15/12/20: Impact of Covid19 on families & labor

 

Some interesting research on the less tangible differential impacts of Covid19 pandemic via McKinsey: families with children and families without children

In all categories, impact of the pandemic has been more severe on families with children. Predictably, as parents are facing increased demand on household work and higher pressure of increased density of living.

Closure of schools or flex-model (partial closure) are probably one of the key drivers:

Public safety during the pandemic might (rightly) be the overriding concern when it comes to designing strategic approach to managing the pandemic responses, but as the pandemic drags on, the above impacts are likely to cumulate. Something has to give. One example of appropriate response should be changing or suspending all traditional job performance assessment metrics, and doing so formally. Another point is that allowing increased mobility for smaller families, while keeping restrictions for larger families - an approach that is consistent with the argument that public health restrictions should be applied predominantly to families with greater vulnerabilities (e.g. families with children) is likely to widen the gap between the Covid19 impacts on families with kids and those without. A third point is that public supports should be extended and increased for families with children. 

These points might appear to be obvious in light of the above evidence, but they are by no means a norm in the public policies deployed in many places. 

In some areas, it is harder to design specific policy responses that can target the prevalence of the more severe impacts. For example, McKinsey reference a substantial gender gap in severity of the aforementioned effects: "Our survey data also show that more mothers struggle with household responsibilities and mental-health concerns compared with fathers (at 73 percent versus 65 percent, and 75 percent versus 69 percent, respectively, citing these challenges as either acute or moderate)." However, as McKinsey research shows, there are some responses that employers have been taking to try and mitigate overall negative impact of Covid19 pandemic on social and physical well-being:

The problem is that (1) the above measures are clearly not enough, and (2) the above measures are not targeted specifically to help families with children. Nor do all of these measures apply to all types of employees. In fact, the more vulnerable employees (termed contracts, contingent workforce, etc) are clearly put at a greater disadvantage by many of these measures. At least four of the ten measures listed in the chart above are clearly associated with increased risk of lower earnings and greater sense of precariousness in one's employment/career prospects. Something that is counter-productive in the pandemic over the long run, even if it appears to be accommodative in the short term. 

The implementation and effectiveness of the above measures are also wanting. Furthermore, the above responses tend to apply across the entire workforce, and do not reflect the fact that pressures of the pandemic are distributed disproportionately across different demographics (I mention families with children and women, but the same concern applies to POC households, LGBTQ+ households and so on):

Something has to give. And the public policy responses should lead, not lag, these developments.

Note: McKinsey's full research paper is available here: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diverse-employees-are-struggling-the-most-during-covid-19-heres-how-companies-can-respond. 

13/11/20: The economy has two chronic illnesses (and neither are Covid)

My column for The Currency this week covers two key long-term themes in the global economy that pre-date the pandemic and will remain in place well into 2025: the twin secular stagnations hypotheses and the changing nature of the productivity. The link to the article is here; https://thecurrency.news/articles/28224/the-economy-has-two-chronic-illnesses-and-neither-are-covid/. 

 

4/10/20: Technological Deepening Is Coming for Our Jobs

 

In my recent article for The Currency (link here: https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2020/09/my-recent-article-on-potential-long.html), I argued that COVID19 will act as an accelerator of technological capital deepening in the modern economies, with a resulting faster displacement of workers (including highly skilled ones) by technology. 

McKinsey survey of the developing trends in businesses strategic responses to the pandemic confirms my hypothesis:

Per above, across all sectors, and (peer charts below) across specific sectors, businesses are planning to prioritize deployment of technology in addressing long-term change in response to the current pandemic. 

McKinsey state that "Fifty-five percent of leaders anticipate that at least half of their organization’s workforce will be fully or partially remote postcrisis. While the expectations vary widely by industry—from 69 percent predicting this level of remote work in technology, telecommunications, and media to 43 percent in advanced industries—even in the industries where manufacturing, patient care, and sales transactions often require people at offices, stores, plants, and other company facilities, a significant portion of the workforce may be partially or fully remote." Source: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/the-need-for-speed-in-the-post-covid-19-era-and-how-to-achieve-it. And "Our survey results show that executives are focused on three courses of action ... making good decisions more quickly, improving communication and collaboration, and making greater use of technology."

26/9/20: Workers Should Brace Themselves for the post-COVID19 New World

 

My recent article on potential long-term impacts of COVID19 pandemic on corporate development and investment strategies for The Currency: https://www.thecurrency.news/articles/24259/workers-should-brace-themselves-things-will-only-get-worse. 

6/5/20: H1B Visas and Local Wages: Undercutting Human Capital Returns

The Economic Policy Institute published an interesting piece of research on the links between H1B visas and lower wages paid by the U.S. employers for key skills: https://www.epi.org/publication/h-1b-visas-and-prevailing-wage-levels/. As far as I can see, the report does not cover academic faculty employment, but it does cover data from universities and other non-profits.

The report is worth reading.

18/8/19: Migration Policy vs the Law of Unintended Consequences

President Trump's policies are a rich field for sowing evidence on the application of the law of unintended consequence in economic policies. Take his Trade War with China that so far resulted in ca USD20 billion in fiscal receipts and USD26 billion payouts in subsidies to U.S. farmers, netting a fiscal loss of USD 6 billion (https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2019/06/17619-lose-lose-and-lose-some-more.html), while generating gains for European exporters (https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2019/08/15819-winning-trade-wars-round-3.html) and shrinking net real exports for the U.S. economy (https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2019/08/1919-losin-spectacularly-trump-trade.html) and driving losses to the U.S. exporters (https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2019/07/31719-fed-rate-cut-wont-move-needle-on.html). Another example, the never-ending rhetorical and regulatory war against skilled (and other) migration.

On the latter, we have plenty of evidence drawn from Mr. Trump's predecessors that conclusively shows the costs of severely restrictive application of the skills-based migration quotas. And, thanks to Mayda, A M, F Ortega, G Peri, K Shih, and C Sparber 2017 paper, titled “The Effect of the H-1B Quota on Employment and Selection of Foreign-Born Labor” (NBER Working Paper No. w23902, https://www.nber.org/papers/w23902.pdf), we now have an in-depth analysis of the mechanics by which unintended consequences of restricting skilled migration impose these economic losses on the U.S.

The authors looked at how changes in H-1B policy, enacted over the years, affect the characteristics of migrants entering the U.S. and how these changes alter U.S.-wide productivity and wages.

