By Stephen Simpson Labor is a driving force in every economy – wages paid for labor fuel consumer spending, and the output of labor is essential for companies. Likewise, unemployed workers represent wasted potential production within an economy. Consequently, unemployment is a significant concern within macroeconomics.
“Official” unemployment refers to the number of civilian workers who are actively looking for work and not currently receiving wages. Given that official unemployment statistics specifically exclude those who would like to work but have become discouraged and ceased looking for employment, the true unemployment rate is always higher than the official rate.
Within the unemployment number are several sub-types of unemployment.
Frictional unemployment results from imperfect information and the difficulties in matching qualified workers with jobs. A college graduate who is actively looking for work is one example. Frictional unemployment is almost impossible to avoid, as neither job-seekers nor employers can have perfect information or act instantaneously, and it is generally not seen as problematic to an economy.
Cyclical unemployment refers to unemployment that is a product of the business cycle. During recessions, for instance, there is often inadequate demand for labor and wages are typically slow to fall to a point where the demand and supply of labor are back in balance.
Structural employment refers to unemployment that occurs when workers are not qualified for the jobs that are available. Workers in this case are often out of work for much longer periods of time and often require retraining. Structural unemployment can be a serious problem within an economy, particularly in cases where entire sectors (manufacturing, for instance) become obsolete. (For more on unemployment, read The Unemployment Rate: Get Real.)
While high unemployment is undesirable, full employment (meaning zero unemployment) is neither practical nor desirable. When economists talk about full employment, frictional unemployment and some small percentage of structural unemployment are excluded. Economists do not generally believe it is practical or desirable to have 100% employment in an economy.
In particular, the Phillips curve highlights why this is so. Generally there is a relationship between inflation and unemployment – the lower the rate of unemployment, the higher the rate of inflation. While a variety of factors can alter the curve (including productivity gains), the essential take-away is that neither a zero-unemployment or zero-inflation scenario is viable on a long-term basis.
There is also a tradeoff between employment and efficiency. Businesses maximize their profits when they produce the largest number of goods possible at the lowest price possible. In some cases, though, labor is more expensive (less efficient) than capital equipment. Consequently, there is always a trade-off between the cost and productivity of labor and that of labor-substituting capital equipment and that effectively reduces the number of jobs available. Likewise, structural employment is a recurrent problem as technology progresses – workers find their skills no longer match the needs of the employers and must update their training as industries adopt new technologies. (To learn more about the Phillips curve, check out Examining The Phillips Curve.)
