Summers: Unions Cause Unemployment

by: David Sirota

Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 21:11


While Obama economic aide Larry Summers – the same Larry Summers who was the architect of deregulation in the late 1990s – has done a masterful job of accruing fawning profiles about himself in Time and the Wall Street Journal, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) last week said what the power worshiping Beltway media would never allow itself to say: Namely, that Summers shouldn’t be anywhere near the White House because his economic world view is out of step with economic reality today. DeFazio was referring to what he says are Summers anti-infrastructure spending views, and Summers has confirmed his right-wing frame with a recent letter to Congress deriding the whole concept of an industrial policy – as if that would be a horrific thing.

But just in case you didn’t think Summers was a conservative extremist, check out his published work claiming unions cause unemployment:

Another cause of long-term unemployment is unionization. High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy. Also, those who lose high-wage union jobs are often reluctant to accept alternative low-wage employment.

This is a pure form of the right-wing argument that says any effort to raise wages – unionization, a higher minimum wage, anything – is the reason our economy falters. And yet, the person who promotes this kind of thing – Larry Summers – has the ear of the president we want to lift wages, pass the Employee Free Choice Act and generally help reshape the economy in a progressive way.

To the casual observer, it is shocking to think that Summers retains his expert billing after playing a crucial role in destroying the economy. It is even more shocking that he has been hired to fix the economy he destroyed. But to anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes in Washington, D.C. it isn’t surprising at all. Summers is an unspectacular zombie in the Establishment’s Zombie Culture – a culture where nobody in the Establishment politically dies, no matter what they do, say or destroy. Unfortunately, that culture persists in this era of “change.”

David Sirota :: Summers: Unions Cause Unemployment

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Summer's isn't wrong. (4.00 / 4)
He says, after the paragraph you quote:

“There is no question that some long-term unemployment is caused by government intervention and unions that interfere with the supply of labor. It is, however, a great mistake (made by some conservative economists) to attribute most unemployment to government interventions in the economy or to any lack of desire to work on the part of the unemployed. Unemployment was a serious economic problem in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries prior to the welfare state and widespread unionization. Unemployment then, as now, was closely linked to general macroeconomic conditions. The great depression, when unemployment in the United States reached 25 percent, is the classic example of the damage that collapses in credit can do. Since then, most economists have agreed that cyclical fluctuations in unemployment are caused by changes in the demand for labor, not by changes in workers’ desires to work, and that unemployment in recessions is involuntary.”

It stands to reason that increasing wages reduces employment.  If Detroit paid everyone $3 an hour, they’d hire more employees.  The “price” of having a living wage and social safety net is having some people stay out of the job market and find something suitable instead of being so desperate for work they grab the first WalMart job.  

A certain level of unemployment is a sign of a functioning economy.


 
And writing (0.00 / 0)
“As the Obama Administration carries out the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, our actions will reflect the Act’s original purpose of preventing systemic consequences in the financial and housing markets. The incoming Obama Administration has no intention of using any funds to implement an industrial policy.”

is equivalent to

“deriding the whole concept of an industrial policy”

There is plenty to criticize the Obama Administration on thus far, from its decision to roll out a lobbyist policy that it has proceeded to violate over and over again to the terrible “bad bank” idea.

There is also plenty to criticize Summers for, especially if he is opposed to infrastructure spending as Representative DeFazio has suggested.

But you just look silly twisting things like the unemployment entry and the letter to congressional leaders (which people can see don’t fit your descriptions if they take the time to follow the links) in order to build your narrative.

“Never separate the life you live from the words you speak” -Paul Wellstone


[ Parent ]  
I think you make a good point (0.00 / 0)
I actually find this quote re-assuring, as it reminds me why I liked Summers early on.

I understand his rationale for focusing on the housing and financial markets, after all the cannon shot that’s out there, those are the two burning holes that we have at our waterline. If you can plug those, you can then turn to other reforms that will result in major long-term benefit.  