Per authors, "The economic intuition [behind the study] is simple. Firms across the globe compete to hire highly skilled workers. The strict quota and the lottery allocation generate uncertainty in acquiring the legal right to work in the US even after securing a job offer. Hence, talented foreign nationals might elect to work elsewhere. Similarly, US firms face uncertainty over whether they will be allowed to employ the top job candidates they have identified. Some firms might elect to forgo this uncertainty altogether by turning to alternative labour sources."

"First, we examine H-1B quality. ... ...H-1B restrictions have particularly hindered the employment of the highest ability foreign-born workers. Anyone who believes immigration policy should be designed to attract ‘the best and brightest’ workers to the country should be troubled by the discovery that restrictions to aggregate inflows generate the opposite effect. Quantitatively, the number of new H-1B workers from the highest wage quintile is nearly 50% lower than it would have been in the absence of H-1B restrictions, but the number of new H-1B workers in the median wage quintile is unchanged." In other words, if wages are a proxy for talent, skills and productivity, reducing H1B quotas appears to reduce availability of more skilled, more talented and more productive foreign workers, while having zero impact on availability of mid-range skills, talents and productivity workers.

Worse, reduced H1B quotas also increased concentration of H1B attaining firms (or reduced the pool of employers with a meaningful access to H1B workers). Authors conclude that "It is possible that when faced with the uncertainty and costs of the H-1B hiring process, economies of scale and network externalities arise that favour firms specialising in H-1B employment and workers with specialised knowledge about the legal hiring process." Or put differently, H1B quotas restriction may be fuelling increase in the share of foreign talent brought into the U.S. by outsourcing agencies and a handful of very larger employers. This selection bias does not appear to be linked to higher productivity and is, therefore, welfare reducing as compared to a system where firms that can generate higher productivity increases by employing foreign workers gain better access to H1B via markets.

In summary, "we presume that by reducing the H-1B cap from 195,000 in 2001-2003 to 85,000 today, policymakers intended to reduce new H-1B employment at for-profit firms and possibly increase employment of competing US-born workers. The policy achieved the first but not the second goal. Moreover, the cap restriction also generated consequences that were likely unintended. The policy change has particularly deterred workers with the highest earnings potential from entering the US labour market. Given the potential for productivity-enhancing technological gains generated by H-1B workers, this loss could reverberate throughout the economy. Other important effects are distributional and favour computer-related occupations and firms that use the H-1B programme heavily."

Consequences. A lesson for MAGA crowd from their predecessors.

13/7/19: Mapping the declines in jobs creation

Increasing market power concentration, falling entrepreneurship, rising concentration amongst the start ups, unicorns and billions in investment, the markets have been rewarding larger companies at the expense of the smaller and medium enterprises for years. And this has had a problematic impact on human capital and jobs creation.

Here is the data on the levels of employment in medium-large companies over the years, based on the U.S. markets data:

In simple terms, per each dollar of investors' money, today's companies are creating fewer jobs - a trend that was present since at least 2000, and consistent with the onset of the Goldilocks Economy. But the most pronounced collapse in jobs creation from investment has been since 2017. Excluding recessionary periods, in 2002-2006 average annual decline in the number of employees per $1 billion in market valuation was 3.45%. Over 2009-2013 this number rose to 4.73% and in 2014-2019 the rate of decrease averaged 8.05% per annum.

14/6/19: The Real U.S. Migration Crisis is Not at the Border, but at Home

I recently wrote about the new data from the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol on crime amongst the illegal and legal immigrants in the U.S. here: https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2019/06/3619-what-customs-and-border-protection.html. The key conclusion from this earlier post is that there is no evidence (based on arrests) of a large scale crime wave perpetrated by the legal and illegal aliens in the U.S.

New research from the Pew Research published this week shows that, just as with the migrant crime rates, there is no new migration crisis at the U.S. borders. However, there is a crisis in the U.S. migration, a crisis of different nature.

Take the headline figure:

Number of unauthorised immigrants in the U.S. has fallen 14 percent from the peak in 2007. While the overall numbers remain elevated at close to, but below, 2004 levels, the numbers are not consistent with the claim of a 'crisis on the border'.

However, the real crisis in the U.S. immigration system is the one related to policy and legislation:

Over the years, there has been a steady increase in illegal immigrants with long term U.S. residence. In fact, the increase has been shockingly unchecked. Currently, estimated 66 percent of all illegal aliens in the U.S. have been resident here for more than 10 years. Which exposes the simple fact of life: the U.S. system does not have functional avenues for long term illegal aliens - people who have higher chances of being assimilated into the American society, establishing family roots in the country and forming families in their place of residence - to legalise their status. In fact, Pew Research data shows that the median years of U.S. residence for the unauthorised adult immigrants has risen from 7.2 in 2000 to 15.1 today.

The very purpose of a well-functioning migration system is to encourage and support integration of migrants into the host society. By failing to create a functioning, effective and efficient pathways for illegal migrants with long term tenure in the country to legalise their status, the U.S. immigration system is actively preventing millions of well-integrated residents from securing their future in the place they called home for 15 years or more.

Full Pew Research note is available here: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/us-unauthorized-immigrant-population-2017/.

2/4/19: Brain Drain Reversed or Inverted?

Generally, we associate skilled emigration with the phenomenon of 'brain drain' or a zero sum game - the loss of human capital from the country of origin and a corresponding gain to the recipient country. However, as common, the real nature of these effects is more complex than the first order analysis implies.

A new paper by Fackler, Thomas, Giesing, Yvonne and Laurentsyeva, Nadzeya, titled "Knowledge Remittances: Does Emigration Foster Innovation?" (CESifo Working Paper No. 7420) accessible via https://ssrn.com/abstract=3338774, looks at the issue of knowledge flows relating to emigration. The authors find that based on "industry-level patenting and migration data from 32 European countries," "...emigration in fact positively contributes to innovation in source countries. ... While skilled migrants are not inventing in their home country anymore, they contribute to cross-border knowledge and technology diffusion and thus help less advanced countries to catch up to the technology frontier."

More specifically, authors show that "one percent increase in the number of emigrants increases patent applications by 0.64 percent in the following two years. This result is statistically significant at the one percent level and robust to controls, fixed effects, and varying lags. The effect is quantitatively more pronounced when we consider only the flows of migrants with patenting potential."

A picture worth a 1,000 words:

Notice, the above suggests that the positive effect of opening up migration channels on technological convergence is evident as early as two years prior to the EU Accession of 2004. The same is confirmed in the following chart:

In line with their findings, the authors suggest that

• The EU "could benefit from further facilitating migration within Europe", by focusing on reducing cultural and social barriers to migration, such as "language and administrative barriers, ...ensuring the recognition of foreign qualifications and the promotion of language courses at all age levels."
• "Another policy implication is to ease skilled migration to Europe from outside the European Union. This could be achieved by easing the access to European labour markets and the recruitment of highly qualified foreign workers. While the Blue Card has been a step in this direction, its scope could be increased to obtain a higher impact and administrative barriers should be reduced." 

