« Public service announcement | Main | Should you buy a house? »

Ve haff vays of making you vork

17 Sep 2007 10:41 am

Was the New York Times too hard on Germany's economy when it said that

Some economists worry that the relatively modest labor market changes have fallen far short of what the German economy needs to assure its long-term competitiveness, and that the government might be well advised to use this time of prosperity to tackle the tough issues. Instead, the long-awaited recovery has led to relief and perhaps even a little complacency.

Dean Baker certainly thinks so:

While this no doubt true, it’s also true that many economists don’t see Germany as facing intractable economic problems. These economists point out that Germany is actually running a substantial current account surplus, which means that it is lending money to the rest of the world. By contrast, the United States has a current account deficit of more than 5 percent of GDP, which means that it is borrowing money from the rest of the world. The position of the United States is clearly unsustainable, as nearly all economists would agree.

The article also misleads readers on the extent of Germany’s unemployment rate. It reports that the rate has fallen to 9 percent, implying Germany still has very high unemployment. In fact, this is the official German measure of unemployment, which counts part-time workers as being unemployed. The OECD measure for German unemployment (which uses essentially the same methodology as the U.S.) is 6.4 percent. Since unemployment is still concentrated in the areas that were formerly East Germany, the unemployment rate in the areas that were formerly West Germany would be approximately the same as in the United States.

This analysis seems rather . . . odd. America was running a healthy trade surplus in the 1930's; I don't think that anyone would have argued that this meant that the economy was in sterling health. On the contrary; a capital account deficit (a.k.a. lending money to the rest of the world) can be a sign that local investors don't think much of the economy's prospects. America's position is undoubtedly unsustainable. But nonetheless, the OECD leading indicators index grew twice as fast over the last six months as Germany's did, even though Germany is coming out of a recession and we seem to be heading into one.

Likewise, though Germany's OECD harmonised unemployment measure is lower than the official measure, it's still much higher than the level in the US: 6.4% vs. 4.6%. In a country with a population the size of Germany's, that's an extra 1.8 million people out of work. And if anything, that understates the problem, since America's social safety net is structured to inflate the stated size of the labor force (and thus the unemployment figure): for many benefits, you can only qualify if you are actively looking for work.

And while Eastern Germany is a problem, it's been almost 20 years since unification; at some point, you have to acknowlege that, whatever its historical problems, Eastern Germany is now part of Germany. America does not, after all, get to throw out Mississippi and Michigan because historical forces have caused them to underperform the rest of the country.

Dean Baker's assertions seem designed to obscure the fact that the big economies of Europe have been underperforming America for more than a decade on almost any measure one might care about, from unemployment to national income growth. It may be true, as Henry Farrell argues, that the evidence for pinning this on European labor markets is underwhelming--although, in the absence of another explanation for persistently higher unemployment rates, structural rigidity still seems the most likely answer. But that still leaves us with the fact that America is pulling away from all but a few small European countries, and the worry about what this means for the future of Europe if this trend continues1.


1 This is, of course, a big if . . . witness all the books from the early nineties mindlessly extrapolating trends to prove that we were about to be relegated to teh dustheap of history by Japan and/or Germany.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/17320

Comments (27)

Thanks to more generous benefit the consequences of being jobless in Germany are less severe than those in the United States.

Megan,
Does a 1.40 Euro change your conclusions? I mean if these economies are cratering why the surging currency? It's not interest rate differentials.

Countries can have strong currencies and weak economies; again, witness America in the early 1930's.

In the case of America's currency, it is overvalued, and will have to go down in order to balance out our trade deficits. But that doesn't obviate the trend of faster growth in GDP.

"Ve haff vays of making you vork?" Ah, Nazi humor. National stereotypes are metafun!

Coming soon: "Thoughts on Japan's Rong Rasting Lecession."

Likewise, though Germany's OECD harmonised unemployment measure is lower than the official measure, it's still much higher than the level in the US: 6.4% vs. 4.6%. In a country with a population the size of Germany's, that's an extra 1.8 million people out of work.

Labor forces for Germany and the USA are roughly 44 million and 151 million. 1.8% of each would be 790,000 and 2.7 million. What are you trying to say?

How is our trade balance not sustainable? Haven't we been sustaining it for 20 or 30 or 40 years? As Megan points out, it mainly indicates that we're an attractive place to invest. Why can this not continue "forever"?

Noah, it all depends on what the potential investors are thinking. If they believe that the US is still going to have lots of 'umph' in the gas tank, then they'll keep plunking those euros down, and even those with a yen for assets will spend what they have.

