– Da metà XVII a fine XX secolo l’economia americana è cresciuta circa del 3,5% l’anno;
– poi il tasso di crescita è calato in modo significativo, aggirandosi sull’1,8% nel 2000-2012.
– Un fattore rilevante è che gli americani oggi lavorano meno, una tendenza non prodotta solo dalla recessione degli ultimi anni.
– Circa il 70% del PIL è attribuibile a lavoro umano, ma c’è stato un calo del tasso di occupazione degli americani in età lavorativa.
– Negli ultimi decenni si è avuto un continuo aumento del tasso di occupazione sulla popolazione attiva:
o nel 2000 +8% rispetto al 1960, aumento totalmente dovuto alla maggiore partecipazione femminile alla forza lavoro.
o Dal 2000 oltre 2/3 di questo aumento è stato annullato.
– Se oggi negli Usa ci fosse la quota di occupati sugli attivi del 2000, ci sarebbero quasi 14 milioni di salariati in più che contribuiscono all’economia;
o anche supponendo una minore produttività del 25%, rispetto alla media della forza lavoro esistente, il PIL USA sarebbe maggiore del 5% di quanto lo è oggi ($800MD, pari a circa $2 600 pro-capite).
o La crescita del PIL sarebbe del 2,2% invece che dell’1,8%.
– Tesi WSJ: Perché il tasso di occupazione è oggi minore negli Usa? Molteplici i fattori, ma principalmente il fenomeno è dovuto a una serie di politiche pubbliche che hanno ridotto gli incentivi all’impiego:
o 1. Buoni cibo, il programma avviato negli anni 1960 ha avuto un forte incremento dopo il 2000, con 30 milioni in più di beneficiari;
o il forte aumento è precedente alla crisi del 2008;
o nel 2000-2007 +17,1 milioni, a 26,3 milioni; a 47,5 milioni ad ottobre 2012.
o Il sussidio medio pro-capite è passato da $102/mese nel 2009 a $125/mese.
– WSJ: Non c’è un collegamento con aumento di disoccupazione, povertà e calo del reddito
o Confronto ottobre 2010-ott. 2012: il numero degli utilizzatori dei buoni cibo +7 2223 000, pari a circa +10 000 persone al giorno
o mentre il tasso di disoccupazione sceso da 9,6% al 7,8%; aumento, anche se ridotto, del PIL reale.
– Sussidi di invalidità: nel 1990 erano circa 3milioni ad averne diritto, numero cambiato poco nei due precedenti decenni.
– Poi il numero è salito a 5 milioni nel 2000, 6,5 milioni nel 2005, 8,6 milioni oggi
o WSJ: nonostante sia migliorata la salute degli americani e diminuite le produzioni industriali pericolose, e nel minerario.
– I borse di studio Pell, per favorire lo studio universitario, che dovrebbe fornire una più alta formazione al capitale umano.
o Da uno studio … si rileva che quasi la metà dei laureati in corsi di 4 anni ha trovato occupazione in lavori che non richiedono una laurea; ad es. sono laureati oltre 1 milione di venditori al minuto e 115 000 bidelli e personale per la pulizia.
o Nel 2000 hanno ricevuto borse Pell per frequentare l’università meno di 3,9 milioni di studenti; nel 2005 +33%, a 5,2 milioni; nel 2008 + 1milione; nei 3 anni successivi +50%, a circa 9,7 milioni, +6 milioni rispetto a dieci anni fa’.
o Il risultato è un numero minore di forza lavoro.
– Estensione dei sussidi di disoccupazione: dagli anni 1930 il sistema di previdenza contro la disoccupazione mirava ad aiutare per un breve periodo chi perde il lavoro, per una durata di 26 settimane,
o negli ultimi 4 anni è stata estesa; la maggior parte di chi è disoccupato da un anno o più li riceve ancora.
– Altri fattori che hanno contribuito al calo del tasso di occupazione:
– se la politica sull’immigrazione fosse stata più mirata sui lavoratori avrebbe innalzato il tasso di crescita e di occupazione;
le imposte, le maggiori aliquote marginali su redditi da lavoro dipendente non incentivano a cercare lavoro.
January 15, 2013, 6:36 p.m. ET
Richard Vedder: The Wages of Unemployment
Labor-force participation has declined since 2000, and among the reasons are soaring government benefits.
– From the mid-17th century to the late 20th century, the American economy grew roughly 3.5% a year. That growth rate has since declined significantly. When the final figures are in for 2012, the annual rate of real output growth for the first dozen years of this century is likely to be about 1.81%.
– What accounts for the slowdown? An important part of the answer is simple: Americans aren’t working as much today.
– And this trend reflects more than the recession and sluggish economy of the past few years.
