CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research


En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs Beat the Press Mulligan Tries Again to Blame the Drop in Employment on the Supply Side

Mulligan Tries Again to Blame the Drop in Employment on the Supply Side

Wednesday, 26 September 2012 12:58

Casey Mulligan takes another stab at explaining the drop in employment since the housing market crash on changes in incentives in the NYT today. The basic story is that the extension of the length of unemployment insurance (UI), the easing of eligibility rules, the increased generosity of food stamps and several other changes in tax and benefit structures gave people less incentive to work. As a result, more people opted to rely on these benefits rather than work, hence the large falloff in employment and the rise in the unemployment rate.

There are many problems with this story, most importantly that people who have looked at what happens to workers whose UI benefits expire (e.g. Jesse Rothstein) find that most of them simply leave the labor force. They do not suddenly start working. Since the extension of UI benefits was by far the most important change in incentives since the start of the downturn, and we don't see much evidence of an effect on employment, we might have some reason to believe that the other smaller changes had much effect.

But Mulligan presents us with a graph that shows that groups that saw larger increases in effective tax rates (which includes the loss of benefits from working as an implicit tax) had the biggest falloff in average hours worked.


                                                       Source: Mulligan, 2012.  

Actually, the graph doesn't quite show this story. We can see that high-middle skilled unmarried heads of households had an effective reduction in marginal earnings of more than 15 percent, yet they had the same or less reduction in hours than all but the highest skill group among married workers, all of whom had considerable smaller increases in effective marginal tax rates. If Mulligan has a case here, it rests on the lowest skill, low-middle skilled and middle skilled group among unmarried heads of households. (To convince yourself of this fact, cover up these three points and see if the graph tells you anything about the relationship between the drop in hours and the change in effective tax rates.)

There are a couple of points to be made about this analysis. First, we had around 10.5 million employed single heads of households in 2007. This means that we can't hope to explain too large a share of the 10 million lost jobs in the downturn on this group. The second point is that once we begin to divide this group by skills the samples are not very large. We also run the risk that we are picking up other effects, most notably that these are likely to be younger workers who have had particularly bad employment experiences in the downturn. 

But let's accept Mulligan's work at face value. Note that his endpoint is 2010. The reason is that benefits became notable less generous after 2010 by his calculations as many programs expired. Depending on the group, a quarter to one-third of the disincentive would have been eliminated. This means that we should expect to see a substantial uptick in hours worked for the most affected groups.

It would take a bit of work to reproduce Mulligan's skill groups, but if we look at the less-skilled segment of the population, those without high school degrees and those with just high school degrees, it is difficult to see much evidence of a gain in employment since 2010 when the work disincentives were lessened. In other words, if these people didn't respond to the reduction of disincentives when programs expired, it's hard to believe that they were responding to the increased disincentive whent the programs were expanded.

 Employment to Population Ratio of People without High School Degrees


Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.


 Employment to Population Ratio of People with High School Degrees

high school grads-09-2012 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 In short, Mulligan has an interesting story, but the data don't seem to fit.

Addendum: The graph for those without high school degrees was corrected at 10:30. Thanks Barry.

Second Addendum: Since I'm beating up on Mulligan here, I want to give him credit for being right in his previous post. That one took Paul Krugman to task for arguing that anyone who believed that the release of the new version of the iPhone would increase GDP was a Keynesian. Mulligan gave a solidly grounded explanation whereby the new iPhone could simply be seen as the fruit that came from prior years' investment. Of course Krugman is right that what is going on is a Keynesian boost to demand, but he is wrong that there is no possible non-Keynesian explanation for the iPhone providing a boost to growth.

Comments (6)Add Comment
Golf joke?
written by David, September 26, 2012 3:38
You can supply the NYT with a Mulligan, but he still shoots over par.
Will a conservative ever surprise us?
written by Lord, September 26, 2012 5:57
Conservatives should have expected major job increases with the exhaustion of these programs that haven't materialized. Will any of they notice? Probably not, for they would have to think and wouldn't be conservative then.
written by urban legend, September 26, 2012 7:49
Shouldn't this Grade AAA clown at least make some attempt to correlate changes in employment with actual changes in policy? Shouldn't he try to explain why, if extending unemployment induces workers to take a vacation, that did not happen after the extensions under Bush in 2002, 2003, etc.? Or why the collapse of several million jobs over a period measured in months had anything to do with more generous "re-distribution." Or how workers could be satisfied enough with benefits at poverty levels should be enough to offset wages three, four, five and more times that amount?

The guy is a clown, clown, clown, and he makes the august New York Times and the hallowed University of Chicago into laughing-stocks.
Error in your chart
written by Barry, September 26, 2012 8:47
Dean, I think you have an error in your chart on people without a high school degree. It looks exactly like the other chart, but when I pull the data from BLS it comes out different from what you have posted. The chart for people with a high school degree appears to match exactly.
Scarpe Hogan
written by Scarpe Hogan, September 26, 2012 9:24
The truth is tightShopping on the web is getting extremely popular now days; people it hard to go for searching so that they prefer online shopping This particular even now results in a directly collection making a slender searching lower leg, however simultaneously commemorate the 'weighted' look Scarpe Hogan Uomo which copies a new pupAs you can see,they're popular and cozy to wear and have their most famous natural leather or even suede shoes or boots decorated together with sequins this time around (Hint: Some stores are closed in Mondays but a majority of ones open from 3 within the day

written by kharris, September 27, 2012 11:18
Once upon a time, I was in a social psych lecture about an experiment on behavioral differences between people of "normal" weight and those who are overweight. The experiment was designed to rely on self-report of hunger. The prof got all the way through, told us the result, and then grinned and said "and that's when they brought out the sandwiches." His point was that the researchers had gone an extra step to confirm the self-reports of hunger. The weighed the sandwiches before and after to see if what each group ate matched self-reports of hunger.

Mulligan never brings out the sandwiches. Over and over, he makes an argument just up to the point he thinks he can claim victory. If he had wanted to know whether his argument was right, he'd have gone the extra step. What he apparent wants if for his readers to think his argument is right, regardless of whether it is. So no sandwiches. He's no alone in this, of course.

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.


Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613

About Beat the Press

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of several books, his latest being The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive. Read more about Dean.