Update: Similar findings are reported in Kim, Jisong and Lee, Nah Youn, High-Skilled Inventor Emigration as a Moderator for Increased Innovativeness and Growth in Sending Countries, East Asian Economic Review Vol. 23, No. 1 (March 2019) 3-26: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3360938. Their paper uses data from 154 countries to show that high-skilled inventor emigration rate has a positive growth effect on the country of origin (COO) by spurring "knowledge diffusion and technology transfer back to their COOs, which in turn affects innovation and growth in their home countries. The result indicates that the direct negative impact of the brain drain can be mitigated by the positive feedback effect generated by the high-skilled inventor emigrants abroad. When coupled with an active trade policy that reinforces growth, countries can partially recoup the direct effect of the human capital loss."

11/1/19: Capital Gains Tax: Human Capital vs Other Forms of Capital

This is exactly the source of policy-induced wealth inequality in the modern advanced economies: the disparity between labor income tax and capital gains tax that (1) incentivises accumulation of capital gains generating assets; (2) increases wealth inequality arising from non-meritocratic transfers (spousal and inheritance); and (3) reduces gains from meritocratic investment in human capital.

Now, factor this into tax-adjusted returns on various forms of capital: Intangible Capital returns are taxed at a corporate tax level at below the Physical Capital returns tax rates, which fall lower than the Capital Gains tax rate. Meanwhile, returns to the [intangible] Human Capital are taxed at the rates of higher margin Income tax rates. Go figure why wealth inequality is rising (as entrepreneurship is shrinking).

11/9/18: Slow Recoveries & Unemployment Traps: Hysteresis and/or Secular Stagnation

The twin secular stagnations hypothesis (TSSH, first postulated on this blog) that combines supply-side (technological cyclicality) and demand-side (demographic cyclicality) arguments for why the world economy may have settled on a lower growth trajectory than the one prevailing before 2007 has been a recurrent feature of a number of my posts on this blog, and has entered several of my policy and academic research papers. Throughout my usual discourse on the subject, I have persistently argued that the TSSH accommodates the view that the Global Financial Crisis and the associated Great Recession and the Euro Area Sovereign Crisis of 2007-2014 have significantly accelerated the onset of the TSSH. In other words, TSSH is not a displacement of the arguments that attribute current economic dynamics (slow productivity growth, slower growth in the real economy, reallocation of returns from labour and human capital to technological capital and, more significantly, the financial capital) to the aftermath of the structural crises we experienced in the recent past. The two sets of arguments are, in my view, somewhat complementary.

From this later point of view, a research paper, "Slow Recoveries & Unemployment Traps: Monetary Policy in a Time of Hysteresis" by Sushant Acharya, Julien Bengui, Keshav Dogra, and Shu Lin Wee (August 2018 https://sushantacharya.github.io/sushantacharya.github.io/pdfs/hysteresis.pdf) offers an interesting read.

The paper starts with the - relatively common in the literature - superficial (in my opinion) dichotomy between the secular stagnation hypothesis and the "alternative explanation" of the slowdown in the economy, namely "that large, temporary downturns can themselves permanently damage an economy’s productive capacity." The latter is the so-called 'hysteresis hypothesis', "according to which changes in current aggregate demand can have a significant effect on future aggregate supply" which dates back to the 1980s. The superficiality of this dichotomy relates to the causal chains involved, and to the impact of the two hypotheses.

However, as the authors note, correctly: "While the two sets of explanations may be observationally similar, they have very different normative implications. If exogenous structural factors drive slow growth, countercyclical policy may be unable to resist or reverse this trend. In contrast, if temporary downturns themselves lead to persistently or permanently slower growth, then countercyclical policy, by limiting the severity of downturns, may have a role to play to avert such adverse developments."

The authors develop a model in which countercyclical monetary policy can "moderate" the impact of the sudden, but temporary large downturns, i.e. in the presence of hysteresis. How does this work?

The authors first describe the source of the deep adverse shock capable of shifting the economy toward long-term lower growth rates: "in our model, hysteresis can arise because workers lose human capital whilst unemployed and unskilled workers are costly to retrain". This is not new and goes back to the 1990s work on hysteresis. The problem is explaining why exactly such deep depreciation takes place. Long unemployment spells do reduce human capital stock for workers, but long unemployment spells are feature of less skilled workforce, so there is less human capital to depreciate there in the first place. Retraining low skilled workers is not more expensive than retraining higher skilled workers. In fact, low skilled workers seek low skilled jobs and these require only basic training. It is quite possible that low skilled workers losing their jobs today are of certain demographic (e.g. older workers) that reduces the effectiveness of retraining programs, but that is the TSSH domain, not the hysteresis domain.

One thing that does help this paper's hypothesis is the historical trend of growing duration of unemployment, e.g. discussed here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2017/07/27717-us-labor-markets-are-not-in-rude.html and the associated trend of low labour force participation rates, e.g. discussed here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2018/06/8618-human-capital-twin-secular.html. I do agree that unskilled workers are costly to retrain, especially in the presence of demographic constraints (which are consistent with the secular stagnation on the demand side).

But, back to the authors: "... large adverse fundamental shocks can cause recessions whose legacy is persistent or permanent unemployment... Accommodative policy early in a recession can prevent hysteresis from taking root and enable swift a recovery. In contrast, delayed monetary policy interventions may be powerless to bring the economy back to full employment."

"As in Pissarides (1992), these features [of long unemployment-induced loss of human capital, sticky wages that prevent wages from falling significantly during the downturns, costly search for new jobs, and costly retraining of workers] generate multiple steady states. One steady state is a high pressure economy: job finding rates are high, unemployment is low and job-seekers are highly skilled. While tight labor markets - by improving workers’ outside options - cause wages to be high, firms still find job creation attractive, as higher wages are offset by low average training costs when job-seekers are mostly highly skilled." Note: the same holds when highly skilled workers labour productivity rises to outpace sticky wages, so one needs to also account for the reasons why labour productivity slacks or does not keep up with wages growth during the downturn, especially when the downturn results in selective layoffs of workers who are less productive ahead of those more productive. Hysteresis hypothesis alone is not enough to do that. We need fundamental reasons for structural changes in labour productivity that go beyond simple depreciation of human capital (or, put differently, we need something similar to the TSSH).