But it would seem obvious that infrastructure spending can serve both causes: the immediate and the long term. If I look at the stimulus package as announced: it seems like a lot of buck with little bang, I would have

1)limited tax cuts to the purchasing of capital equipment, and perhaps a one year tax holiday for small biz

2)wiped out all student loans (massive bang for the buck: there are over 10 million student loan payees; this demographic can help drive the economy with big-ticket purchases)

3)grants to the states and municipalities to make up for the fall in revenues, at 50 cents on the dollar (we have to prevent shortfalls in tax revenues from leading to cuts in state spending that will then lead to a reduction in demand….but on the other hand, we don’t want federal government largesse to mask the need for budget & tax reform at the state level).

4)The biggest block of spend in my stimulus bill would have been a very large investment in infrastructure (all-up)….roughly $500 billion. For the transportation portion of that (which would comprise the majority) I would keep in one large bucket, so that the best planned projects with the greatest ROI potential were funded, regardless of mode (rail, highway, etc.).

That would be my stimulus, I would then turn to a plan for re-negotiating mortagages, and then completely (and I mean completely) overhaul the banking sector.

I’ve made some harsh comments this weekend regarding the administration and the Dems in general…but at this point I choose to be hopeful.

I’m just so cynical after the Clinton years, and the recent layoffs at work have everyone stressed out to the point of becoming animalistic.(and after all, we’re GenX’rs, we’ve got that crazy mix of idealism and brutal realism in our blood.)

I fully expect it to take a year or so before policy-makers get over their predispositions and actually come to grips with the situation, and it seems like we’re off to a bad start with an un-stimulating stimulus, what appears to be a warmed-over continuation of the Paulson TARP plan, and an opposition that thinks my guy is an empty suit, simply because he tried to reach out to them in negotiations.

I want Obama to succeed, and I get the feeling he’s being ill-served by advisors who are trotting out half-solutions to very really problems that, if not dealt with, will clip this administration’s wings in its first six months.

But perhaps its just the winter gloom clouding my judgement…


[ Parent ]  
By "quote" (0.00 / 0)
I mean the extended document.

[ Parent ]  
Define "the economy" (4.00 / 8)
A certain level of unemployment is a sign of a functioning economy.

  Only if the unemployment is voluntary.

  The whole point of having a “functioning economy” is to create prosperity across the board. If poverty and misery persist, then “the economy” is NOT functioning.  

“We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience.” — Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]  
For Neo-Liberals (4.00 / 7)
The whole point of having a “functioning economy” is to create prosperity across the board. If poverty and misery persist, then “the economy” is NOT functioning.  

This is not how they define a well-functioning economy. Prosperity across the board is precisely what they want to avoid. It’s harder to make more billionaires if everyone has a decent standard of living. People start asserting rights, participating in elections and whatnot. The horror!

This is why neo-liberals are always trying to define Full Employment ever downward, to make room for millions more Lucky Duckies!

Lots and lots of poor, unemployed people without healthcare makes it much easier to enslave people, which is really the point of Milton Friedman’s ideas, of which Summers is merely one devotee.



“More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.” -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]  
Right-wing frames (4.00 / 10)

 It’s amazing how even so many ordinary Americans have internalized the right-wing framing of “the economy” as little more than “executive compensation packages”.  I’m always amused by those who complain about Norway’s “high wages” and praise India’s “competitiveness”… while failing to produce any evidence of Norwegians desperately lining up to get Indian work visas.

 A coworker of mine was going through the standard right-wing trashing of Europe, citing their high unemployment rates. I replied that “at least being out of work in Europe isn’t nearly as dire a situation as it is in the US — you still get healthcare and a few other benefits”. He looked at me like I had three heads — I don’t think he’d EVER thought about the economy from the perspective of the ordinary worker. The frame was completely foreign to him….

   

“We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience.” — Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]  
Right (0.00 / 0)
That’s what Summers said.  Unionization and a social safety net allows people to be voluntarily unemployed.  He doesn’t indicate that is a bad thing.

