Understanding the unemployment problem

2012-08-25T17:25:00Z 2012-09-06T10:38:17Z Understanding the unemployment problemBy Jonathan Krajack, Special to The Sentinel The Sentinel

With a new round of November elections on the horizon, it is an appropriate time to reflect upon the state of the economy and the performance of our elected representatives.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official unemployment rate for the United States during the past four years has mostly fluctuated between 8 and 10 percent. Pennsylvania has fared slightly better between 7 and 9 percent, with the Harrisburg-Carlisle area between 6 and 8 percent.

Voters should ask themselves: what policies are the Democrats and the Republicans proposing in order to improve the economy?

One area of agreement between the political parties is the need to reduce the deficit. The reasoning is as follows:

Everyone knows that if a household or a business doesn’t get its finances in order, bankruptcy is a very real possibility. Therefore, just like a household or a business, the U.S. government should also get its finances in order.

This comparison is flawed.

The U.S. government is unlike any other entity in the United States because of one simple fact: it controls the printing press for dollars. Quite literally, the U.S. government has the ability to create an unlimited amount of dollars. Our elected representatives talk about the U.S. being broke, but this is nonsense. The entity that has the ability to create an unlimited amount of dollars can never run out of them.

It is worth mentioning that although the U.S. government technically can create an unlimited amount of dollars, that doesn’t mean that it should. The stability and security of the dollar is one of the most important responsibilities entrusted to the U.S. government.

Most people seem to recognize that if the U.S. government were to create too much money, it would have negative effects on the economy. But what most people do not seem to understand is that if the U.S. government does not provide enough money, this also has negative effects on the economy. Currently, a shortage of dollars is directly related to our persistent high unemployment. To understand why this is the case, we need to consider why businesses hire new employees.

There are two main reasons why a business would hire new employees. One is in order to assist the business in meeting current sales. The other is in order to assist the business in meeting an expected future increase in sales.

In order for any business to succeed, money must be spent on whatever that business is selling. Business is all about sales, and sales are the result of spending. In order for sales to increase broadly throughout the economy, spending needs to increase broadly throughout the economy.

What the U.S. economy has experienced in the past four years is a decrease in spending broadly throughout the economy. The housing crash and financial crisis have caused people to cut back on expenditures. This has resulted in businesses experiencing a decrease in sales.

It is a vicious cycle. Less spending leads to fewer sales, which signals to businesses to lay off employees in order to cut costs, which leads to even less spending and fewer sales because less people are earning income, which leads to more unemployment, and so on.

The mechanism that prevents this vicious cycle from spiraling out of control is U.S. government deficit spending. This is when the U.S. government spends more than it collects in tax revenue. (Money creation!)

As employees are laid off from their jobs, deficit spending is automatically triggered in the form of unemployment compensation. This trigger is absolutely vital to halting the vicious cycle.

By injecting (new) money into the bank accounts of people who would otherwise have no income, unemployment compensation helps maintain a level of spending that is just enough to stabilize the economy, but not enough to significantly bring down unemployment.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are proposing a decrease in deficit spending. Doing this would push the economy back toward the vicious cycle because it would pull dollars out of the economy. It would lead to less spending, less sales and more unemployment.

Contrary to what we hear from both political parties, what the U.S. government should be doing is lowering taxes to give people more money to spend and increasing deficit spending, for example, by providing states with the funds to meet their budget shortfalls. There is no need for states to have to make cuts when the U.S. government has the ability to provide the necessary funds.

Both lowering taxes and deficit spending increase the amount of dollars in the economy. Both options lead to more spending and sales.

It is a virtuous cycle. More spending leads to more sales, which signals to businesses to hire more employees and/or invest in expanding business operations, which creates more jobs and therefore more people earning income, which leads to more spending and more sales, and so on.

The way to keep this virtuous cycle going is for the U.S. government to ensure there is enough money in the economy to keep spending high enough to keep businesses busy.

The potential downside in creating new money is possibly creating too much. This can result in inflation, where the price of most things we purchase increases. The U.S. government has the tools to rein it in. The process is the exact opposite of what needs to be done to stimulate the economy. The U.S. government can slowly raise taxes and/or decrease government spending, both of which remove dollars from the economy.