– The national income accounts suggest that about 70% of U.S. output is attributable to the labor of human beings. Yet there has been a decline in the proportion of working-age Americans who are employed.
– In recent decades there was a steady rise in the employment-to-population ratio: For every 100 working-age Americans, there were eight more workers in 2000 than in 1960. The increase entirely reflects higher female participation in the labor force.
– Yet in the years since 2000, more than two-thirds of that increase in working-age population employed was erased.
– The decline matters more than you may suppose. If today the country had the same proportion of persons of working age employed as it did in 2000, the U.S. would have almost 14 million more people contributing to the economy.
– Even assuming that these additional workers would be 25% less productive on average than the existing labor force, U.S. gross domestic product would still be more than 5% higher ($800 billion, or about $2,600 more per person) than it actually is.
– The annual growth rate of GDP would be 2.2%, not 1.81%. The retreat from working, in short, has had a real impact.
– Why are Americans working less? While there are a number of factors, the phenomenon is due mainly to a variety of public policies that have reduced the incentives to be employed. These policies include:
– • Food stamps. Above all else, people work to eat. If the government provides food, then the imperative to work is severely reduced. Since the food-stamp program’s beginning in the 1960s, it has grown considerably, but especially so in the 21st century: There are over 30 million more Americans receiving food stamps today than in 2000.
– The sharp rise in food-stamp beneficiaries predated the financial crisis of 2008:
o From 2000 to 2007, the number of beneficiaries rose from 17.1 million to 26.3 million, according to the Department of Agriculture. That number has leaped to 47.5 million in October 2012. The average benefit per person jumped in 2009 from $102 to $125 per month.
– To be sure, we would expect the number of people on food stamps to increase with rising unemployment, poverty and falling incomes in late 2008 extending into 2009 and perhaps even into 2010 (even though the recession was officially over in late 2009). But more is going on here.
– Compare 2010 with October 2012, the last month for which food-stamp data have been reported. The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% from 9.6%, and real GDP was rising steadily if not vigorously. Food-stamp usage should have peaked and probably even begun to decline. Yet the number of recipients rose by 7,223,000. In a period of falling unemployment and rising output, the number of food-stamp recipients grew nearly 10,000 a day. Congress should find out why.
– • Social Security disability payments. The health of Americans has improved, and the decline in the number of relatively dangerous industrial production and mining jobs should have led to a smaller proportion of Americans unable to work because of disability. Yet the opposite is the case.
– Barely three million Americans received work-related disability checks from Social Security in 1990, a number that had changed only modestly in the preceding decade or two.
– Since then, the number of people drawing disability checks has soared, passing five million by 2000, 6.5 million by 2005, and rising to nearly 8.6 million today. In a series of papers, David Autor of MIT has shown that the disability program is ineffective, inefficient, and growing at an unsustainable rate. And news media have reported cases of rampant fraud.
– • Pell grants. Paying people to go to college instead of to work is traditionally justified on the grounds that higher education builds "human capital" that is vital for the country’s economic future. But a study Christopher Denhart, Jonathan Robe and I did for the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (that will be released soon) shows that nearly half of four-year college graduates today work in jobs that the Labor Department has determined do not require a college degree. For example, over one million "retail sales persons" and 115,000 "janitors and cleaners" are college graduates.
– In 2000, fewer than 3.9 million young men and women received Pell Grant awards to attend college. The number rose one-third, to 5.2 million by 2005, and increased a million more by 2008. In the next three years, however, the number grew over 50%, to an estimated 9.7 million. That is nearly six million more than a decade earlier. The result is fewer people in the work force. Meanwhile the mismatch grows between the number of college graduates and the jobs that require a college education.
– • Extended unemployment benefits. Since the 1930s, the unemployment-insurance system has been designed to lend a short-term, temporary helping hand to folks losing their jobs, allowing them some breathing room to look for new positions. Yet the traditional 26-week benefit has been continuously extended over the past four years—many persons out of work a year or more are still receiving benefits.
– True enough, the economy isn’t growing very much. But if you pay people to stay at home, many will do so rather than seek employment or accept jobs where the pay doesn’t meet their expectations.
– These government programs are not the only players in this game. For example, a more worker-oriented immigration policy in recent decades would have measurably raised the rate of economic growth and increased the employment-to-population ratio.
– Taxes are part of the story too: Today’s higher marginal tax rates on work-related income could well lead to further reductions in work effort by those taxed, as well as to slower economic growth.
Most Americans recognize the need to reduce government spending to rein in the national debt. But there is another reason to cut government spending for specific programs: If more people have less incentive to stay out of the work force, they might seek jobs and help spur economic growth.
Mr. Vedder is professor emeritus of economics at Ohio University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
A version of this article appeared January 16, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Wages of Unemployment.
Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit