not the Europe we had in mind
Matt Yglesias points us to this chart, which is depressing enough on its own:
Then, both he and Kevin Drum, go on to point out that job losses are likely going to be long-term.
Drum writes:
I don’t want to push this theme too far because I haven’t yet done the work to really get a reliable sense of what’s going on. But I wonder, when this recession is finally over, if we’re going to find ourselves in a European-esque mode with a large and growing population that’s almost continually unemployed or, at best, underemployed.
I posed this question to some friends the other night over beers: If immigration restrictions between the U.S. and the E.U. were lifted entirely, what would happen?
Now, most of my friends are fairly liberal. I live in a liberal college town and I’ve lived a fairly bohemian life, all things told, so many of my fellow travelers are environmentalists, starving artists, and the like. Thus I was not surprised by the initial response, which boiled down essentially to the idea that all the educated, cosmopolitan liberal-types would pack it up and head off to Europe and all the right-wingers in Europe would high-tail it here. In other words, Europe would go a deeper shade of blue and America would go a deeper shade of red. We’d have the guns, but they’d have the numbers. Or something like that.
There are a number of problems with this. But the one I wanted to address was unemployment. It’s easy to look at Europe and think they’ve figured it all out. I recall Bill Maher ranting on about this on the Daily Show not long ago, about how the small-minded right-wingers in the U.S. were preventing his dream of realizing a more Europeanized nation, by which he meant a more secular, more cosmopolitan, and more egalitarian society.
But there really are some serious problems with the tightly regulated European economic model, not the least of which is the “permanent unemployment or underemployment” that Drum is talking about. When we talk about redistribution of wealth and egalitarianism and fairness, it’s easy to simplify this and think wholly in terms of taxes, and how progressive the tax-code is, or how equitable the social services are, but that leaves out a very fundamental consideration, which is essentially the employment factor.
Ask yourself, what has provided more for you in your life – government social services or your job? If it’s social services, that means you’ve been living off welfare, and that’s probably not a good thing. A safety net is no place to reside permanently.
In a poor neighborhood, with unemployment rates through the roof, what would change more peoples’ lives – more welfare, or more jobs?
Now, obviously these two things, safety nets and economic opportunity, are not wholly mutually exclusive. But there does come a point when taxes or regulations or government intervention into the economy really does start to effect the private sector’s ability to create jobs. Or resources are shifted in such a way that jobs that might have been created in a community are artificially created elsewhere.
This is what has happened in many parts of Europe, where unemployment has remained consistently high, and underemployment keeps even these bad numbers looking better than they should. In some parts of Europe, like the Netherlands, the trend in recent years has been toward decentralization, liberalization of the economy, and less government intervention into the economy. What this has meant for the Netherlands is a gradual decrease in the unemployment rate from a three-decade peak of 10% in 1983 to only 2.8% in 2008.
Now compare the Netherlands to France, which has continued to protect its labor unions and maintains tight controls over its economy; and the United States, which has, since the Reagan days, also economically liberalized a great deal:
Since 1980 France’s unemployment rate has dipped below 8% only twice. By contrast, before the recession we are currently in, the United States only reached unemployment above 8% once in nearly thirty years. The French numbers are more stable, but also consistently nearly as high as the unemployment rate in the United States during this economic downturn. I’m not sure that would have me rushing to Paris.
So, to make a long story short, it’s important to note that the success stories in Europe right now are due to moves toward a more “American” way of doing things, though certainly countries like the Netherlands have learned a great deal about smart ways to implement safety nets over the years. If borders were opened and travel and work restrictions abolished between the U.S. and the E.U, however, I think you’d see the immigration flow move more towards countries with low unemployment, low barriers to entry for new businesses, and low taxes, not to countries with strict price controls, wage regulations, and the resultant high unemployment. And, of course, things like the Bill of Rights are nice, too.
In the end, it’s the economy, stupid. It always will be.
Note: I don’t mean to call anyone stupid. Not really. We’re a very huggy bunch here at the League, after all.
You are aware that causation is not the same thing as correlation, aren’t you?Report
Time for me to make my standard tweak to posts comparing Europe to the US…
I think this is basically right, except for one important element that just about everyone routinely fails to recognize (partly because it’s to no one’s ideologic advantage in our political environment, partly because we usually only hear these comparisons from ideologues): France is a poor representative of Europe.
Indeed, there are a number of measures of economic freedom (using the Heritage Foundation’s index: http://www.heritage.org/index/explore.aspx) where various European countries are less regulated than the US. The only reason why the US is, on the whole, considered (barely) more economically “free” by conservative/libertarian standards than most Western European countries save Ireland is because those governments spend a higher percentage of their GDP than do we – in other words, solely because they have more robust safety nets. But in just about every other area, numerous Western European countries not named France are as or more liberalized than the US. Compare, especially, Denmark’s scores in the above-linked chart to the US. Then take a look at Denmark’s unemployment numbers over the last few decades. Ditto Austria, Norway, Sweden, and the UK.