[ Parent ]  
"Voluntarily", hmm…. (0.00 / 0)
For instance, if your company collapses, or if your job doesn’t pay enough to make a living for your family and you have to change that, you’re not “voluntarily” unemployed, imho. Fact is, a certain (low) level of unemployment is unavoidable in an economy, because of people changing jobs. This doesn’t mean they voluntarily do that, but as long as they’re able to find a new job soon that’s no reason for concerns, of course.

[ Parent ]  
"A certain level of unemployment" (4.00 / 9)
is a sign of an economy in which the capitalists have the whip-hand. The quoted paragraph tells the tale. If you need more corroboration of Summers’ politics, go to the Index section of Naomi Klein’s book, The Shock Doctrine, and look up his name. Then there’s his role in deregulation of banks/investment houses.

By the way – did I mention that I’m running for president?

[ Parent ]  
Wrong (4.00 / 2)
Every economy has unemployment.  People are always transitioning, businesses are always closing and opening.  The question for economists is what an acceptable level of unemployment is.  As Summers indicates, when the labor market allows workers more freedom and higher expectations, unemployment will rise.  This is about as mundane an observation as can be.  

Your statement that a certain level of unemployment is a sign of an economy in which the capitalist have the whip hand is just wrong.  


[ Parent ]  
And I'm sure Summers (4.00 / 2)
is all for a real social safety net for those who have to be unemployed, yes?

[ Parent ]  
I presume (0.00 / 0)
you’ve read Summers’ paper “Labor Market Dynamics and Unemployment: A Reconsideration.”  I haven’t.  In fact, other than this paper, which is unavailable online, I can find no information on what Summers’ view is on unemployment insurance.

Please share your knowledge on this topic.  


[ Parent ]  
As well as certain level of violence, oppression, and waste (4.00 / 4)
A certain level of unemployment is a sign of a functioning capitalist economy.

fixed.


[ Parent ]  
I hope I'm confused by your statement. (4.00 / 3)
You are kidding about Summers, right?

The guy who screwed up Latvia and then Russia?  The guy who was in charge of Harvard when they had to paid the highest settlement to the U.S. govt. ever for what his protege did in Russia? Check out “How Harvard Lost Russia”.  

this is classic “Shock Doctrine” and the banality of evil.

Sorry, but there are economists that don’t agree about these unemployment theories.  


[ Parent ]  
Perhaps the joke is (0.00 / 0)
your ability to analyze a simple statement.

Is there something incorrect or controversial in Summers’ quoted two paragraphs?  Please explain.


[ Parent ]  
Thank you for getting it (4.00 / 2)


 
Why, Oh Why did Obama bring this guy in? (4.00 / 5)
After everything this man has done to encourage and enable the economic catastrophe that awaits us, why did Obama let him anywhere near policy? It’s as if all efforts in the new administration are directed at saving the shadow banking system and the 30:1 risk to asset leverage it provided through the combined use of securitization, credit default swaps, derivatives and other so-called “financial instruments”. Would anyone deny the insanity of allowing a person to bet thirty trillion at a casino when everyone knew he only had a trillion in total assets? Well, that’s what happened. And that’s why Summers and his buddies want to create a dummy bank (you and me) to pay off all their bad debt. And they want us to let them keep their “gaming machines” when we’re done so that they can scam us all over again.  

 
Barack Obama may not get it at all. (4.00 / 3)
Dealing decisively with this economic and environmental crisis is more important than the fact that America elected an African-American to the presidency. Like everyone else, I cried with joy on election night, but the job has just begun, and it’s going to be a hundred times harder than he expected.

So why does Obama tap the expertise of those individuals that helped to bring this disaster? Does Obama naively believe that after winning, he just has to play out his hand carefully to go into the history books? My fear is that this may be his weakness – a belief that his personal triumph over American racism is an end in itself.

As important as this accomplishment may be, it is only the beginning of what we need. We will soon find out if the depth of Obama’s character is equal to the challenges of these times. It chills me to think of that moment, if it comes, when he realizes that he’s alone in the presidency and many of the people he depended on for advice, are actually part of the problem.



 
One-term president (3.20 / 5)

 This is shaping up to be the biggest wasted opportunity in Democratic (if not American) history.

 

“We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience.” — Howard Zinn


 
Welfare and Unemployment Bennies Cause Unemployment Too! (2.67 / 3)
This is lovely as well, from the 8th graf:

To fully understand unemployment, we must consider the causes of recorded long-term unemployment. Empirical evidence shows that two causes are welfare payments and unemployment insurance. These government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment in two ways.

Yes folks, if we just throw all the poor people into the street and cut off unemployment insurance, there’ll be more jobs for everyone! Shit, why didn’t I think of that?!

The future is looking better every day, I tell you!

“More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.” -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


 
"Cheap labor" (4.00 / 2)
That’s the fundamental Conservative value and everything comes down to it.

So, when you see somebody advocating that, you’ve got a Conservative, no matter what party you’re in.

Remind me again why we elected Obama?

I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


 
because he was the best available choice (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]  
that's not saying a hell of a lot (4.00 / 2)
he was better than Hillary only in rather superficial ways, such as his mediagenicity. And anyone would look like the second coming of FDR by comparison with McCain. A potted plant would’ve made a better president than McCain.

If you’re asked to choose between dying of a protracted illness and dying of getting shot in the head, I suspect you’d choose the latter, but I don’t think you would be very happy about it, nor would you be expected to be happy about it.


[ Parent ]  
"I suspect you'd choose the former." (0.00 / 0)
Damn. Screwed up my punchline.

[ Parent ]  
re (0.00 / 0)
I don’t think you would be very happy about it, nor would you be expected to be happy about it.

absolutely


[ Parent ]  
It's not about Summers, Obama chose him so we have to (4.00 / 1)
assume this is the kind of policy he supports.

 
second gilded age change (0.00 / 0)
we can believe in

 
Reading Summers (3.00 / 4)
description of the two long term causes of unemployment that he identifies — welfare and unemployment insurance — is pretty chilling.

There is virtually no mention of the social reason for adopting these policies.

In the case of unemployment insurance, he blandly remarks that unemployment insurance were eliminated, the evidence shows it would decrease unemployment, because people would more quickly take on new jobs.

Not a word is mentioned as to whether it is good for these people — or for society, or even for the economy over the long run — to have workers who have lost their jobs to be forced by a lack of money to jump on the first job offered them, even if the pay is a great cut below what they earned before.

How can an economist who presumes to style himself as some kind of liberal not grasp that it’s an important goal for our economy to enable workers to have reasonably stable, well paying jobs? Why pay attention to an economist who doesn’t think it worthwhile to note this fact, when discussing the causes of unemployment?

His discussion is coldly clinical, but simultaneously mindless. It fails utterly to go back to the basic principles and goals, because it ignores the entire point of having a well functioning economy in the first place: such an economy can serve important needs and interests of human beings.


 
His statement (2.00 / 2)
is a discussion of “classical unemployment.”  Econ 101 might be chilling to you, but that isn’t Summers’ fault.  

[ Parent ]  
I see you didn't (3.20 / 5)
even try to read my comment, understand it, or address it.

There is absolutely nothing in his exposition that would have required him to neglect to mention that one good reason people come off unemployment earlier if they have no unemployment insurance is that they are desperate for any job, and so often will take a quite poor one rather than wait for something that is reasonable. Likewise, some may take the opportunity to attempt some sort of retraining for another kind of job. I should think that society in general is better off if people find lines of work and jobs for which they are well suited — and no doubt the economy itself is overall more productive.

Yet Summers does find plenty of space to talk about how people who are unemployed and have unemployment insurance will choose the value of “leisure” over taking another job. I mean, “leisure”? That’s the only reason this moral cretin can come up with as a reason people might choose to stay unemployed for a longer period of time?

And, given your slavish defense of Summers, how much better are you than he?


[ Parent ]  
Willful ignorance (0.00 / 0)
Pick up any textbook and look at the topic of causes of unemployment.  Several will be listed, some supply-side, some demand side: they will be named “structural” “frictional” “classical” and “cyclical.”

