Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Korean trade in flux, NAFTA debate starts
Ag reps journey to Japan to promote sales of meat
Experts: Cash rent may stay flat, or decline, in near future
Boosting Tobbacco photosynthesis could apply to food crops as well
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
How fast could economy grow at full employment?
It’s August, the start of the fall semester, and a good time to figure out what’s going on in the economy. There are some new limits on what can happen, because we’re close to full employment.
 
When the economy is not at full employment, there are more people searching for work than there are jobs available. When a job opens up, there are people to fill it. There are empty business rentals searching for occupants. When a tenant shows up, a new business will open.

There are factories operating at less than full capacity. When an order arrives, production expands.

An economy can grow faster if it has unemployed people, buildings and equipment. All that’s needed is someone wanting to buy what businesses and their employees can produce.

What happens when the economy reaches full employment? There may be no one to fill new jobs when they open. The number of people newly entering the labor force, minus the people retiring, puts a limit on job growth.

An entrepreneur may have a great business idea, but no empty space to rent. Space becomes available only when construction companies and their workers build new buildings. A factory operating flat out may have to refuse an order until new equipment is purchased and new employees are hired.

At full employment, an economy is limited by the growth of the labor force, and the growth of the tools and technology that workers use. The United States economy is pretty close to full employment as of mid-2017. The unemployment rate is 4.3 percent, the lowest rate since January 2001.

The labor force is growing slowly, only 0.8 percent over the past year. Between 1980 and 2007 – when the baby boomers were old enough to work but not to retire – the labor force grew 1.4 percent per year. Now the number of people newly available to work is growing more slowly.

Labor productivity is growing slowly too. It can be measured by the value of goods and services that the average worker produces. Productivity had a burst of growth between 1996 and 2005, with all that new information technology. Output per worker grew 2.1 percent per year. But productivity growth has slowed. Since 2005, it’s grown only 0.8 percent per year.

Add it up. During the years 1996 to 2005, a fullyemployed economy could grow 3.5 percent per year, the sum of 1.4 percent labor force growth and 2.1 percent productivity growth. Now, though, with 0.8 percent labor force growth plus 0.8 percent productivity growth, the economy can average only 1.6 percent per year.

What if consumers, or businesses, or governments, or the rest of the world try to buy goods and services at a pace above 1.6 percent per year? Then something’s got to give. Businesses might raise wages, to attract people from retirement or out of the home. Then labor force growth would increase. Businesses that can’t find workers might invest in automation. Then productivity would increase.

Businesses might offer training to less-qualified people. Then the unemployment rate would fall a little. Businesses might raise prices in the face of spending they can’t satisfy. Then inflation would increase.
 
“Extra burden” is an interesting and revealing phrase for what should be at the very center of all farm bills: a clear public benefit – cleaner water, less soil erosion, more vibrant rural communities, and a safe, abundant food supply to name but a few – in return for the subsidies received by farmers.

Accountability, after all, is how welldeserving farmers and ranchers build trust with hungry, helpful taxpayers.

But today our farm and political leaders often are so scared of their own shadow – a primary challenger, a knee-buckling White House tweet, some awful “activist” with an idea that challenges convention – that few pause to consider what change could mean for rural America’s economic and cultural future.

And yet change is what is needed to make tomorrow a new day, not another Groundhog Day again and again and again.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Alan Guebert may write to him in care of
this publication. 
9/7/2017