My point here is this: if liberals are serious about using Europe as a model for the US, then they should be combining the push for stronger safety nets with a push for less government intervention in the economy outside of those safety nets. Meanwhile, if conservatives are serious about painting Europe as Hell on Earth whose model should in no way be followed, then they should drop the anti-regulation shtick. If, on the other hand, they’re serious about improving things in the US, then they’ll just stop trying to paint Europe as their ideal dream/living nightmare.Report
What kind of economic interventions are you thinking of? Do you mean along the lines of government subsidies; or health and safety regulations; or both, or something else?Report
It’s a whole host of things if you look at the Heritage Foundation scores (which are even more remarkable when you consider that the Heritage Foundation isn’t exactly known for making Europe look good on economic issues): licensing regulations, how easy is it to start and run a business, how liberalized is trade policy, corruption levels, inflation levels, enforcement of property rights, etc.Report
Well actually that was sort of my point – that the Europe we had in mind, the highly regulated, socialist supposedly progressive Utopia was in fact on the move toward liberalizing economies, loosening govt. control etc. Hence my comparison of the Netherlands to France. I guess I didn’t make that clear enough.Report
Well, I guess I was pointing out that Europe isn’t simply moving in the direction of being equally economically liberalized as the US; in many ways, a number of Western European nations have already surpassed the US on that front.Report
That’s hugely interesting Mark. I have to say, I hadn’t encountered that description of contrasting inter-continental economic conditions before. Do you know anywhere I could read more?Report
Isn’t it? I’ve never really seen it explored in all that much depth, although I’ve referenced it on several occasions both here and elsewhere for the last two years, and I know I’ve seen Will Wilkinson discuss it on occasion as well. That’s not to say that there aren’t more in-depth discussions of it elsewhere – I’m quite certain that there are; just that it’s not a contrast I’ve seen discussed at much length in the political realm, which of course is usually pretty hung up on scoring cheap political points by portraying Europe as some sort of haven for big and intrusive governments on economic issues.Report
Although job creation may be better in the States the social dysfunction statistics are very bad not just because of the high number of poorly paid jobs but also because of the massive inequality in wealth and incomes. This is a political issue since capital really is used as power here to generate this inequality gap. A book covering all of this with plenty of graphs and charts illustrating the dysfunctions from country to country will be published here this December 22nd. The book is called “The Spirit Level”. The medical scientist author’s thesis is that it is largely the psychological effects created by inequality that cause so much dysfunction. Meanwhile you can check the book’s spin-off website at:-
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/aboutReport
Until we strengthen the free market by loosening regulations, cutting government spending and lowering taxes, we will have stagnation and high unemployment and underemployment. I really think it’s that simple. But then I’m a simpleton/libertarian/capitalist/monkey.Report
I’d like to offer two criticisms, and you’ll have to forgive me if I fumble them as I’ll read a lot more about econ than I’ll ever write about it.
1. America’s unemployment numbers are artificially low because they’re being masked by the huge prison population. Prison amounts to America’s social welfare provision (with all sorts of negative knock-on consequences for the society). (See John Quiggin at Crooked Timber)
2. Let’s say we agreed that America does have genuinely lower levels of unemployment, even so, compared to OECD peers America has the undesirable combination of relatively high income inequality and low intergenerational income mobility. I understand this as, it’s more likely that my income and my fellow citizens’ income will be far apart in America, and the consequences of that difference will be more keenly felt by our children in America. OECD ungated offers incomplete data, and unfortunately I can’t get into SourceOECD.org or OECD iLibrary ungated – “Growing Unequal?: Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries” particularly “Intergenerational Mobility: Does it Offset or Reinforce Income Inequality?” (gated) could probably clear things up some. The best free secondary source data I could find was this Australian Treasury report – worth glancing at the charts on “intergenerational earnings elasticities estimates” and “income inequality and intergenerational income elasticity”. You get what you pay for – from postnatal nurse home visits to investing in early childhood education, more social welfare provision, not just safety nets, would do America good on so many levels – not least of which is intergenerational poverty..Report
I want to point out an error in your data that may change the way you think about things.
Your unemployment numbers are all from the same source. But that source (the IMF) shows that each country’s number comes from different sources. For instance, the US numbers are the “official” US data — the U-3. France’s numbers come from another source. The result: the US will always appear to have lower unemployment than just about any European country. If you use the U-6 number, however, the US suddenly looks like a country with very high unemployment.
This is always the problem with comparing national unemployment numbers. Even when using a supposedly neutral third party like the UN or the IMF, they end up getting their data from internal sources within each country or region.Report