to continue working. Personal inertia is a powerful force. It takes an effort of will to make a change. COVID provided a locus poenitentiae, a time to think and re-evaluate. Deciding to retire at 62 or 72 is only partly a financial decision.

      I agree that the airlines need to hire a new generation of pilots. Dropping the hours required gets one a short pop of supply. All the pilots with, let's say, from 1000 to 1500 hours are suddenly qualified, but they're from the same pool as ever. From then on, the pipeline is thin, pay is low at the bottom rungs, and only so many people are called to the profession. It might help if pay were better up and down the scale, but the market for flight is price sensitive and the people running most companies squeal like stuck pigs when it is suggested that they raise pay.

  3. rick_jones

    Of course, if the Fed has its way they'll engineer the recession they so desperately want and then we really won't have enough people working. But that will be Jerome Powell's fault, not anyone else's.

    Well, kinda sorta, maybe: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/22/president-biden-nominates-jerome-powell-to-serve-as-chair-of-the-federal-reserve-dr-lael-brainard-to-serve-as-vice-chair/

    Today, President Biden announced his intent to nominate Jerome Powell for a second term as Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

    And, how he got there in the first place:

    In December 2011, along with Jeremy C. Stein, Powell was nominated to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by President Barack Obama.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Powell#Federal_Reserve_Board_of_Governors
    And there is still the small matter of it taking more than just the Chair to set Fed policy. There are the (up to) six other members of the board involved... and I assume it takes a majority vote of the board to change rates.

      1. rick_jones

        Perhaps, but given Kevin’s previous propensity to blame things on a single individual, I find it unlikely.

        1. Jasper_in_Boston

          Powell is very, very, very far from the worst person who could potentially have become Fed Chief. Also, in sheer political terms, it's not at all clear having an err-on-the-side-of-full-employment-liberal would be in the best interests of the Democratic Party at this particular juncture. Inflation absolutely must be brought down or Dems are going to be blown out of the water in 2024 (a pretty bad loss in 2022 is a foregone conclusion in my view, Roe or no Roe).

          Yes, a bad recession lingering in 2024 likewise means Biden's probably a one-termer, but there's at least a possibility that: A) we'll have an inflation-lowering soft landing over the next year or so, followed by stronger growth thereafter; B) we'll have an actual recession, but it will be mild, and growth will have resumed by early 2024; C) we will indeed have a fairly sharp downturn, but it will be an old-school recession characterized by a V-shaped recovery in 2024.

          Any of the above three scenarios gives Joe a fighting chance (I'd guess a strong chance) at a second term, absent election nullification.

          1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

            Joe Biden will no longer be the occupant of No. 10 Downing, nor the German chancellor, if inflation doesn't come down.

          2. KenSchulz

            Monty nails it. Neither Pres. Biden nor Chmn. Powell nor the Fed BoG have significant control over the worldwide causes of price runups.

    1. golack

      There have been some stories in the news of Powell becoming a full inflation hawk. But he as also pointed out that some things are beyond the control of the Fed, e.g war in Russia.

      Next hike should not be more than 0.25%, and then hold there. If that kills off crypto, then chip shortages and even power costs will ease a little. Nothing the Fed does will help the drought in the western US nor the heatwaves everywhere.

      1. KenSchulz

        Won’t cure bird flu either, though that seems to have mostly passed on its own. Unfortunately, the only way the Fed can significantly bring down prices in the US is to engineer a recession, so that’s what they have set about to do.
        I am inclined to think that certain salient prices, like house prices and rentals, are bid up from the top of the market and ripple down through the lower tiers, so that a surtax on high incomes could counter upward pressure. Isn’t this worth trying? Considering all the times we’ve tried tax cuts for the rich, without any positive effect on the economy, why not try the opposite?

        1. golack

          Housing prices are being affected by investment funds. Trump's tax cut for the rich mean there is more money to invest. If it went to local businesses, great. But that's not how things really work. Money goes into investment funds looking for return. The best way to get return is rent seeking. And in some cases, that involves actual rent.
          1. Trailer parks used to be mom and pop affairs--now they get bought out by investment firms who can jack up rents--it's not like they can actually move their trailer.
          2. Buy up homes to rent out. Sorry first time home buyers--we can pay cash now.

          Minor cosmetic improvements and jack up rates. Don't have to worry like last time when building boom flooded the market with homes people couldn't afford and left investors stuck with empty homes.

          The increase in rates also means less money for "startups" to burn. So no more subsidized Uber and Lyft rides. So now the rates charged by taxis don't seem so bad.

  4. Spadesofgrey

    I don't see the point for adjusting to cpi. It's wrong and likely historically wrong. The best you can do is take nominal growth and guess.