"The economy, however, can also be trapped in a low pressure steady state. In this steady state, job finding rates are low, unemployment is high, and many job-seekers are unskilled as long unemployment spells have eroded their human capital. Slack labor markets lower the outside options of workers and drive wages down, but hiring is still limited as firms find it costly to retrain these workers." Once again, I am not entirely convinced we are facing higher costs of retraining low skilled workers (as argued above), and I am not entirely convinced we are seeing the problem arising amongst the low skilled workers to begin with. Post-2008 recovery has been associated with more jobs creation in lower skilled categories of jobs, e.g. hospitality sector, restaurants, bars, other basic services. These are low skilled jobs which require minimal training. And, yet, we are seeing continued trend toward lower labour force participation rates. Something is missing in the argument that hysteresis is triggered by cost of retraining workers.

Back to the paper: "Importantly, the transition to an unemployment trap following a large severe shock can be avoided. If monetary policy commits to temporarily higher inflation after the liquidity trap has ended, it can mitigate both the initial rise in unemployment, and its persistent (or permanent)
negative consequences. Monetary policy, however, is only effective if it is implemented early in the downturn, before the recession has left substantial scars... [otherwise] ...fiscal policy, in the form of hiring or training subsidies, is necessary to engineer a swift recovery."

The paper tests the model in the empirical setting. And the results seem to be plausible: "allowing for a realistic degree of skill depreciation and training costs... is sufficient to generate multiple steady states.... this multiplicity is essential in explaining why the unemployment rate in the U.S. took 7 years to return to its pre-crisis level. In contrast, the standard search model without skill depreciation and/or training costs predicts that the U.S. economy should have fully recovered by 2011. ...the model indicates that had monetary policy been less accommodative or timely during the crisis, leading to a peak unemployment rate higher than 11 percent, the economy might have been permanently scarred and stuck in an unemployment trap. Furthermore, our model suggests that the persistently high proportion of long-term unemployed in the European periphery countries may reflect a lack of timely monetary accommodation by the European Central Bank."

Fraction of Long-term unemployed (>27 weeks) in select countries. 

The figure plots five quarter moving averages of quarterly data. 

The dashed-line indicates the timing of Draghi’s “whatever it takes” speech. 

Source: Eurostat and FRED.

This seems quite plausible, even though it does not explain why eventual 'retraining' of low skilled workers is still not triggering substantial increases in labour productivity growth rates in Europe and the U.S.

One interesting extension presented in the paper is that of segmented labour markets, or the markets where "employers might be able to discern whether a worker requires training or not based on observable characteristics - in particular, their duration of unemployment... [so that, if] skilled and unskilled workers searched in separate markets, the economy would still be characterized by hysteresis, but it would take a different form. There are two possibilities to consider. [If] ... the firm’s share of the surplus from hiring an unskilled worker, net of training costs, is large enough to compensate firms for posting vacancies in the unskilled labor market, ...after a temporary recession which increases the fraction of unskilled job-seekers, it can take a long time for these workers to be reabsorbed into employment. Firms prefer to post vacancies in the market for skilled job-seekers rather than the market for unskilled job-seekers in order to avoid paying a training cost. With fewer vacancies posted for them, unskilled job-seekers face a lower job-finding rate and thus, the outflow from the pool of unskilled job-seekers is low. In contrast, the skilled unemployment rate recovers rapidly - in fact, faster than in the baseline model with a single labor market... [Alternatively], the segmented labor markets economy could experience permanent stagnation, rather than a slow recovery, [if] unskilled workers are unemployable, since firms are unwilling to pay the cost of hiring and training these workers. Thus unskilled workers effectively drop out of the labor force."

We do observe some of the elements of both such regimes in the advanced economies today, with simultaneous increasing jobs creation drift toward lower-skilled, slack in supply of skills as younger, educated workers are forced to compete for lower skilled jobs, and a dropout rate acceleration for labour force participation. Which suggests that demographics (the TSSH component, not hysteresis component) is at play at least in part in the equation.


In summary, a very interesting paper that, in my opinion, adds to the TSSH arguments a new dimensions: deterioration in skills due to severity of a demand shock and productivity shock. It does not, however, contradict the TSSH and does not invalidate the key arguments of the TSSH. As per effectiveness of monetary or monetary-fiscal policies in combatting the long-term nature of the adverse economic equilibrium, the book remains open in my opinion, even under the hysteresis hypothesis: if hysteresis is accompanied by a permanent loss of skills twinned with a loss of productivity (e.g. due to technological progress), adverse demographics (older age cohorts of workers losing their jobs) will not be resolved by a training push. You simply cannot attain a catch up for the displaced workers using training schemes in the presence of younger generation of workers competing for the scarce jobs in a hysteresis environment.

And the Zero-Lower Bound on monetary policy still matters: the duration of the hysteresis shock will undoubtedly create large scale mismatch between the sovereign capacity to fund future liabilities (deficits) and the longer-run inflationary dynamics implied by the extremely aggressive and prolonged monetary intervention. In other words, large enough hysteresis shock will require Japanification of the economy, and as we have seen in the case of Japan, such a scenario does not lead to the economy escaping the TSSH or hysteresis (or both) trap even after two decades of aggressive monetary and fiscal stimuli.

12/7/18: Technology, Government Policies & Supply-Side Secular Stagnation

I have posted about the new World Bank report on Romania's uneven convergence experience in the previous post (here). One interesting chart in the report shows comparatives in labour productivity growth across a range of the Central European economies since the Global Financial Crisis.

The chart is striking! All economies, save Poland - the 'dynamic Tigers of CEE' prior to the crisis - have posted marked declines in labour productivity growth, as did the EU28 as a whole. When one recognises the fact 2008-2016 period includes dramatic losses in employment, rise in unemployment and exits from the labour force during the period of the GFC, and the subsequent Euro Area Sovereign Debt Crisis - all of which have supported labour productivity to the upside - the losses in productivity growth would be even more pronounced.

This, of course, dovetails naturally with the twin secular stagnations thesis I have been writing about in these pages before. In particular, this data supports the supply-side secular stagnation thesis, especially the technological re-balancing proposition that implies that since the late 2000s, technological innovation has shifted toward increasingly substituting sources of economic value added away from labour and in favour of software/robotics/ICT forms of capital:

Human capital is the only offsetting factor for this trend of displacement. And it is lagging in the CEE:

But the problem is worse than simple tertiary education figures suggest. Current trends in technological innovation stress data intensity, AI and full autonomy of technological systems from labour and human capital. Which implies that even educated and skilled workforce is no longer a buffer to displacement.