Classical unemployment occurs when the price of labor exceeds the market equilibrium level.  Classical unemployment is caused by anything that increases the price of labor.  That would include (in theory) child labor laws, since if four year olds could work in factories, wages would go down and employers could hire more workers.  That doesn’t mean child labor laws are a bad thing.  

There isn’t any reason to discuss the benefits of the social safety net in an article labelled “Causes of Unemployment.”  There isn’t any reason for criticizing the author for not discussing the benefits of the social safety net.  That is especially true because the article appears to be excerpted from “The Concise Encyclopedia of Econonics,” which is available on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/CONCISE-…

If one were to look at the entry in “The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics” under “Causes of Unemployment” I would guess the average reader’s expectation would be that the article would discuss the “Causes of Unemployment” not the “Benefits of the Social Safety Net.”

This has nothing to do with Summers’s other views.  This has nothing to do with monetary policy, deregulation, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, or the Clinton administration.

It is an excerpt from an economics encyclopedia.  Do you get that?  Sirota is trying to make you stupid.

For decades, right wing propoganda has taken all sort of innocuous statements from liberals out of context, to inflame the rubes. This led me to (momentarily) believe that liberals were “reality based.”

Now, David Sirota quotes a statement from an economics encyclopedia to imply that Summers hates unions. (Maybe Summers DOES hate unions, but this isn’t evidence he does).  Sirota is playing you for a fool in this entry.  It has nothing do to with whether Summers is an admirable person or whether he has bad ideas elsewhere – it is ignorant to bash anyone for making an simple accademic statement about unemployment that appears in an econonomics textbook.

You don’t have to be Sirota’s dupe.  It’s your choice.


[ Parent ]  
You are simply (4.00 / 1)
amazing in your ability to refuse to deal with a clearly stated argument.

Look, Summers did present a reason to justify his claim that unemployment insurance increased unemployment rate, namely, the unemployed worker’s preference for “leisure”. (He even went out of his way to toot his own horn by mentioning the statistics he had gathered to “demonstrate” this phenomenon.) For this, he has time, and can find relevance.

Yet he can’t find any reason to mention the more admirable reasons a worker might not jump on the fastest possible job they might get? Look, in any other circumstance, this sort of evasion would be denounced as ugly right wing spin.

As I said, the man appears to be some kind of moral cretin.

And yet there you are, again, defending the man to the hilt.

What does that say about you?


[ Parent ]  
One further point (0.00 / 0)
Beyond the moral autism of Summers’ discussion, there’s a real intellectual shallowness in his failure to mention other reasons workers might use unemployment insurance to get better, more stable jobs.

Namely, those very reasons might have an impact on the long term unemployment rate themselves, which is the very topic of his discussion. If a worker waits for a more acceptable job — for which he/she is a better fit, is more satisfied, and which perhaps promises to be longer term — or if he/she uses unemployment insurance to enable him/her to retrain for another job — then those choices can affect the long term unemployment rate themselves. Such uses of unemployment insurance will, for those workers, presumably result in less, not more, periods of unemployment for them.

Yet there is no hint in Summers’ discussion of any of that.

So on top of everything else, his discussion is just glib and superficial intellectually.


[ Parent ]  
It isn't a moral lecture (0.00 / 0)
but an economic one.

But let’s look at what you just said: an employee might wait around for a better job, and hence stay on unemployment.  Let’s say you’re a steelworker, collecting $8 per hour on unemployment.  You can get a job at WalMart at $10.  In your trade, you’re worth $19 per hour.  Why not take the job at WalMart?  There isn’t any reason you can’t continue to send out applications while you make two dollars an hour more at WalMart.  (It would be more difficult to schedule interviews, certainly, but that isn’t prohibitive).  The fact is that the steelworker probably doesn’t need to two dollars per hour as much as he values the piece of mind of not working a crap job for lower pay.  He’s placing a value on his ability not to work of at least $10 per hour.  That’s valuing “leisure.”  


