Who's going to get the jobs machine going?
What can government do to crank up America's creaky job machine? We'll be arguing ferociously about that in coming months, and the answer, frankly, isn't clear. Die-hard Keynesians insist that only more government spending and tax cuts will accelerate job growth. But many other economists fear that exploding federal debt -- incurred partly to pay for more spending and tax cuts -- could trigger a new crisis that would destroy jobs.
Almost everyone agrees that the outlook is bleak. Since the recession's start in December 2007, about 8 million payroll jobs have disappeared. More will go. Employment is lower than a decade ago, the first time that's happened since the Great Depression.
With the labor force expanding by more than 1 million new workers annually, economists Joseph Seneca and James Hughes of Rutgers estimate that even the job growth of the 1990s (2.4 million a year) wouldn't reduce today's 9.8 percent unemployment to 5 percent until 2017. Ugh.
The Keynesian (after English economist John Maynard Keynes, who died in 1946) solution holds that government activism can generate more jobs. That's the theory behind the $787 billion "economic stimulus" passed in February. Many ideas are circulating for Stimulus 2.0, though the controversy over Stimulus 1.0 suggests that it will be relabeled.
Larry Mishel of the liberal Economic Policy Institute wants more aid for state governments, a further extension of unemployment insurance (now up to 79 weeks) and a tax credit for companies that create new jobs. One proposal would give employers about a $7,000 credit for each additional worker hired (over some base period). Timothy Bartik of the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research thinks such a credit might create 2 million jobs. The budgetary cost could be $40 billion or higher. One drawback: Two-thirds of the credit's cost might go to firms that would have hired anyway.
The rap on Stimulus 1.0 is that it hasn't yet -- as promised -- reduced unemployment. Boosters retort: Unemployment would have been worse without it, and much less than half the stimulus has been spent. Detractors argue that the benefits of stimulus packages are overrated. Underlying this dispute is an academic argument about the "multiplier": whether stimulus increases in spending and tax cuts translate into large increases for the overall economy, or whether the effects are offset. Consumers might save most tax cuts. Or bigger deficits might raise interest rates and crowd out private borrowing.
Actually, there is no "right" answer; the multiplier will vary depending on economic circumstances. In this case, the Obama administration is more plausible than its critics. In early 2009, consumer and business spending was collapsing. The stimulus has helped stabilize the economy, though it hasn't been the most powerful stabilizer. (The Federal Reserve played that role.) It has saved jobs that otherwise would have been lost. Interest rates didn't rise. But just because the earlier stimulus was justified doesn't mean that another would be, because circumstances are changing.
Government debt is now rising at unprecedented post-World War II rates. In fiscal 2009 (ended Sept. 30), the federal budget deficit was $1.4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office predicts a similar amount for 2010. Economists at Goldman Sachs forecast $1.6 trillion. "Right now, the world wants to lend to us, and we can carry a huge debt burden at relatively modest interest costs. But history teaches that confidence is fickle," says economist Kenneth Rogoff, co-author with Carmen Reinhart of "This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly." If rising debt frightens domestic and foreign lenders into fearing high inflation or default, interest rates could soar. A first stimulus was warranted, but now "it makes no sense to use stimulus just to postpone the reality of lower economic growth over the coming decade," Rogoff says. He favors a gradual reduction of huge deficits. The trouble, of course, is the capriciousness of psychology. No one can know when or whether a future crisis might occur.
Economists Mishel and Rogoff frame the debate, the first impatient, the second prudent. A middle way would be to scour government for policies that discourage job creation.
Consider the Environmental Protection Agency's recent proposal requiring permits for large industrial facilities emitting 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases annually. New plants or expansions would need permits demonstrating they're using "the best practices and technologies" (whatever they might be) to minimize six greenhouse gases. Permits would be granted on a case-by-case basis; the proposed rule is 416 pages of dense legalese.
How could this promote investment and job creation, except for lawyers and consultants? Government erects many employment obstacles: restrictions on oil and natural gas drilling; unapproved trade agreements; some regulations. But reducing these barriers would require the Obama administration to choose between its professed interest in more jobs and its many other goals -- a choice it has so far avoided.