As the result, in countries like Romania, with huge slack in human capital and skills, investment is not flowing to education, training, entrepreneurship and other sources of human capital uplift:

While barriers to entrepreneurship remain, if not rising:

In effect, technological innovation in its current form is potentially driving down not only productivity growth, but also labour force participation. The result, as in the economies of the West:

1. Notional large scale decline in official unemployment (officially unemployed numbers are down)
2. Significant lags in recovery in labour force participation (hidden unemployed, permanently discouraged etc numbers are up)
3. The two factors somewhat offset each other in terms of superficially boosting productivity growth (with real productivity actually probably even lower than the official figures suggest)

These three factors contribute to an expanding army of voters who are marginalised within the system.

Romania is a canary in the European secular stagnation mine. 

12/7/18: Romania's Uneven convergence Path: 2007-2018

A new World Bank report, led by Donato De Rosa, covers Romania's reforms and economic development experience. Worth a read! |
"From Uneven Growth to Inclusive Development : Romania's Path to Shared Prosperity" https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29864.

Quick summary:

• "Romania’s transformation has been a tale of two Romanias: one urban, dynamic, and integrated with the EU; the other rural, poor, and isolated."
• "Reforms spurred by EU accession boosted productivity ...GDP per capita rose from 30 percent of the EU average in 1995 to 59 percent in 2016."
• "Today, more than 70 percent of the country’s exports go to the EU, and their technological complexity is increasing rapidly... the gross value added of the information and communications technology (ICT) sector in GDP, at 5.9 percent in 2016, is among the highest in the EU."
• "Yet Romania remains the country in the Union with by far the largest share of poor people, when measured by the $5.50 per day poverty line (2011 purchasing power parity)".  More than 26% of country population lives below that poverty line, "more than double the rate of Bulgaria (12%)."

• "While Bucharest has already exceeded the EU average income per capita and many secondary cities are becoming hubs of prosperity and innovation, Romania remains one of the least urbanized countries in the EU, with only 55 percent of people living in cities."
• "Overall, access to public services remains constrained for many citizens, particularly in rural areas, and there is a large infrastructure gap, which is a drag on the international competitiveness of the more dynamic Romania and limits economic opportunities for the other Romania in lagging and rural areas."

The positive effects of Accession were frontloaded, when it comes to structural reforms:

• "Romania was invited to open negotiations with the EU in December 1999.  Until Romania joined in January 2007, EU accession remained an anchor for reforms, providing momentum for the privatization and restructuring of SOEs and for regulatory and judiciary reforms."
• "Output gradually recovered, and until 2008 the country enjoyed high but volatile growth... Unemployment was on a declining trend, but youth and long-term unemployment remained elevated. Skills and labor shortages became increasingly widespread. High inactivity persisted stubbornly, particularly among women. Gains in labor force participation were modest overall. ...Inequality increased further, as large categories of people—the Roma in particular—continued to be excluded from the benefits of growth."
• "Although output has recovered since 2008, institutional shortcomings have compounded the effects of the crisis, contributing to significant setbacks in poverty reduction, and are again leading to macroeconomic imbalances."
• "Fiscal consolidation during 2009–2015 has helped place economic growth on a strong footing. However, lack of commitment and underfunding for the delivery of public services and poor targeting of social programs have contributed to the negative income growth of the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution (the so-called bottom 40) in 2009–2015, with poverty remaining above pre-crisis levels, and inequality still among the highest in the EU."

8/6/18: Human Capital, Twin Secular Stagnations and Education Investments

I have written a lot about the twin secular stagnations hypothesis that I defined few years ago as a combination of two separate secular stagnation propositions. According to my running definition:

“The Twin Secular Stagnations Hypothesis combines two sources of the statistically significant reduction in the potential growth in the economy as:

1. Supply-side Secular Stagnation: a proposition that future growth is likely to be slower amongst the advanced economies due to the decline in returns to innovation and lower growth rate in the labour force; and
2. Demand-side Secular Stagnation: a proposition that future growth is being pushed down by the adverse demographics (ageing population) and the legacy of the Global Financial Crisis, the Great Recession and the Euro Area Sovereign Debt Crisis, which result in lower potential investment, slower growth in demand, and the rising cost of social services, pensions and healthcare provisions.”

An interesting piece of evidence, supporting the ‘productivity-labour force’ nexus of the Twin Secular Stagnations Hypothesis has been recently presented by Mary Daly, the executive vice president and Director of Research in the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (full article here: https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2018/april/raising-speed-limit-on-future-growth/).

First, on evidence of secular stagnation: "Average GDP growth over the 60 years preceding the Great Recession, was just under 3.5%. But if we look ahead, economists forecast numbers closer to 2%." In other words, we are looking at long term growth rate or potential growth rate that is almost 43 percent below the empirical rates of growth experienced over the last 60 years.

Next: the evidence of nexus. Per Daly, to "account for the dramatic change in prospects" for future growth in the U.S. "To explain that, we need to look at the fundamental drivers of economic growth: growth in productivity and the labor force."

Figure 1 shows the extent to which the labor force-productivity nexus drove growth over the last 7 decades, and is expected/forecast to do so in 2017-2025 period:

Daly notes that "productivity growth has varied over time, but since the 1980s has contributed on average about 1.5% to growth and is forecast to do the same going forward." This is, at best, incomplete. In reality, as the chart shows, productivity growth penciled in for 2017-2025 is slower than in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000-2007. In fact, labour productivity growth in 2017-2025 is forecast to run roughly at an average rate of the 1970s, 1980s and 2008-2016. This is set against the technological revolution we are allegedly experiencing which should, all thing equal, be driving up labour productivity growth in 2017-2025 over and above the 1980s-1990s period. But, in fact, labour productivity growth contribution to GDP growth has shrunk in 2000-2007, and then again in 2008-2016 (the Great Recovery) and now set to be below the 1990s over the period 2017-2025. So all is NOT well with productivity growth.

The second point, well-argued by Daly is that labour force contribution to GDP growth is shrinking and shrinking catastrophically. That is clear from the Figure above.

On the latter point, Daly shows that labour force participation rates (also a subject of frequent coverage on this blog), have fallen off the cliff in recent years: "We’ve also seen a drop in the level of labor force participation among workers in their prime employment years, a pattern that does look quite a bit different from other countries. Labor force participation in the United States for prime-age workers reached a peak in the late 1990s and then took a steep dive in the 2001 recession. In the 2007 recession, it took an even steeper tumble, reaching a low point in 2015... While we have seen improvements since, they have been modest. So today, the share of men and women in their prime working years who are employed or actively searching for a job is far lower than it was in the 1990s."

So, Daly asks a very important question: "Why aren’t American workers working?" And proceeds to give an interesting explanation: "research by a colleague from the San Francisco Fed and others suggests that some of the drop owes to wealthier families choosing to have only one person engaging in the paid labor market (Hall and Petrosky-Nadeau 2016)."

Why is it interesting? Because those who can afford single-earner households today are a vast minority. The original research from the Fed cited by Daly is here: https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2016/february/labor-force-participation-and-household-income/. And here is the chart that shows the key findings from the research:

 Note: Numbers to right of lines show percentage point changes to total and quartile contributions, 2004–13

Observe that the deepest reduction in labour force participation is for the 3rd quartile of income earners. How much do these families earn? "In 2013, households in the lowest 25% of the income distribution, or the first quartile, had an average monthly income of less than $1,770. The median total household monthly income was $3,430. At the top of the distribution, the lower bound for being in the highest 25% of households, or the fourth quartile, was a monthly income of $5,993." Now, can you imagine in these modern days a household earning less that $5,993 per month in pre-tax income being able to afford not to engage the second partner in work? Personally, I can't. Unless these households benefit from huge transfers via inheritance or within-family housing subsidies, etc. But... per same paper, "On average in 2013, the upper-level households derived about 96% of their monthly income from working. For households in the poorest quartile, earnings made up about 62% of monthly income, while another 23% came from unemployment compensation, social security, supplemental social security, and food stamps." Which means that these very same households that, apparently, voluntarily withdrawing labour force participation, are not gaining much from non-labour income transfers.

So, these volunatry exits from the labour force are, apparently, impacting households more dependent on labour income AND not the highest income quartile households. Something is fishy.

Second piece of evidence from the paper cited by Daly is age cohorts of 'leavers':

This too shows that something is fishy in the data. Households in 55+ age group are more likely to have higher incomes. They are increasing labour force participation despite the fact that it is harder for them to gain quality jobs due to age effects. Households in 25-54 age bracket are exiting the workforce, just at the time when their earnings from work should be rising and just in time when they need to service student loans, mortgages, schooling for kids, pensions etc.

Again, the evidence presented simply contradicts the arguments made: both age cohorts and income cohorts analysis does not appear to support the proposition that families are voluntarily exiting the labour force, reducing their labour income to single source provision.

I am not buying this. The fact that the 3rd quartile of families are exiting the workforce is not a sign of preferences for leisure or household employment. It is, rather, a sign that the jobs market is no longer promising for the upper-middle classes, especially for the younger workers. It is a sign that families are increasingly reliant on familial transfers for housing and contingent workforce employment, both under-reported to the official stats gatherers.

Daly hints at this in her reference to the 'second factor' driving decline in labour force participation: the disappearance of the mid-level skills jobs, including the decline due to automation: "A growing body of research finds that these pressures on middle-skilled jobs leave a big swath of workers on the sidelines, wanting work but not having the skills to keep pace with the ever-changing economy". Now, that hits the target far better than the argument that people are just exiting workforce to have good times and home-school their kids.

And worse, Daly is also on the money when she points out that the U.S. system is woefully inadequate when it comes to provisions for investing in human capital: "Like in most advanced economies, job creation in the United States is being tilted toward jobs that require a college degree (OECD 2017). Even if high school-educated workers can find jobs today, their future job security is in jeopardy. Indeed by 2020, for the first time in our history, more jobs will require a bachelor’s degree than a high school diploma (Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl 2013)." Yet, "although the share of young people with four-year college degrees is rising, in 2016 only 37% of 25- to 29-year-olds had a college diploma (Snyder, de Brey, and Dillow 2018). This falls short of the progress in many of our international competitors (OECD 2018), but also means that many of our young people are underprepared for the jobs in our economy."

There are added dimensions / nuances to this. Some of the U.S. college education is of questionable quality, compared to more evenly-distributed quality of college education in Europe, Japan and Australia. Top Universities deliver top tier output. But for-profit colleges and some lower-end school deliver nothing worth talking about. A 4-year system of undergraduate education is effectively a correction on already poor quality high schools output, requiring the first year of college to be a remediation year to compensate for the lack of proper standards in secondary education. Two-year masters programs are, then, designed to take the first year to correct for the shortfalls in education quality in undergraduate levels. And so on. In effect, the U.S. higher education system is designed to inflict maximum financial damage (via costs and debt of year 1 education in undergraduate and post-graduate systems), while taking a cut of two years from the graduates careers. This is similar to what Italian system delivers, except in the case of Italians, it delivers also higher quality content in secondary and undergraduate education, taking longer time to learn more.

And so on. In simple terms, as Daly tacitly acknowledges, the U.S. economy is racing toward higher degree of automation and greater skills intensity, while running low on human capital investments. The solution to this historical problem has been to import younger, smarter foreigners via a range of schemes - from graduate schools admissions to H1Bs. But this solution is not sufficient to correct for the rate of acceleration in skills intensity. And it is not functioning in redressing training and skills gaps that already exist in the economy.

Daly notes that one important aspect of change must touch upon the need to "equalize educational attainment across students of different races and ethnicities." This, undoubtedly, is one key factor in attempting to address the human capital investment gaps. The problem, of course, is how does one achieve this? Historically, the U.S. States have gone about the problem by lowering standards and quality of secondary education curriculum for all students. They also increased quotas-based admissions for minorities. The former does nothing for actually stimulating investment in human capital. The latter creates a zero-sum game out of education system, unless new investments go into college education provision. Which is not happening, despite rampant price inflation in higher education.

Daly makes a strong case for more investment in college education. But she does not make the equally important case that such investment must start at pre-primary level and work through a combination of increased resources and higher standards across all grades and for all students. She correctly states that "In the parlance of economics, education is incentive compatible, good for everyone involved", when it comes to students, taxpayers and the economy.

But she does not recognise that better education is not incentive-compatible for one key set of participants in the market: teachers and schools administartors. In fact, in primary and secondary education systems, in the U.S., incentives for teachers are aligned toward delivering more standardised, less rigorous, less-transparent in quality, outcomes, such as rota learning and teaching-to-test. Daly says nothing as to how this problem can be addressed, despite the fact that all past reforms of the U.S. education system were led by teachers and their Unions, not by parents or other economic agents.