There is no exact taxation rate and level of deficit spending that is ideal for all times. The conditions of the economy change. We need elected representatives that understand this and keep a constant eye on the goal of low inflation and low unemployment.

Currently the U.S. economy desperately needs more dollars. Businesses will not hire many of the millions of unemployed people until increased spending and sales indicate that it is a wise investment.

It is the responsibility of our elected representatives to enact policy that will provide these dollars to encourage more spending throughout the economy. Until that happens, the U.S. economy will continue to slowly muddle along with persistent high unemployment. Unfortunately, both the Democrats and the Republicans appear determined to do the opposite of what is needed.

Jonathan Krajack is a Carlisle native pursuing an M.A. Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Copyright 2015 The Sentinel. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(9) Comments

  1. JK
    Report Abuse
    JK - August 29, 2012 6:18 pm
    I don't think our national debt is comparable, but I don't have enough space in these comments to explain why. If you're interested, send me an email at jonathankrajack@hotmail.com …and I'll explain my position. At the very least, you can look at this as an opportunity to better understand where someone you disagree with is "coming from" … and that's always useful to know.
  2. michael
    Report Abuse
    michael - August 29, 2012 9:13 am
    Thank you for a respectful discussion JK. I frankly feel same as Briando, but that's not productive. You mentioned German owed reparations. Is that any different than the national debt, and the fact we have to borrow 40 cents for each dollar spent???
    And throwing the police and fire union to the wolves is really just a cheap way to scare someone to your side. Like the "its for the children" from the service employee unions.
    Printing dollars is quantitative easing and adds no value!
  3. JK
    Report Abuse
    JK - August 28, 2012 4:48 am
    Also, to both michael and Briando… did you read the entire piece? The only specific money supply expansion I mentioned was 1) LOWER YOUR TAXES, and 2) provide states with funds to not have to lay off workers (teachers, police officers, etc). When these people get laid off, they're still collecting money but now via unemployment compensation, and then welfare if unemployment compensation runs out. I would think both of these solutions seem like things you would support. How come you don't?
  4. JK
    Report Abuse
    JK - August 27, 2012 11:43 pm
    Briando, I was tempted to not offer information to you because your version of engaging the material was calling me an idiot, a fool, and disparaging my level of formal education. But, information is meant to be shared... This link goes into more economic detail on what I was talking about: http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2012/05/why-cant-people-understand-national-accounting.html
  5. JK
    Report Abuse
    JK - August 27, 2012 11:36 pm
    Michael, I think this link will help alleviate up some of your fears regarding hyperinflation: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3773
  6. JK
    Report Abuse
    JK - August 27, 2012 7:00 pm
    Thanks for the kind words. It's not theoretical. If what I proposed is a bubble, then nearly the entire history of the United States is a bubble. Take a look… in almost every year of the history of the United States the federal government has been increaseing the money supply. It's conducive to economic growth. What I'm suggesting is that we all admit it already, and start dicussing how to do it more efficiently.. how to do it to maximize the economy. 8-10% unemployment is not ideal.
  7. JK
    Report Abuse
    JK - August 27, 2012 6:56 pm
    You're referring to the Weimar Hyperinflation? Germany was war torn, it's productive economy decimated, they owed massive war reparations, etc. It was an unusual circumstance. The United States has been expanding the dollar/money supply nearly every year since its founding. Look what the U.S. has achieved. How do you explain that? I admit there is a danger in creating too much, but there are also negative effects from not providing enough, e.g. high unemployment.
  8. Briando
    Report Abuse
    Briando - August 27, 2012 5:54 am
    You idiot, nice if your living in some theoretical world, you fool. What you propose is a bubble and the economic forces that determine the value and worth of merchandise and services should not be tinkered with the way you propose......this is exactly why we are in this mess in the first place.....can you not see the forest for the trees??? A Masters degree??? spare me....
  9. michael
    Report Abuse
    michael - August 26, 2012 2:32 pm
    Well, You need to take a history course too. Ask the Germans how that worked for them in the 20's.
    the main problem is the Democratic party took the tarp and propped up failed business and the unions. By the way, GM is going to be coming out again, since Japan is kicking them isn the guts again, and the legacy costs of the UAW they are saddled with are still strangling them.
    Maybe you could work for Biden, he believes we can make pixie dust as well.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick