Cool! as many post about the geopolitical tech war, industrial policy and supply chains as possible please. Dont think there currently exist any good forum for this.
Can you please ask the substack creators to create an audio tool that reads the articles, like the New Yorker has. Trying to read through all the great substacks I already subscribe to is a deep strain on my eyes.
I'm new to this sub-thing, but it sure seems that Slow Boring has made comments paid. Should consider that since there's no blocking here.
Also, should consider doing crossovers for a maximum audience. A good thing about Twitter is that RT makes it easier to check out a different user in a way that little blue text does not. If it weren't for you I'd never met medlock thought, whose insights like yours have been a wonderful addition to my weeks.
One of the biggest economic mysteries is why the employment to population ratio has fallen in the U.S since 2000, but has risen practically everywhere else.
To give a few examples: in 2000, the U.S was ahead of Australia by 5%, but at the end of 2019 it was 2 percent behind. In 2000 the female epop ratio in the U.S was 10 percentage points higher than in Japan, but by the end of 2019 the U.S was 4 percentage points lower. Data is taken from OECD https://data.oecd.org/emp/employment-rate.htm#indicator-chart
Something very strange seems to be going on the U.S labor market.
My explanation is that firms are imposing higher effort demands on workers. How does this affect the labor participation rate? It goes like this:
1. Firms impose higher effort demands on workers; workers have to complete more tasks (for a higher wage) or be fired.
2. The higher wage does not compensate workers for their lost work leisure; thus workers look for less demanding job positions (or refuse to move up to more senior roles).
3. If one imagines a skill ladder, then all workers attempt to drop down a rung. This is easy for higher skilled workers, but what happens to workers at the bottom?
4. The lowest skilled workers compete for job openings with somewhat more skilled workers. Firms prefer to hire the more skilled worker, resulting in the lowest skilled workers being pushed out of employment altogether.
5. This assumes that employers can always identify the highest skilled worker from their pool of applicants. This won't always be the case; if the higher skilled worker has a bad interview or the weaker candidate has positive chemistry with the interviewer, then the objectively weaker candidate can win a job offer.
6. Thus provided the lowest skill workers are willing to keep searching for jobs they will eventually obtain a job offer and regain employment.
7. This means though that workers on the second lowest skill rung will be unable to drop down to the lowest rung unless they also increase their job search activity. And in turn this forces the workers above them to increase their job search.
8. Any person wanting a job now has to apply to many more job positions before they can get their first job offer. But after a string of failures, job seekers become discouraged and temporarily withdraw from the search process. It is this temporary withdrawal that is responsible for the drop in lfpr. For those who are the main breadwinners, the period of withdrawal will be short - perhaps only a few months. But for workers who are more marginally attached to the labor force, it could be years or forever.
9. Evidence for higher effort in the U.S can be found in the higher U.S productivity growth since 2000 vs peer economies.
10. Evidence of higher job search can be found in the elevated duration https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UEMPMEAN of unemployment, which in 2019 was still equal to recessionary levels. The American Time Use Survey also shows higher than normal time spent on job search.
Now you might ask why is this only happening in the U.S and why only after 2000?
To answer those questions requires a much longer analysis, which is contained in this article: https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/4060761-nathan-brooks/5478126-ssts, where I also explain why business investment has been low, the fall in the net labor share and the early 2000's trade shock, among other things.
Many many times I have seen great Twitter threads that should just be blog posts. I don't know how many of these I will subscribe to but there's more than a few I'm happy to pay for. Don't feel comfortable interacting on Twitter, I'm sure there are a lot of people that are also looking forward to a sane, pleasant comments section.
Looking forward to exposure to your k-pop memes and Japanese rock music taste
Hell yes this is gonna be awesome
Cool! as many post about the geopolitical tech war, industrial policy and supply chains as possible please. Dont think there currently exist any good forum for this.
Wait, the rabbit content guy writes about econ too?! What a bargain.
What's the probability that this blog starts evangelizing good anime at some point in the near future?