Finally, there is a problem of generational cohorts. Any investment in education system today will hold promise of altering the status quo of human capital investments for the cohorts of those under the age 30 (given the levels of debt accumulated by the recent graduates, probably for those under the age of 25). Which leaves the rest of the households - the vast majority of them, in fact - just where we have them today: under-skilled, facing the risk of their existent human capital depreciation to automation, etc. Formal education cannot address these problems systemically. Take an argument ad absurdum as an illustration. Suppose we invest enough funding into the current higher education system to provide 100% college graduation for those current under 25 years of age. Suppose we even fix the quality vs quantity problem in the U.S. education system. This will improve the productivity and jobs prospects for the very young. But it will make the older generations of workers (older = 25 years of and above) even less competitive, leading to further reductions in their incomes, career prospects and labor force participation rates.

Have we fixed anything when it comes to the Twin Secular Stagnations Hypothesis? Not really. Have we addressed the polarisation gap between life-cycle earnings of the lower earners and higher earners (the dropping-out of the U.S. middle class)? Not really. Have we done anything to alleviate political disillusionment amongst the U.S. voters with the economic system that reduces their social and economic mobility? Not really. So even in ad absurdum case of Daly-proposed solution success, we have fixed little if nothing at all. We, in fact, might have made the disease more deadly.

In sum, we do need more investment in education. But we also need smarter education systems reforms. And we need a parallel investment in increasing human capital investments for those already in the labour force, and those of older age cohorts who have been dropping out of it. We need a systemic approach to addressing skills depreciation arising from automaton. And we need a systemic approach to tackling economic value-added displacement away from labour, toward pure profits and technological capital. The longer we delay these major, pivotal reforms, the bigger the problem of the secular stagnation gets.

23/2/18: Ireland's Migration Policies are Working Well

How to do immigration policy right? Ireland's CSO has published some new data on educational attainment in Ireland, covering 2017 results. The data is available here: http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/eda/educationalattainmentthematicreport2017/. One table stands out on the issue of migration:

Click on the image to enlarge

Despite the report itself focusing on 3rd level attainment as a 'catch all' category, what really matters in terms of future quality of the workforce is more advanced education. And in this area, Irish migration system shines. Both, EU15 ex-Ireland & UK and non-EU migration pathways are working to enhance the stock of human capital in the country when it comes to honours tertiary degrees and post-tertiary education.

This is amazing, because the two pathways are distinct in terms of regulations covering mobility (access for immigrants). And both seem to be working well.

Of course, other factors contribute, beyond policy / regulatory facilitation, including Ireland's amazingly open society, welcoming people and social networks that support easy integration of those who want to integrate. But Ireland's policymakers and civil servants, who often act as the early contributors to this mobility also deserve credit. While problems and bottlenecks remain and need addressing, credit should be given where credit is due.

22/1/18: For-Profit CSR: Bounds of Effectiveness?

Quite an interesting paper concerning the potential limitations to the structured CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) programs impact.

From the abstract (emphasis mine):

“Prosocial incentives and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives are seen by many firms as an effective way to motivate workers. … We argue that the benefits crucially depend on the perceived intention of the firm. Workers use prosocial incentives as a signal about the firm's type and if used instrumentally in order to profit the firm, they can backfire. We show in an experiment in collaboration with an Italian firm, that monetary and prosocial incentives work very differently. While monetary incentives used instrumentally increase effort, instrumental charitable incentives backfire compared to non-instrumental incentives. This is especially true for non-prosocially-motivated workers who do not care about the prosocial cause but use prosocial incentives only as a signal about the firm. The results contribute to the understanding of the limits of prosocial incentives by focusing on their signaling value to the agent about the principal's type.”

Which raises some questions:

Often, these days, we think of CSR-to-improve-bottom-line ideas for structuring CSR and broader Social Impact programs. In the light of this research, should we continue focusing on the bottom line-linked CSR? Traditional corporate view of CSR has been that ’we spend resources to do good’. This perception of CSR within corporations quite often results in CSR function becoming secondary to other profit-centric functions. As a response to this, academics and consultants working in the field of Social Impact have advocated for years that companies and organisations need to define CSR as an organic profit-related function. The latest research suggests that this can be counter-productive to other objectives of the CSR programs.

If we do continue to focus on CSR as profit-related function in our teaching and research, what are the limitations to its effectiveness? The paper findings are based on a very restricted data set, derived from a single firm. We do not know the key factors driving the limitations uncovered in the study and we do not know how these factors translate into other geographical, cultural, social and macroeconomic contexts.

Are mixed/hybrid enterprises (socially-mandated for profit enterprises) have to rely on a biased selection of employees to mitigate for this effect? In other words, are mixed/hybrid enterprises, that explicitly rely on conflating the notions of Social Impact and profitability, subject to lower productivity risks when employing ’non-prosocially-motivated’ workers? If so, are systemic biasing filters used in selecting best-fit employees for such enterprises to avoid such workers? Can these filters be identified and tested against other biases (or worse, potential discriminatory hiring practices)?

As educators, we might think about structuring these questions into our classroom discussions. As researchers, we can see this study as opening up the gates for further research. The questions the study prompts are big, important and poorly researched.

Full paper: NBER Working Paper No. w24109 http://www.nber.org/papers/w24109
Ungated version: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3092527

28/9/17: Irish Migration: Some Good News in 2017

While headline figures for net migration to Ieland paint an overall positive picture in the annual data (provided on April-April basis) for 2017, there are some creases on the canvas, both good and bad.

Top line numbers are good: net inward migration posted a print of 19,800 in 2017, up on 16,200 in 2016 and 5,900 in 2015. This marks the third year of positive inflows. However, on a cumulative basis, the last three years are still falling short of offsetting massive outflows recorded in 2010-2014. Cumulatively, between 2010 and 2017, the overall net migration stands at -65,900. Taking last two years’ average net inward immigration, it will take Ireland almost 4 years to cover the shortfall. Worse, on pre-crisis trend (omitting peak inward migration years of 2005-2007), we should be seeing inward net migration of around 27,100, well above the current rate. And on a cumulative basis, were the pre-crisis trends to remain unbroken, we would have added 487,600 residents between 2000 and 2017, instead of the actual addition of 394,500 over the same period. 

So things are improving and getting toward healthy, but we are not quite there, yet.

And there are other points of concern. Primary one is the fact that net inward migration remains negative for Irish nationals: in 2017, net outflow of Irish nationals fell to 3,400 from 8,700 in 2016. However, the figures continue to record net outflows for 8th year in a row. Over the period of 2010-2017, Ireland lost net 139,800 nationals.

