There's no such thing as a zero unemployment rate. There will always be some members of the work force who are between jobs because of layoffs, or recent graduates looking for their first job, or women returning to the workforce as their children grow, or men leaving the military and looking for a civilian job, or those out of work because of illness, or for any number of other reasons.
The only way to achieve a zero unemployment rate is if all workers are assigned to jobs and are forbidden to leave.
That is not a characteristic of a free society.
The question then becomes, what is an acceptable rate of unemployment, allowing for the above factors?
Not too many years ago, economists generally agreed that an unemployment rate of about 6 percent was an acceptable rate, which meant that society had reached "full employment."
Now, however, the nationwide unemployment rate is below 5 percent, with some regions below that and some higher.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that jobless rates were lower in February in 274 of the 388 metro areas of the U.S. compared to a year ago, higher in 88 areas and unchanged in 26 regions.
Ten regions had jobless rates of less than 3 percent, and 11 areas posted more than 10 percent.
The lowest rate was in Ames, Iowa, at 2.1 percent. El Centro, California, had the higher unemployment rate, at 18.4 percent.
The problem of a high jobless rate is clear. People without jobs and wages have trouble supporting themselves, and a high number of people available and competing for work can drive wages downward. That's one reason for minimum wage laws.
On the other hand, a very low rate means employers compete for workers and offer higher wages to attract them. This, in turn, leads to higher prices families pay for necessities.
What, then, is an "acceptable" rate of unemployment, one that neither punishes workers nor forces high wages and prices, otherwise known as inflation?
That is the puzzle that faces the Federal Reserve Board every month. The only method they have to control this is to regulate the supply of money.
Good luck with that one.
No comments:
Post a Comment