Let's leave the labor market alone

The US labor markets are enormously flexible and dynamic. So why regulate them?

Rick Bowmer/AP/File
In this April 2012, file photo, job seeker Alan Shull attends a job fair in Portland, Ore. Salerno argues that the US labor market doesn;t need any government intervention.

If we want want laborers and employers to come together to  discover and create value-productive jobs, then the prescription is simple:  leave labor markets alone and let them churn.

Bloomberg.com columnist Caroline Baum reports some  interesting statistics drawn from the the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ job openings and labor turnovers survey, or JOLTS.  These figures illuminate the enormous flexibility and dynamism of U.S. labor markets.  Last year, 48.2 million Americans lost or left a job, while 50 million Americans found a new one.  The new hires represented 38.1 percent of total employment, which was down from 47.2 percent in 2005 at the peak of the Fed-fueled  bubble economy.   Now this figure does involve some double counting because some workers may have experienced multiple job separations and findings during the year.  Still in all this is a notable performance with the economy still languishing in the doldrums in the aftermath of a major financial crisis, the effects of which are being prolonged by government and central bank interventionism.   One can only imagine how much more creative job churning and productivity and employment growth we would have, if labor markets were completely freed from stifling government regulations and mandates as well as the massive uncertainty and distortions imposed by Fed monetary policy.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.