On a positive side, there is net inflow of all other nationalities into Ireland, with non-EU nationals inflows jumping (net basis) to 15,7000 in 2017, the highest levels on record (albeit records only start from 2006). It is impossible to tell from CSO figures which nationalities are driving these numbers - a crucial point when it comes to assessing the nature of inflows.

Final point worth making is a positive one: in 2017, Ireland recorded another year or growth in - already strong - net inflows of skills and human capital as reflected both in age demographics and educational attainment. By educational attainment, third level graduates and higher category of net inflows posted another historical record in 2017 at 23,600, topping 2016 record of 20,800. Since 2009, including the years of the acute crisis of 2010-2012, Ireland added net 61,000 new immigrants and returned migrants with third level and higher education. This is consistent with continued recovery in human capital-intensive sectors of the economy and is a huge net positive for Ireland.

Hence, overall, the figures for migration are on the balance positive, although some pockets of weaknesses continue to remain and pose a challenge to the arguments about the breadth and depth of the recovery to-date.

22/8/17: Focus Economics on Refugees Integration Challenge

Focus Economics posted a neat and timely blog post on the topic of potential economic impacts of mass forced migration that has been sweeping across Europe in recent years, driven by the civil war in Syria and botched 'democratization' efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the less-discussed dismantling of Libya.

The link to the post is here: http://www.focus-economics.com/blog/impact-of-refugees-on-european-economies.

In my opinion, the key here is the following issues:

"In the longer term, the picture becomes far murkier. This isn’t just because little is known about the current cohort of refugees, such as their average level of education or how long they will remain in their host countries. It is also because the long-term economic impact of refugees rests largely on how successful countries are at weaving them into the economic fabric of their societies."

Yes, long term viability of all positive assessments of the current migration crisis is questionable. And the problem rests on both sides, the migrants' quality of human capital, and the host countries quality of labor markets.

End result, so far, is that history offers only ominous assessments of the success rates that can be achieved in integrating refugees into active members in the host societies. "If past experience is anything to go by, the full economic integration of refugees will prove an arduous task. Studies from many developed countries have repeatedly shown that refugees tend to earn less, have worse employment prospects and hold lower occupational status than native workers or economic migrants. Even in Sweden, a country with a relatively strong track record of integrating refugees, a study of those arriving between 1997 and 2010 found that fewer than 20% had found employment after one year. Ten years down the line, only between 50% and 60% were working, significantly below the corresponding figure for Swedish natives."

This is not to say that attempts to integrate refugees are a waste of scarce resources. Quite to the contrary, both humanitarian and socio-economic dimensions of the current crisis suggest that we should be doing more (and doing it better) to develop policies and institutions to provide refugees with more open and more efficient access to work-related training, language skills acquisition and general education, including avenues to complete unfinished degrees and pursue higher degrees. As the  Focus Economics post stresses, positive incentives and pro-active systems for engagement should be put forward. One question, however, remains unasked and unanswered, as is common with this analysis: what should be done to identify early and correct any negative choices that some of the refugees might make following their arrival in the host societies. While we have an idea as to how we can help those who want to integrate (note: having an idea is yet to translate into deploying actual policies), we don't really have a good understanding as to how we can prevent adverse choices.

2/8/17: Role of Clusters in empowering Human Capital: GCTV

My comment to GCTV on the importance of clusters in creating support base for human capital: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_bAPXMqw_M.

16/5/17: Technology: Jobs Displacement v Enhancement

Technological innovation is driving revolutionary changes across the labour markets and more broadly, markets for human capital. These changes are structural, deep and accelerating, and, owing to their nature, are not yet sufficiently understood or researched.

One theoretically plausible aspect of the technological innovation in terms of human capital effects is the expected impact of technology on demand for (and therefore supply of) different occupations. For example, we know that technology can act as a complement to or a substitute for labour.

In the former case, we can expect advancement of technology to create more jobs that are closely linked to enhancing technological innovation, deployment and productivity. In other words, we can expect more geeks. And we can expect - given lags in education and training - that as demand for geeks rises, their wages will rise in the short run before falling rather rapidly in the longer term.

In the latter case, there is a bit less certain, however. Yes, technology’s primary objective is to lower costs of production and increase value added. As a result, it is going to displace vast numbers of workers who can be substituted for via technological innovation. However, not all substitutable workers are made of the same cloth and not all technological innovation is capable of achieving unambiguous returns on investment necessary to sustain it. Take, for example, an expensive robot that costs, say, USD 600.000 a pop, but can only replace 3 lower skilled workers in a laundromat, earning USD16,000 per annum. So with benefits etc factored in, the cost of these 3 workers will be around USD70,000 per annum. It makes absolutely zero sense to replace these workers with new tech at least any time before the tech systems become fully self-replicating and extremely cheap. So, for really lower skills distributions, we can expect that jobs displacement by technology is unlikely to materialise soon. But for mid-range wages, consistent with mid-range skills, there is a stronger case for jobs displacement.

All of which suggests that we are likely to see a U-shaped polarisation process arising when it comes to jobs distribution across the skills segments: higher wage segment rising in total share of employment, as complementarity effects drive jobs creation here; and the lower wage segment also rising in total employment, as robots-induced increase in value added across the economy translates into greater demand for low-skills jobs that cannot be efficiently displaced by technology, yet. In the middle, however, we are likely to witness a cratering of employment. Here, the workers are neither complementary to robots, nor are they earning low enough wages to make expensive robots non-viable as a replacement alternative for labour.

Interestingly, we are already witnessing this trend. In fact, we have been witnessing it since the early 1990s. For example, Harrigan, James and Reshef, Ariell and Toubal, Farid paper titled “The March of the Techies: Technology, Trade, and Job Polarization in France, 1994-2007”, published March 2016, by NBER (NBER Working Paper No. w22110: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2755382) looked into “employee-firm-level data on the entire private sector from 1994 to 2007” in France.

The authors “show that the labor market in France has polarised: employment shares of high and low wage occupations have grown, while middle wage occupations have shrunk.” So the story is consistent with an emerging U-shaped labour market response to technological innovation on the extensive margin (in headcount terms). And more, the authors also find that inside margin also polarised, as “…the share of hours worked in technology-related occupations ("techies") grew substantially, as did imports and exports.”

However, the authors also look at a deeper relationship between technology and jobs polarisation. In fact, they find that, causally, “polarisation occurred within firms”, but that effect was “…mostly due to changes in the composition of firms (between firms). [And] …firms with more techies in 2002 saw greater polarization, and grew faster, from 2002 to 2007. Offshoring reduced employment growth. Among blue-collar workers in manufacturing, importing caused skill upgrading while exporting caused skill downgrading.”