Productivity (output per hour) data are readily available; we employ the estimates in Historical Statistics of the United States for the years to 1946.4 These widely accepted data were originally derived by John Kendrick.5 Beginning with 1947, the standard Bureau of Labor Statistics data are our choice.6 For prices, we use the consumer price index.7 Dividing the hourly wage by the price index gives us a measure of real wages. Dividing real wages by productivity produces the adjusted real wage.
We can employ ordinary least squares regression procedures to examine the relationship between the adjusted real wage W and the unemployment rate U for the ninety years from 1900 through 1989. Doing so, we obtain the following results:
where the numbers in parentheses are t-values.
The results suggest that there is a positive relationship that is highly significant in a statistical sense between the adjusted real wage and the unemployment rate. Moreover, variations in the adjusted real wage alone can explain about five-sixths (83 percent) of the observed variation in the unemployment rate over time.8 The results are highly consistent with the neoclassical/Austrian view that unemployment is largely determined by adjusted real wages in excess of equilibrium (market-clearing) levels.
In the typical (median) year, the adjusted real wage moved by 1.85 points (ignoring the direction of the change). Thus the results suggest that in a typical year, the unemployment rate moves about 0.6 percentage points (say, from 5.0 to 5.6 percent) as a consequence of fluctuations in the adjusted real wage.9 Not all years are typical, of course. Indeed, in some twelve of the ninety years, the adjusted real wage rose or fell by more than five points, implying an unemployment-rate change of at least 1.6 percentage points (e.g., from 4.5 percent to 6.1 percent.) Thus fairly frequent relatively major changes in unemployment seem to be attributable to changes in the adjusted real wage.
The results reported in (2) are very supportive of the basic neoclassical/Austrian perspective, but they fail to fully describe the relationship between unemployment and changes in the various components making up the adjusted real wage—money wages, prices, and productivity. Also, it is possible that unemployment responds, at least in part, in a lagged fashion to changes in the adjusted real wage. This year’s increase in unemployment may partly have resulted from last year’s increase in the adjusted real wage.
To provide greater detail and to allow for some lag in the unemployment response to wage changes, we can expand the model:10
where Wt-1 represents the adjusted real wage one year earlier,
The model confirms even more strongly the neoclassical/Austrian position. Every variable has the expected sign and is significant at the 99 percent level of confidence. Higher adjusted real wages last year are associated with more unemployment this year. Rising money wages in the past year are associated with more unemployment, while rising prices and productivity (both lowering the adjusted real wage) are associated with lower unemployment. The model explains an impressive 90 percent of the variation in unemployment over time.
It is interesting to see how the model performs in explaining the major cyclical episodes in modern American unemployment history. Figure 3.1 shows the actual and predicted unemployment rates by year from 1900 to 1989. The two lines in general move closely together, and there is not a single major downturn or upturn in unemployment that is not captured, albeit sometimes imperfectly, by the adjusted real wage model.
Because of the large amount of detail included in the small space of figure 3.1, it is difficult to ascertain with any precision the differences between the actual unemployment rate and the unemployment rate predicted by (4). In figure 3.2, the 90-year period is divided into approximately equal quartiles of 22–23 years each to allow a better look at the model’s forecasting ability. The model underpredicts the rise in unemployment at the beginning of World War I somewhat, but rather accurately forecasts the dramatic increase in unemployment in 1921. It does even better in predicting the Great Depression in the early 1930s. In the postwar era, the model accurately forecasts major upswings in unemployment (e.g., 1958, 1975, 1982), but often a year later than they actually occurred. Thus the lag between real-wage changes and unemployment may have changed over time. Later in the book, we will deal with this problem by using quarterly data that are available for the postwar period.
In summary, variations in unemployment throughout the century are well explained by changes in the adjusted real wage. How sensitive is unemployment to changes in the components of the adjusted real wage? In the typical year, money wages changed by 5.4 percent (median change, ignoring the direction of the change.) Multiplying that “typical” change by the coefficient from (4), 0.172, we see the effects of a typical year’s money-wage increase is to change the unemployment rate by about 0.9 percentage points (e.g., raising it from 5.5 to 6.4 percent.) Similarly, a typical productivity change of 2.88 percentage points (median change, ignoring signs) also had the impact of changing the unemployment rate by about 0.9 percentage points (2.88 × .302 = 0.870.)
The median price change was 3.26 percent (ignoring the direction of the change.) Multiplying that by the coefficient from (4), we observe that unemployment typically was changed by about 1.4 percentage points (3.26 times 0.437) because of changing price levels (e.g., from 5.5 to 6.9 percent.) All three components seem to have measurable impacts on unemployment, with the price variable being moderately greater than the money-wage or productivity factors in relative importance. In addition, of course, each component enters into the determination of the adjusted real wage, which, in lagged form, is also included in the regression equation. Therefore, the total impact of, for example, a 5.4 percent money-wage increase is greater than indicated above.
FIGURE 3.1 ACTUAL VS. PREDICTED UNEMPLOYMENT, 1900–1990
FIGURE 3.2 A CLOSER LOOK AT ACTUAL VS. PREDICTED UNEMPLOYMENT
The Changing Flexibility of Wages, Prices, and Productivity
From the model, it would appear that the degree to which wages, prices, and productivity fluctuate in their movement over time is an important determinant of variations in unemployment. Table 3.1 shows movements in the adjusted real wage, unadjusted real wages, money wages, prices, and labor productivity for a variety of time periods in the twentieth century.