Stagnant private sector
With the fall elections just three months away, President Obama recently summoned corporate leaders to the White House again to urge them to start hiring.
The president doesn't seem to understand that his own policies have created pervasive uncertainty about the government's future actions, causing many private investors to steer clear of new commitments to long-term investment -- the kind that gives rise to additional private-sector jobs.
The unemployment situation, of course, is dismal. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the standard unemployment rate more than doubled after the economy began to contract early in 2008 and now seems stuck near 10 percent.
More significant, however, is the employment shortfall, because hours worked, in conjunction with the productive use of capital, natural resources and energy, gives rise to what we really want from the economy: goods and services.
BLS data show that between 1960 and 1970, the number of hours worked in the private business sector increased 12 percent. In each subsequent decade -- 1970-80, 1980-90, and 1990-2000 -- hours worked increased 18 percent per decade, or about 65 percent overall from 1970 to 2000.
During the past decade the growth stopped. When the economy turned down after 2000, business sector employment fell by 5 percent during the following three years. Although employment recovered after 2003, the economy ran out of steam again at the end of 2007. So, for the seven-year period as a whole there was no gain.
At that point, the most recent recession set in, pushing hours worked in the business sector down by more than 9 percent by the third quarter of 2009. Since then, hardly any gain has occurred, and the hours being worked today in America's businesses are roughly equal to the number being worked in 1995.
Unless an unexpectedly rapid improvement occurs soon, Americans will endure not a Japanese-style "lost decade," but a lost decade and a half or more.
Construction employment has fallen the most -- about 28 percent -- reflecting the housing bust. Employment in durable goods manufacturing, such as autos and appliances, fell more than 20 percent; in nondurable goods manufacturing the decline was more than 10 percent.
Employment in utilities has remained almost unchanged, and hours in leisure and hospitality services are down less than 5 percent. But elsewhere in the service sector, hours for most types of work are stuck at a level about 8 percent below their 2007 peak.
Government employment has resisted the trend. America's local, state and federal governments employ 16 percent more people than they did in 1995. Given the uncertainty about how much value, if any, many of these government employees are producing, this development scarcely compensates for the losses in private employment.
Genuine economic recovery requires the one thing we are least likely to see: a substantial reduction of government expenditure, taxes and regulations, along with a credible government commitment to stay this less burdensome course. This would give private entrepreneurs the confidence and time to generate the prosperity only they can create.
Unfortunately, anemic private employment tempts politicians to intervene even more in the economy, heightening the uncertainty and discouraging investors further in a vicious cycle.
Robert Higgs is senior fellow in political economy for The Independent Institute (independent.org), editor of The Independent Review and author of "Crisis and Leviathan."
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.