|
Every month in its survey of economists' forecasts, the WSJ asks various
inane questions. In its latest survey, one of the questions had to do with
what the government could do to increase employment. Now that health-care "reform" appears
to be on its way to being a done deal, the D.C. issue du jour is employment
stimulus. Various kinds of employer-tax incentives are in the initial stages
of being proposed. Of course, the editorial board of the WSJ, which
has never encountered a tax cut it did not encourage, is lobbying for a cut
in the Social Security payroll tax. Good idea if the WSJ editorial board
also argues for an equal cut in Social Security benefit payments. Fat chance
of that occurring - i.e., a cut in Social Security benefit payments.
Home sales have picked up this year. Why? One important reason is that the
price of homes has fallen in both absolute and relative terms (see chart below).
Why did home sales sag prior to this year's pick up? Supply was greater than
demand at the prevailing prices. By sellers cutting their offer prices
of homes, the quantity demanded of those homes picked up. Yes, there is a gimmicky
tax credit that effectively has lowered the sales price to a first-time homebuyer
and has increased the future tax liabilities of everyone. But I would argue
that the biggest stimulus to home sales this year has been the drop in the
prices of these homes.

What does this have to do with stimulating employment? Clearly, at prevailing
wage rates, the supply of labor exceeds its demand. Do unemployed workers
want to become employed again? Take a hint from successful sellers of homes
- lower your prices, i.e., wage rates. This is not meant to be cruel and
uncaring. Rather, I am just trying to explain how markets come into equilibrium.
|
Paul L. Kasriel, Director of Economic Research
The Northern Trust Company
Economic Research Department
Positive Economic Commentary
"The economics of what is, rather than what you might like it to be."
50 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60675
The information herein is based on sources which The Northern Trust Company
believes to be reliable, but we cannot warrant its accuracy or completeness.
Such information is subject to change and is not intended to influence your
investment decisions.
Copyright © 2005-2009 The Northern
Trust Company
Image rendition and html coding Copyright © 2000-2009
SafeHaven.com
ADVERTISEMENTS
« Opinions expressed at SafeHaven are those of the
individual authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of SafeHaven
or its management. Articles are available via RSS/XML. Please
visit RSSHelp for instructions. »
|