HICKS: Productivity gains make for jobless recovery

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Mike Hicks

So it has come to pass that the U.S. economy has surpassed pre-recession levels.

In the fourth quarter of 2010, the gross domestic product (the value of all goods and services we produce) topped the last record high, reached in the second quarter of 2008.

This is good news, of course, but there is a tarnished silver lining to that cloud. We have broken record levels of production with almost 7 million fewer folks working. How can that possibly be? There are two explanations, but I begin by providing an example.

Imagine a factory shift, or a restaurant crew, of 21 workers. If one person gets ill or quits, the crew will manage without them. The better the worker, the harder it is to fill that gap. If the absent person is a bad worker, maybe the shift goes easier without him. Something like this is what has happened in this recession. About one in 20 workers has lost his job. How can we produce more with fewer workers?

Our economy has seen remarkable productivity growth since the start of the recession. As in our factory floor example, each worker gets a bit better at his job, so the same level of economic activity is produced with fewer workers. The data point pretty strongly to this as a cause. At the end of last year, each American worker was producing about 5 percent more goods or services than he was producing in mid-year 2008, when output last peaked. That is due to better-managed operations, better workers and better use of technological improvements.

The second reason for the higher productivity is that the pre-recession years saw a bubble not only in housing markets, but also in labor markets. As a consequence of this, many weak or mediocre firms were buoyed by the artificially high level of demand for goods and services. A dual consequence was that all workers in poor firms and poor workers in good firms were employed at a time they should have lost their jobs. So, the bubble kept workers in jobs that were not viable in the long term.

Had market signals prevailed, workers in weak companies or with outdated skills would have been forced to retrain or relocate slowly over several years. This would have boosted the unemployment rate in 2004-2007 a tad, but would still have been far less disruptive than the bursting of a bubble we saw in 2008.

Both explanations are partly true, and how much of each is a matter for scholarly speculation. The problem is, we now have 7 million people that businesses really don’t need. Some of this will change in the coming months, but the harsh reality is that technological change has rendered a good many of these folks redundant.

It is an old story, but a nevertheless disheartening one. It is also a tale rich in its implications for young workers. About 6 million of those currently unemployed, about 85 percent, have only a high school degree or less.•


Hicks is director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at cber@bsu.edu.


  • President of Express Employment - Indy South
    Mike - your article was right on. I wrote an article on our website a couple months ago called "The New Normal" We are also seeing a miss match in what employers need and the candidate pool. There are good people available but employers are being very specific with what they want and many lack the skills needed - not bad people, just employers are asking for more in this economy. We are also seeing employers not willing to take risks on those applicants that have more skill than they need and were highly compensated during the "bubble" - afraid that they wont stay. Employers are cautious and are not willing to hire with out a very good match.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. to mention the rest of Molly's experience- she served as Communications Director for the Indianapolis Department of Public Works and also did communications for the state. She's incredibly qualified for this role and has a real love for Indianapolis and Indiana. Best of luck to her!

  2. Shall we not demand the same scrutiny for law schools, med schools, heaven forbid, business schools, etc.? How many law school grads are servers? How many business start ups fail and how many business grads get low paying jobs because there are so few high paying positions available? Why does our legislature continue to demean public schools and give taxpayer dollars to charters and private schools, ($171 million last year), rather than investing in our community schools? We are on a course of disaster regarding our public school attitudes unless we change our thinking in a short time.

  3. I agree with the other reader's comment about the chunky tomato soup. I found myself wanting a breadstick to dip into it. It tasted more like a marinara sauce; I couldn't eat it as a soup. In general, I liked the place... but doubt that I'll frequent it once the novelty wears off.

  4. The Indiana toll road used to have some of the cleanest bathrooms you could find on the road. After the lease they went downhill quickly. While not the grossest you'll see, they hover a bit below average. Am not sure if this is indicative of the entire deal or merely a portion of it. But the goals of anyone taking over the lease will always be at odds. The fewer repairs they make, the more money they earn since they have a virtual monopoly on travel from Cleveland to Chicago. So they only comply to satisfy the rules. It's hard to hand public works over to private enterprise. The incentives are misaligned. In true competition, you'd have multiple roads, each build by different companies motivated to make theirs more attractive. Working to attract customers is very different than working to maximize profit on people who have no choice but to choose your road. Of course, we all know two roads would be even more ridiculous.

  5. The State is in a perfect position. The consortium overpaid for leasing the toll road. Good for the State. The money they paid is being used across the State to upgrade roads and bridges and employ people at at time most of the country is scrambling to fund basic repairs. Good for the State. Indiana taxpayers are no longer subsidizing the toll roads to the tune of millions a year as we had for the last 20 years because the legislature did not have the guts to raise tolls. Good for the State. If the consortium fails, they either find another operator, acceptable to the State, to buy them out or the road gets turned back over to the State and we keep the Billions. Good for the State. Pat Bauer is no longer the Majority or Minority Leader of the House. Good for the State. Anyway you look at this, the State received billions of dollars for an assett the taxpayers were subsidizing, the State does not have to pay to maintain the road for 70 years. I am having trouble seeing the downside.