  5. James Bowater

    I sit at home, drinking coffee, reading and replying to blogs and watching tv - mind, I am retired and I have wonky legs - I use a stick when I go out . I`m 74 .

  6. George Salt

    Is Gavin Newsom thinking about changing jobs? He's running anti-GOP/DeSantis ads in Florida:

    "Gavin Newsom airs anti-GOP ad in Florida."
    https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/election/presidential-election/article263142373.html

    Perhaps Joe Biden believes that the proper response to four years of Trump is lower the political thermostat and return the country to a sense of normalcy. And maybe he'll be proven right in the long term, but at the moment, the "Republican fever" shows no signs of breaking in the near future. In fact, the Trumpian base has been energized by their recent victories at the Supreme Court and they want more. On the other side of the aisle, the base of the Democratic Party is yearning for a fighter and Newsom seems to get that.

    It all depends on whether Joe Biden is willing to step aside in 2024. If Joe intends to run in 2024, he'll have to get much more aggressive in confronting the rabid rightwing.

    1. iamr4man

      The press, including the linked article, continues to treat DeSantis with kid gloves. If Florida had California’s Covid death rate 25,000 Floridians would still be alive. But I have yet to see that mentioned in the MSM even as DeSantis brags about his Covid response and how great the Florida economy is.

    2. Jasper_in_Boston

      I watched the ad. VERY smart political communication. Not one Floridian in 10 can probably afford to relocate to Cali, but that's not the point.

      (TBH I'm skeptical a coastal liberal's a good idea for the Dem presidential nomination, but that's also not the point!).

      Next nominee for Dems (if Biden doesn't run; I personally think he will) probably should be some Midwestern governor in a barn coat who shoots possums on the weekend and listens to Lynyrd Skynyrd on his way to NASCAR races.*

      But still, Dems are hungering for a fighter. So well-done, Newsom.

      *(I'd love think we're the kind of country that could elect a Kennedyesque blue-stater as president, but I doubt we still are).

      1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

        I want Biden-Harris re-elect in 2024, then, knock wood (assuming a surprise, but good, outcome in Texas Gov & KS2 this year), a Sharice Davids-Beto O'Rourke run in 28. Whitmer or Newsom would be a decent fallback.

        & Buttigieg? Virginia Governor in 25?

      2. lawnorder

        If the Democrats run a Republican-lite, people will vote for the real Republican. If the Democrats want to win, their candidate will be a real Democrat.

        1. Jasper_in_Boston

          If the Democrats run a Republican-lite, people will vote for the real Republican.

          I don't want Republican-lite. I just want someone who plays one on TV. Fetterman comes to mind. Gives off "common man" vibes, but he appears to be a relatively straightforward social democrat. Bernie had a degree of that, too (authenticity). For better or worse (definitely for worse) up-for-grabs, low-info voters appear to place high importance on cultural, branding stuff, as in "who wouldn't I mind having a beer with?" It's a maddeningly idiotic sentiment, but it appears to be very real.

          (Relatedly, Democrats arguably haven't elected a full-throated economic populist-progressive since FDR. I wish the electorate weren't so irrational with respect to its own interests, but my wishes aren't particularly relevant.)

          1. lawnorder

            LBJ took the Roosevelt legacy and ran with it. Which of Johnson and Roosevelt was more progressive is hard to say, but they were both definitely full-throated economic populiast-progressives. Since Johnson, not so much.

            1. George Salt

              After LBJ, the Democrats lost 5 of 6 presidential elections. McGovern was to the left of LBJ and he lost in a landslide. Mondale was the last of the New Dealers and he lost in a landslide. Dukakis was pretty liberal and he lost, too.

            2. Jasper_in_Boston

              I'd argue LBJ didn't become a "full-throated" economic populist until the Great Society programs were enacted, which was after 1964, and of course he wasn't elected after that (which was my claim). And, while LBJ was willing to let it rip in terms of spending, he was no FDR in bringing the rich to heel, which I'd furthermore argue is a necessary component to economic populism.

        2. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

          Who is GQP Lite? Davids? Newsom? O'Rourke? Whitmer?... Oh, you mean Mc Kinsey Pete...

          Carry on, Man Still Bitter Over the 2020 Iowa Caucus.

      3. KenSchulz

        I never thought the South, Midwest and Mountain West would vote for a rich con man from scary, godless, libertine New York City, either.

    3. spatrick

      I'm sorry but I just can't see Gov. "French Laundry" carrying my state of Wisconsin, let alone Michigan or Pennsylvania.

      It's typical of the myopia of some Democrats who buy into the "young fighter" mentality that there would-be replacements really would have no chance in a general elections. They are either too unknown, too metrosexual, past losers and or unable to get the votes of large number of Republicans and independents needed to win. That candidate with that kind of balance and the only one, like it or not, is Joe Biden.