[ Parent ]  
And you don't (0.00 / 0)
prefer “leisure?”

The time you spend on messageboards says otherwise.

I rather thought that all human beings had a natural proclivity towards leisure over punching a time card.  Hence, it would be rational to continue to collect unemployment or other benefits at $8.25 than to take a job that nets $9 per hour.  The peace of mind and freedom from not having a job is probably worth at least that much to most people.  That is what Summers is discussing.  The value of not working differs for every worker.  For a fairly highly paid worker who has some savings, the value of leisure, rather than taking the first job that came up, could be fairly high.  Someone closer to the edge can’t afford to value his leisure at the same rate – but he still values it, and it has a real world economic value.

Are you suggesting that “leisure” has no value, and that the fact that most people would prefer not to work if they had the option, doesn’t create a “reserve wage” for each worker, which acts as a disincentive to enter the labor force when public benefits nearly equal the wage?  Have you NEVER known someone who was unemployed, and passed up a job because the pay and aggravation wasn’t worth it?  Do you think that observing that humans have a preference for leisure is some sort of a classist comment or slam on people who collect public benefits?

Seriously, is that what you are saying?

Are you calling Summers’ is a “moral cretin” for observing that people would rather spend time doing other things than greeting customers at WalMart or running an injection molding machine, like reading a book or posting on a messageboard?

Bizarre.


[ Parent ]  
Debts, debts, debts (0.00 / 0)
Summers, Geithner, Emmanual all have an interest in seeing the American people and nation go deeper and deeper into debt by slashing the salaries of indivudals, cutting back on unions, and by pushing up the nation’s defence budget yet again.

Someone earns on the interest paid on all that debt – and it is the banking clan that Summers, Geithner and Emmanual all work for.

Revolution! It’s time for the restoration of law and order and government for the people by the people.

Revoluton! Get rid of the robber barons and their government stooges.  


 
"Acceptable" level of unemployment (4.00 / 3)
Summers words remind of Newlan’s Truism:

An “acceptable” level of unemployment means that the government economist to whom it is acceptable still has a job.

Those of us who presently work in unemployment offices need this type of humor to survive the day…


 
we need more credit cards to buy things (0.00 / 0)
just give us more credit cards to buy stuff then the economy would be fine.  Target and Meijer’s figured this out years ago, that’s why they send people up and down the aisles asking you if you want to apply for a store credit card so you can get 10% of today’s purchase.  People don’t need wages, jobs, hell if the housing market didn’t crack up, you wouldn’t have even needed a job to buy a house.  Just give people credit cards and be done with.  Just don’t give people welfare with my taxpayer dollars cause that would just be apopalyptic.

 
summers is an idiot… (4.00 / 2)
… but that doesn’t mean we have to actually go looking for things to dislike about him. That makes you look like an idiot.

Another cause of long-term unemployment is unionization. High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy.

Summers isn’t saying anything controversial here about unions causing un-employment in the economy as a whole.  Just in the unionized sectors. He’s not saying that general unemployment is caused by (or indeed has anything to do with) unions.

Duh.  If you have higher wages, He’s saying, you’re less likely to have as many jobs. So for the unionized sector hiring (and firing) is an entirely different beast: whereas is in the non-unionized sector, you have more jobs overall, but you mainly just hire the pulse and fire at will.  (union jobs last longer and require cause for dismissal.)  


 
what?!! (4.00 / 1)
Is it really true that employeers hire workers just cus they like them, and let these unnessary leaks in the payroll go only when their wage package raises to much? Absurd! No one hires unless they need employees. The argument that raising wages leads to less employment is raised (by conservatives) and proven wrong every time the minimum wage is raised. No one reduces employees unless they do not need them either. “High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate” is always how unions raise the purchasing power of ALL workers, union and non-union alike. Because unions always were and remain the peoples answer to corporate tyranny, President Linclon was right…. In all matters, laror is always superior to capital.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob….. FDR

[ Parent ]  
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS