EclectEcon

Economics and the mid-life crisis have much in common: Both dwell on foregone opportunities

C'est la vie; c'est la guerre; c'est la pomme de terre                                     A View from/of the Econochasm by John Palmer

Richard Posner deserves the next Nobel Prize in Economics
Please consider using these links if you are ordering from Amazon: Amazon.com, Amazon.ca, Amazon.uk

<< main
What Is the Natural Unemployment Rate in Canada?
Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, most of us in Canada used to talk about the natural unemployment rate as being around 7 - 7.5% when the actual unemployment rates were 8% or higher. Economic conditions have changed since then. The social safety net is lower, reducing optimal search times for job-seekers. But how much has the natural unemployment rate fallen? Could it possibly have fallen to under 6.5%? Canada has been experiencing unemployment rates well under 6.5% for quite some time now (see this for an article about the most recent drop back down to 6.1%).
Job gains have registered the hottest start to the year in a quarter century, with more than 103,000 jobs created in the first two months of 2007, according to National Bank Financial.

February's jobless rate, meantime, unexpectedly fell to 6.1 per cent from 6.2 per cent, Statscan said. [emphasis added]
I know that the natural unemployment rate is pretty much a guess about what would result from job search if people's expectations were in line with reality, and it is still clear that people's expectations are not in line with reality, on average. But what is the reality, and what will it be when people's expectations are in line with reality and they adjust their job search accordingly?

Under today's economic conditions, 6.5% sounds about right to me. But I expect Gabriel Mihalache might not buy into this idea very readily.
<< main






To leave a comment, please post as "guest"
Gabriel M. (www):
I wouldn't. I will buy into the idea of a steady state, with both supply-side and demand-side determinants but I see no reasons for this steady state path to be smooth and slowly changing (or constant in the short-run).

Regarding expectations, the key question is... expectations of what? In a McCall-ish setting (where all unemployment arises because of decisions of the worker), it's expectations regarding the distribution of wages offered.

Outside of a few professions, it's very hard for me to see how an unemployed person's expectations about offers might be wrong, now in the age of Monster.com and everything else. (And people talk about labor market conditions pretty much, maybe more than about any other market.)
3.12.2007 2:05am
Gabriel M. (www):
... on the other hand, expectations (of demand, prices, etc.) on the firm side might generate the desired results (expect maybe for the persistence--smooth path, etc.).
3.12.2007 2:10am
Bobbi (mail):
Could you please offer a theory of why the US seems to have a much lower unenployment rate? I know they 'count/measure' differently than we do, but it seems to be a general number of under 5 per cent uneployment in the US. Why (to both parts of the question)? How come we can't reach that level? What factor of the US economy has it reaching past it supply of 'home grown' labour to have such a voracious need for illegal immigration? Do economies function best with a pool of ultra-low cost work? Can a quasi socialist state (Canada) ever reach labour efficiency without ultra low cost options?

Have I given you a headache yet?:) This isn't my field at all. I only particpate in my local market, not experience the wider one, let alone measure and study it. But if you could answer how the US has a lower number I would really appreciate it.
3.12.2007 12:52pm
EclectEcon:
Bobbi:
My guess is that the US unemployment rate is generally lower than the Cdn rate (Alberta excepted) because the U.S. has a lower social safety net. As a result, people are more desperate to take jobs there than here; or put differently, they do not search as long for a job there.

I'm not sure, but even Gabriel might agree with this explanation.
3.12.2007 1:25pm
Gabriel M. (www):
Yes. The opportunity cost of taking a job (i.e. taking unemployment benefits one more month) must be the biggest part of the explanation. But I don't think it should be all the explanation.

It's true that anyone could always open an apple stand on their street corner, and in this sense all unemployment is voluntary... but... still...

Another part might be played by the legislation imposing extra costs on companies, costs associated with hiring and firing.

Beyond that, anything which influences productivity, including the weather (no one would be surprised that a drought will depress jobs in the agricultural sector, for example)

But to be franc, I don't think I can put all of these "sources" of unemployment into a single model... maybe a in few months/years :)
3.12.2007 1:47pm
© 2005