      1. golack

        Not sure who on bench has Bill Clinton's "bubba" factor. Or in coastal terms, Norm and not Cliff. That is, someone you'd want to have a beer with, and by beer, I mean a PBR.

      2. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

        Not to go all Shooter2242/Spades o' Gray, buy if the French Laundry was going to hurt Newsom, we would have Gov. "Hello, Larry" Elder in Sacramento right now.

        It's old news.

        1. rick_jones

          Depends on whether or not Newsom and perhaps more importantly his staff have truly learned from that own goal…

  7. Zephyr

    I suspect that part of the shortage in restaurant and service workers is due to the fact that when many were laid off during the pandemic, or quit after deciding they didn't want to risk their lives, they made a big effort to move on to work that was more rewarding financially, more stable, and safer. This is one reason wages didn't grow as fast below the lowest rungs--there was a surge in people looking for higher paying jobs that weren't hourly and subject to crazy schedule changes.

  8. Vog46

    I am NOT an economist but it makes NO SENSE to me for KD to use workers per million of GDP - and go as far back as 1985.
    These numbers are not accurate but are illustrative
    GM uses 20,000 workers to make $5B worth of cars
    Amazon uses 2,000 to sell $50B of merchandise
    One uses 10 times hte labor but the other sells 10 times more merch. Both contribute to GDP
    And AMZN" was not around in 1985. Online shopping selling and merchandising has fundamentally changed retail.

    As for the airlines? OT for TSA workers has now returned to PRE PANDEMIC levels. Now that in itself is NOT a major headline but think about what it's telling us. PRIOR to COVID TSA was shorthanded, Now its worse. Why? Because demand for airline travel has increased since MORE people have "time" to fly. And allowing for increased immigration will NOT Help the airlines. They may help out in AGriculture and construction but in skilled positions? Nope. And Delta pilots are picketing because of too much OT as well as low wages. ( I don't know if they get extra $ for OT or compensatory time off for working extra. If its compensatory time that you can carry from year to year that may explain some of the exodus from airline jobs.

    But the overall point here is this. Pandemic or not the Boomers were going to transfer from being producers/ consumers to being consumers only regardless of the pandemic. we are there now. We just have to adjust. COVID made people rethink jobs in general.

      1. Vog46

        golack
        That articles stats only go to 2019.
        My point was that there are many people who like to work past the age of 65. These people are BOTH producers and consumers, so there's some balance. COVID forced MANY of those workers out of the work force and they became consumers ONLY. Now we have increased numbers of consumers and decreased numbers of producers . ANYONE who was 62 or older when COVID hit AND WAS WORKING - may MAY have taken themselves out of the workforce.
        In a normal world the "balance" would have remained in play but the combination or an older workforce and COVID made an imbalance that has lead to worker shortages in just about all occupations

    1. lawnorder

      Obviously, retail and manufacturing are different. To actually get contribution to GDP, you need to look at value added, not just gross revenue. If Amazon, or Walmart, buys e.g. a book at $9.00 wholesale price and sells it for $10.00 retail, that's $1.00 of value added. In order to get a $10.00 sale, GM probably buys less than $5.00 worth of parts and raw materials, which means that at GM $10.00 of sales means $5.00 or more of value added.

      1. Vog46

        But aren't MOST things sold on AMAZON and in WalMart imported which adds to the trade deficit and decreases GDP?
        Whereas auto manufacturing sources SOME parts here in the U.S.?

        Like I said I'm NOT an economist but I am willing to learn, hence the questions.

        1. lawnorder

          A lot of retail goods are imported. Imports add to the trade deficit, but don't affect GDP; the markups taken in the US by e.g Walmart are counted as part of US GDP, but the price at the exporter's docks isn't. (Who gets to claim the cost of shipping is unclear; if a container load of widgets is priced at a dollar a widget when it's loaded on a ship in China and it costs five cents a widget to get it to a dock in the US, somebody's GDP gets credited with five cents a widget, but I don't know whose; Liberia's maybe. ).

    2. Jasper_in_Boston

      Amazon uses 2,000 to sell $50B of merchandise
      One uses 10 times hte labor but the other sells 10 times more merch. Both contribute to GDP

      GDP calculations aren't derived by simply tallying up revenue figures, bur rather, by figuring out the added value of an economic activity. IOW you can't look at Amazon's sales and say "wow, they increased GDP by $300 billion."

      Instead Amazon increases GDP by (to oversimplify a bit) the markup it can command (in other words its gross margin).