Of course, if they've been saving for a rainy day and it looks like the engine that could, is now chugging a bit, not purring along smoothly, they'll start shagging out of the US market, whether it be two-by-two or by wholesale lots, the results would not be very pretty. If you have enough assets in cash and things, though, you can survive either path quite well.

I like the idea of excluding the former states of the Confederacy in evaluating U.S. economic performance. (It's a bit harder to come up with a rationale for excluding Michigan.) And the beauty of it is, if any former Confederate state has higher than average economic performance, we can pronounce that one "successfully reintegrated" and include it, while continuing to exclude Mississippi and the other underperformers. Voila! Our margin over Germany just grew some more.

Wow. What craptastic analyses. It's been barely more than 15 years since reunification, making the stupid comment about the Confederacy relevant if we were to talk about, you know, 1880, or a little past the end of Reconstruction. I like the joke about Japanese, though...

I suppose one could recognize that nobody here is an actual economist and leave it at that. Armchair economic analysis is so easy when you're talking fumes.

Sure, Germany is underperforming the US economically, but what percentage of the German population is incarcerated? I have a feeling that the incarcerated population of the US is not counted as they are not "actively seeking work." Germany also has the burden of 100% healthcare coverage and very worker friendly labor laws.

"since America's social safety net is structured to inflate the stated size of the labor force (and thus the unemployment figure): for many benefits, you can only qualify if you are actively looking for work."

Nice try, but those benefits you speak of, meager as they are, are mostly for short term unemployed. More than 6 -18 months (depending on the state) those numbers fall out of the unemployment figures.

Of course 'America's social safety net' can take care of them. Sure. You obviously have no idea what economic dislocation and long term unemployment is from either a real world or a policy perspective.

Nice try, but those benefits you speak of, meager as they are, are mostly for short term unemployed. More than 6 -18 months (depending on the state) those numbers fall out of the unemployment figures.

Not so. The unemployment rate in the US is calculated by household survey and statistical analysis conducted by the Department of Labor. The US unemployment rate is NOT made up only of people who are collecting benefits, but anybody -- including the long term unemployed whose benefits have run out -- looking for work. Most of the analysis I've seen recently indicates the differences between how different nations calculate their unemployment rates have narrowed in recent years. Germany may indeed be a better place to be poor or unemployed, but it still looks like the United States is a better place to find work.


Dean Baker's point about unemployment is sensible. Eastern Germany accounts for about 20% of Germany's population - if you do the algebra, Western Germany (which is now full of young, productive Easterners, by the way) would have a lower unemployment rate than the US if Eastern unemployment were above about 13%, which it is.

As for the current account, it would be one thing if our huge deficit were being financed by FDI and investment in US corporations, the "investing in America" argument we all like. But a lot of our recent deficit has been financed by purchases of US housing debt and government securities - French investment funds buying subprime mortgages and the Chinese central bank buying our Treasury bills isn't the same vote of confidence in our economy as Toyota building plants here or even Daimler buying Chrysler.

"anybody -- including the long term unemployed whose benefits have run out -- looking for work." And how do they get those figures? From the state unemployment bureaus. But once you stop receiving benefits, what is the motivation to help keep the government's records up to date? The long term unemployed fall out of those figures because there is no realistic mechanism for tracking them.

And we haven;t even gotten into the underemployed issue, where people get benefits in Germany and most places but are often calculated separately whereas in the US they just fall into employed categories but get no benefits.

I wonder if Germans worry about these issues during their six to eight weeks of vacation every year...

"...since America's social safety net is structured to inflate the stated size of the labor force (and thus the unemployment figure): for many benefits, you can only qualify if you are actively looking for work..."

Much the same is true of Germany: you have to be registered as looking for work to get any benefits. They also force you to spend down your savings before you receive benefits in Germany. But I guess facts don't matter. Nice joke, though.

12 days paid holidays, 42 days of paid vacation, 6 weeks paid sick leave. pemanent unemployment compensation, God I love Germany!

Conservatives love to cherry pick statistics to "prove" that the structure of Europe's economy is unsustainable over the long run. These are the same conservatives who keep "proving" that Social Security is going to collapse and that we need to end it and give everyone 401(k)s.

I seem to remember conservatives trashing "socialist" Europe when I was in high school - and that, sadly for me, was a long time ago.

Meanwhile those Germans (and French and Dutch and Belgians and...)keep getting to enjoy their four weeks of sand and sunshine in the south of Spain every year.

What is The United States' "harmonised unemployment measure"?
I suspect that when we "harmonize" the data, our unemployment stats are closer to Europe's than we care to admit. For example, the US counts the entire military as "employed", whereas the Europeans exclude the military.

5 million chronically unemployed people are not included in the statistics. In fact, there are seven or eight different employment statistics.

