Share

Stimulus and Jobs: We Can Do Better

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

photo
A map showing Michigan, the west coast, the southwest and the southeast as hardest hit by unemployment. (Photo: austrini / flickr)

The Obama administration came out with its first set of numbers on the jobs impact of its stimulus package. It's pretty much along the lines of what was predicted. To date, the package has created close to one million jobs. That is good news, but in an economy with more than 15 million unemployed workers, it is not nearly good enough. We need to do more, much more.

Fortunately, there is an easy and quick way to begin to get these unemployed workers back to work. It involves paying workers to work shorter hours. The mechanism can take the form of a tax credit to employers. The government can give them a tax credit of up to $3,000 in order to shorten their workers' hours while leaving their pay unchanged. The reduction in hours can take the form of paid sick days, paid family leave, shorter workweeks or longer vacations. The employer can choose the method that is best for her workers and the workplace.

If take-home pay is left unchanged as a result of the credit, then demand should be left unchanged. If workers are on average putting in fewer hours and demand is unchanged, then employers will need to hire more workers.

This logic is about as simple as it gets. The process is also quick and cheap. In principle, the government can go this route to save jobs at a cost of a bit more than $20,000 per job, far less than the estimates of the cost per job under the administration's stimulus package.

We don't even have to speculate about whether this sort of short-hours arrangement can work. Germany put a short-hours program in place at the start of its recession. Its unemployment rate today is 7.6 percent, about the same as the unemployment rate it had going into the recession. Imagine that workers in the United States, like workers in Germany, were dealing with the recession by putting in four-day weeks (while getting paid for five) or getting an extra two weeks a year of paid vacation. This sure beats being unemployed or being threatened with unemployment.

Seventeen states already have a "work-share" program in place that allows employers to use unemployment insurance money to cover a reduction in work hours, without a corresponding reduction in pay. More than 100,000 layoffs have been prevented as result of this program.

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island has a bill that would increase funding for work-share programs and remove some of the bureaucracy that makes it difficult for employers to take full advantage of the programs that currently exist. The bill would also provide start-up money for the states that do not have work-share programs.

The Reed bill would be a big step towards following the Germany model, taking advantage of a program that is already in place. It could very quickly make a big dent in the unemployment rate, by preserving many of the jobs that are now being lost.

In this respect, it is important to clear up a common confusion about the economy. Every month, we get a figure from the Labor Department for the new jobs created or lost. However, this is a net figure. Approximately four million people leave their jobs every month, about half of these workers, or two million, lose their jobs involuntarily. If the economy creates more than four million new jobs, then we will have a positive jobs figure for the month. If the economy creates less than four million new jobs, then the Labor Department will report that the economy lost jobs in the month.

Suppose that this work-share program reduced the number of people who lose their jobs involuntarily by 20 percent, or 400,000 workers per month. This would have the same effect to our job count as adding 400,000 additional new jobs. If this rate could actually be maintained over a full year, then it would imply that the economy would generate nearly five million new jobs.

All the projections show that the unemployment rate is likely to continue to rising for the immediate future and remain high for years to come. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the unemployment rate will average 10.2 percent next year and even in 2011 it will average 9.1 percent. If this projection proves accurate, it would be a disastrous scenario for tens of millions of people.

There are quick and effective ways to increase employment, with shorter hours at the top of the list. Making tens of millions of people suffer for economic mismanagement and the greed of the bankers is not acceptable. We must do something.

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

  

»


Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. He is a regular Truthout columnist and a member of Truthout's Board of Advisers.

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

As a small business owner I

As a small business owner I can tell you that NO amount of stimulus will even HELP in the long run. Maybe in the short run I will be seeing at least some short uptrend in local economy through a stimulus but that is at least quite doubtful. And jobs? Well, if you want job creation you will need TRANSPARENCY in ALL activities in both large business and GOVERNMENT!!!! Second PLEASE DO SOMETHING about that OVERHANGING debt called national debt! That is preventing us from creating ACTUAL productive jobs rather than just creating more useless bureaucracy or consolidating more corporations to form mega corporations. And last of all this is the BIGGEST understated reform: create an incentives for saving accounts and LARGE opportunities to us the small business owners! Don't forget that competition can ONLY be achieved IF we could dissolve big corporations, unions, and other monopolies that is the anti-thesis of competition!

Let's see if I have this

Let's see if I have this right - a company gets government money to help it keep people's pay the same, while reducing their number of hours, so that the business can then hire more people to do the same work, at about $20,000 per job. Right? Let's also look at a few facts - government would give a $3,000 credit to any business which does this, even though it will cost the business a net increase of $20,000 per new employee or more. WOW! A net loss to the business of $17000 per year, and now two employees to cover with insurance, unemployment insurance, worker's comp, and other benefits and costs. How generous! Let's look at the facts of unemployment - we lose over 500,000 jobs per week according to unemployment figures. We have over one-fourth of working Americans unemployed or underemployed. Yet we should be happy that 640,000 jobs were created since January - not one million - of which half were teachers who were not laid off, so only 320,000 new jobs were actually created. The math just does not work, and all the fancy dancing around these facts does not change anything, Mr. Baker. It is time to force new jobs - this means creating new manufacturing efforts here in the United Sates. It means stopping the H1B visa until American who can do the same work are fully employed. It means cutting out tax breaks that benefit American corporations if they go off-shore. It means putting family farmers back into the food production business, not the energy business. It means teaching our young people skills and knowledge that will allow them to be visionaries and leaders, not customers and slaves. It means supporting new business start-ups in green economy sector businesses if they offer on-the-job training in new skills. It does not mean strapping current businesses with unrealistic offering of job sharing that will end as soon as the government runs out. Mr. Baker, go back to your economists in their corporate bubble and come up with something that is sustainable and long-lasting, not something that will lead us in a circle back to where we are now. http://www.letfreedomring.community.officelive.com

Interesting article,

Interesting article, although Baker spoils it with a concluding ideological trumpet call. (It was actually the global savings glut that fed the bubble, and we collectively feasted off of it in one way or another.) It seems, though, that small business, a major engine of employment, would be more restricted in its ability to cut back hours, since smaller staffs would make staggering of employee shifts more difficult. The German success with short hours may not be fully translatable to the US -- the German economy is not as dependent on consumer spending and credit as ours, and hence was more resilient in the current downturn.

Opening the door to employer

Opening the door to employer abuse of worker livelihoods has never worked well for the workers. About all this plan would do is destroy the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and create a nation of part-time workers. At that point, and internal race to the bottom will have been initiated, as employers will cut wages and benefits once the subsidies end, and not increase the work week as this plan intends. Without real manufacturing job creation, an economy of poverty is all we can expect. The wealthy already take the bulk of the proceeds, and they aren't about to surrender a single dime for any reason - especially not job creation.