  9. name99

    Keven, are these sorts of statistics available at a per city level rather than nationwide?
    Employment, like housing prices, is local; and while it may be true that the US, as a whole, is doing like you say, it may *also* be true that, in the big "media" cities (LA, NYC, Chicago, SF, ...), it remains difficult to find employees (for whatever reason, whether "they want to stay home and watch TV" or "they aren't being" offered enough compensation").

    My experience in the LA area, for example. is that people still seem to be having difficulty finding employees in multiple fields. (No opinion as to why.)

  10. kaleberg

    That worker per GDP chart clears something up for me. I know that an hour of work has bought a smaller and smaller share of the GDP since the 1960s. That chart shows that this is because we need fewer workers to produce things. That's exactly what the automation crowd had been saying for a long time. All a manufacturing company like Spacely Sprockets needs is George Jetson to come in to work and push a button, then spend the rest of his shift getting up to comic shenanigans.

    The problem is that this limits growth since almost all of that increased ability to produce is not showing up as wages. Some of it comes back to workers as government benefits and subsidies, but that leaves a lot of production going to people other than workers. It's not necessarily that the average American is worse off, though the disappearance of mid-level jobs has stratified our society, it's that the average American could be much better off.

    This is a very different America from the one Walt Whitman evoked with his "I Hear America Singing". We could have all been George Jetson. Instead, more and more of us are just one of Spacely's Sprockets.

    1. skeptonomist

      No, automation does not limit growth, it is the reason the standard of living even for poor people is much higher than it was 200 years ago, and also that most people work less (although progress in hours work basically stopped around 1940).

      Workers in the US have been losing ground since around 1970 and inequality has increased for various political and world-competition reasons, not because there has been more automation.

      1. skeptonomist

        Kevin's chart is the inverse of productivity, so it shows that productivity has been fairly steadily increasing, although there have been significant variations. It does *not* show who has been getting that increase in production. That is shown for example by this:

        https://skeptometrics.org/BLS_B8_Min_Pov

        Wages have not increased nearly as fast as productivity since 1973. Upper incomes, especially the 1%, have got most of the productivity increase.

  11. Mitch Guthman

    One thing that’s getting lost here (and one reason why I’m leery of number) is that people and jobs are not readily interchangeable. This is particularly true of both airlines and restaurants.

    Once you move past fast food chains, many restaurant jobs require a high level of skill and as you move up the “food chain” the requirements for skilled workers actually expands. And, unless you’re a “restaurant person” working in a restaurant in any capacity is a very demanding stressful and not necessarily high paying job so if there’s something better for more money, those are the jobs people want.
    But it takes a lot of time for new people to decide to take these jobs and even longer to learn them.

    Similarly, pilots, airplane mechanics, even customer service workers don’t grow on trees. The airlines laid off a lot of very highly skilled people who now have either taken early retirement or want more money to come back. Which also demonstrates that giving businesses free money and hoping they do the right is a very poor strategy.

  12. rick_jones

    Commercial airlines have more workers today than they did before the pandemic. And just in case you're curious

    And how many more flights, if any, are being operated today than were before the pandemic?

  13. skeptonomist

    GDP per worker or GDP per hours worked are measures of productivity, so Kevin's meaure is inverse productivity. Productivity is considered to be affected most by investment, not how hard people work or how many there are. The more investment, the more labor saving machinery, and over most of history the more machinery vs manpower the higher the standard of living, the fears of the robot-are-coming people notwithstanding. So when reality is above the trendline, productivity growth is poor. This may mean more people employed, but it is not economic progress as it has been since the start of the industrial revolution.

    But I think Kevin is right that there is basically full employment. Although there are still people staying out because of covid, we are also still seeing the effects of various kinds of disruption because of covid. Many kinds of goods production are still being held up by supply-chain problems, not potential workers sitting at home.

  14. Justin

    In my local area we are definitely at full employment. The recent hourly hires where I work really aren’t even up to the task of the job they were hired to do (manufacturing). They need lots of hand holding. It’s going to take a while. Meanwhile some are washing out because they lack the… um… social skills to work and play well with others. It’s a fascinating social experiment to be sure.

    I get to see all the pathologies and social dysfunction up close. And management hasn’t got a clue how to get them trained up. Watching a 22 year old engineering college grad working along side the 20 something barely literate drop out is hysterical and a clear illustration of the challenges of helping the losers. No one really gets the dynamic… neither lefty nor wing nuts. It’s really to late to save them.

  15. golack

    Just to note, just because airlines employment levels are up does not mean they have enough pilots. Certification on different aircraft takes time. Even those coming back from retirement will have to be re-certified. And there is a limit to the thru-put for certification. The airlines also had problems with pilots getting enough air time during covid to retain certification. It will slowly get better over time--but expect high prices and delays this summer.

Comments are closed.