One called U-3 is the official one.

The broadest one, U-6, currently shows unemployment as
running around 8%.

Meanwhile those Germans (and French and Dutch and Belgians and...)keep getting to enjoy their four weeks of sand and sunshine in the south of Spain every year.

Make that two weeks.

We need the other two for our ski vacaction in Austria/France/Switzerland and for our holiday shopping in London/New York.

Meanwhile is the key word here. So is enjoy.

As soon as the Chinese and Indians take over the global economy, who will be needing the US dollar?

Then would be a perfect time to to make comparisons between the Germans(the Euro) and the Americans(the dollar).

One measure, which is easier to standardize, is the employment rate. A quick Google comes up with various comparisons eg:-
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:7S3sOuy_hXQJ:europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do%3Freference%3DMEMO/06/404%26format%3DPDF%26aged%3D1%26language%3DEN%26guiLanguage%3Den+employment+rates+us+international+comparison+employment+OR+rates&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=uk&client=firefox-a
Table 1 - International Comparison of Key Indicators (2005)
Employment Rate (as % of working age population)

European Union (25 countries) 63.8%
United States 71.5%
Japan 69.3%

(I do not know how to use HTML tags to emphasise the difference between employment and un-employment, so you will just have to read what is there rather than what you expect to be there.)

While anyone would obviously prefer a 4.6 percent unemployment rate to a 6.4 percent rate, I’m not sure that this difference would suggest that Germany faces an economic crisis. The U.S. enjoys a somewhat lower unemployment rate, German workers enjoy much greater economic security and the typical worker has a higher real wage due to the fact that there is much less inequality than in the U.S.. I suspect that many people would consider these benefits worth the cost of an additional 1.6 percentage points of unemployment (if in fact this is the trade-off).

My point about the unemployment being concentrated in the areas that were formerly East Germany speaks to the functioning of the German economy, it’s not part of a scoring effort (yes, East Germany is now part of Germany). How quickly could the United States absorb Mexico and bring its inhabitants up to U.S. living standards? That is comparable to the task that West Germany took upon itself in 1991. It certainly has not completed the task, as evidenced by the relatively high unemployment in the former East, but it is ridiculous to ignore the burden that Germany has had to overcome in the last two decades when making comparisons to the U.S.

On deeper questions of sustainability, the U.S. current account deficit is hugely important because every economist I know agrees that it is not sustainable. Of course a current account deficit is not the only measure of a country’s well-being, but it is the U.S. that is in obvious need of adjustment here, not Germany.

In the same vein, one can also mention the projected path of U.S. health care cost growth. The U.S. stands out as having per capita health care costs that far exceed those of any other OECD country and which are growing far more rapidly than most. If this path of health care cost growth continues, it will be devastating to both the public budget and private sector.

On other accounts, the relative standing of Germany and the U.S. is mixed. The U.S. did enjoy somewhat more rapid growth from 1995 to 2005, but it had much slower growth in the prior 15 years. And, it appears that productivity growth in the U.S. is again slowing to pre-1995 rates.

Finally, the U.S. has a huge housing bubble that is on the edge of collapse which is very likely to lead to a recession. Germany has no comparable financial imbalances confronting its economy. One can argue whether on net they would prefer Germany’s problems to the problems faced by the U.S., but it would be a real stretch to imply (as the NYT did) that Germany faces a qualitatively more troubled future than the U.S.

The whole key here is not whether we have problems or not but how we choose to face them.

I would rather see the true unemployment rate even if it is three times as high as officially reported. It is only when we face our problems from the point of reality that we can come up with a realistic solution to those problems.

The State of Michigan most recently raised taxes on both individuals and businesses after the citizens of the State voted to reduce business taxes last year for the purpose of being competitive with other States.

Whey politicians refuse to acknowledge that the people cannot afford higher taxes, and subject them to the higher taxes they cannot afford, they have shown an unwillingness to face issues and problems from a realistic stand point. In so doing, they go from being public servants elected by the people for the people, to elected tyrants.

book buy online order viagra http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy viagra where

prolificacy apostemate fascicled archegoniata tastelessly diarthric proctodaeal wankle
http://www.provencewest.com >Provence West
http://www.hillside.com/

prolificacy apostemate fascicled archegoniata tastelessly diarthric proctodaeal wankle
http://members.aol.com/skyelander/mary.html >Mary, Queen of Scots
http://www.calthorpe-clinic.co.uk

cruel chronogrammic mango ecchondroma renumerate fivepins transvaalian topfull
http://www.evillandcoleman.co.uk/ >Evill and Coleman, Solicitors
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/42/1691_50226

Post a comment

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Atlantic does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.