Noah, are you curious to know why since 2000 the prime age U.S lfpr has fallen but has increased everywhere else? I think I have the answer...
Can you please ask the substack creators to create an audio tool that reads the articles, like the New Yorker has. Trying to read through all the great substacks I already subscribe to is a deep strain on my eyes.
Ugh, how are we supposed to follow blogs without google reader? :(
There should of been a non-anime subscription option.
Get it Noah.
Always looking forward to your insights.
I'm new to this sub-thing, but it sure seems that Slow Boring has made comments paid. Should consider that since there's no blocking here.
Also, should consider doing crossovers for a maximum audience. A good thing about Twitter is that RT makes it easier to check out a different user in a way that little blue text does not. If it weren't for you I'd never met medlock thought, whose insights like yours have been a wonderful addition to my weeks.
The anti-twitter rebellion has begun!
Just subscribed. Looking forward to it. Have enjoyed your stuff on Bloomberg and the occasional Neoliberal episode.
Is it possible to subscribe by RSS?
Is that you on the horse? Or is that a stock "back in the saddle again" photo?
One of the biggest economic mysteries is why the employment to population ratio has fallen in the U.S since 2000, but has risen practically everywhere else.
To give a few examples: in 2000, the U.S was ahead of Australia by 5%, but at the end of 2019 it was 2 percent behind. In 2000 the female epop ratio in the U.S was 10 percentage points higher than in Japan, but by the end of 2019 the U.S was 4 percentage points lower. Data is taken from OECD https://data.oecd.org/emp/employment-rate.htm#indicator-chart
Something very strange seems to be going on the U.S labor market.
My explanation is that firms are imposing higher effort demands on workers. How does this affect the labor participation rate? It goes like this:
1. Firms impose higher effort demands on workers; workers have to complete more tasks (for a higher wage) or be fired.
2. The higher wage does not compensate workers for their lost work leisure; thus workers look for less demanding job positions (or refuse to move up to more senior roles).
3. If one imagines a skill ladder, then all workers attempt to drop down a rung. This is easy for higher skilled workers, but what happens to workers at the bottom?
4. The lowest skilled workers compete for job openings with somewhat more skilled workers. Firms prefer to hire the more skilled worker, resulting in the lowest skilled workers being pushed out of employment altogether.
5. This assumes that employers can always identify the highest skilled worker from their pool of applicants. This won't always be the case; if the higher skilled worker has a bad interview or the weaker candidate has positive chemistry with the interviewer, then the objectively weaker candidate can win a job offer.
6. Thus provided the lowest skill workers are willing to keep searching for jobs they will eventually obtain a job offer and regain employment.
7. This means though that workers on the second lowest skill rung will be unable to drop down to the lowest rung unless they also increase their job search activity. And in turn this forces the workers above them to increase their job search.
8. Any person wanting a job now has to apply to many more job positions before they can get their first job offer. But after a string of failures, job seekers become discouraged and temporarily withdraw from the search process. It is this temporary withdrawal that is responsible for the drop in lfpr. For those who are the main breadwinners, the period of withdrawal will be short - perhaps only a few months. But for workers who are more marginally attached to the labor force, it could be years or forever.
9. Evidence for higher effort in the U.S can be found in the higher U.S productivity growth since 2000 vs peer economies.
10. Evidence of higher job search can be found in the elevated duration https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UEMPMEAN of unemployment, which in 2019 was still equal to recessionary levels. The American Time Use Survey also shows higher than normal time spent on job search.
Now you might ask why is this only happening in the U.S and why only after 2000?
To answer those questions requires a much longer analysis, which is contained in this article: https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/4060761-nathan-brooks/5478126-ssts, where I also explain why business investment has been low, the fall in the net labor share and the early 2000's trade shock, among other things.
Many many times I have seen great Twitter threads that should just be blog posts. I don't know how many of these I will subscribe to but there's more than a few I'm happy to pay for. Don't feel comfortable interacting on Twitter, I'm sure there are a lot of people that are also looking forward to a sane, pleasant comments section.