Lockhart: la tasa de desempleo no basta como indicador laboral

Genevieve Signoret & Patrick Signoret

En un discurso el jueves, Dennis Lockhart, miembro votante del FOMC, dijo no estar de acuerdo en atar la orientación a futuro del Comité a una sola medida del mercado laboral, como la tasa de desempleo. Tenemos particular interés en su discurso debida a nuestro pronóstico de que, a mediados de 2013, la Fed especificará numéricamente en su orientación a futuro lo que entiende por “mejora sustancial en el mercado laboral”.

Lockhart cita la parte crucial de la actual orientación a futuro de la Fed:

What distinguishes the newest round of bond purchases from earlier ones is the open‐ended nature of the commitment. In its post‐meeting statement on September 13, the FOMC said, “If the outlook for the labor market does not improve substantially, the Committee will continue its purchases of agency mortgage‐backed securities, undertake additional asset purchases, and employ its other policy tools as appropriate until such improvement is achieved in a context of price stability.”

So what is meant by substantial improvement in the outlook for labor markets? I want to devote the remainder of my time to that question. Arriving at an answer is not so straightforward.

No cree que solo una estadística pueda medir la salud del mercado laboral:

 […] Not all important trends are captured well in the data. The data are prone to normal measurement error and revision. In my view, reliance on a single statistic to judge the health of the labor market may not be sufficient.

Y describe lo que él tomaría en cuenta para evaluar si ha habido una “mejora sustancial”:

Remember that at the beginning of my remarks I characterized my thinking on the meaning of “substantial improvement” as a work in progress. In that spirit, let me share a qualitative framework for defining “substantial improvement.”

The starting point certainly should be the headline unemployment rate and the payroll jobs number. The interpretation of movements in these two statistics would be enriched and reinforced by a review of additional data elements.

Here are examples of what I would look for:

First, I would look for lower unemployment rates that are driven by increased flows of job seekers into employment. I would not interpret discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force as a sign of improvement, even if the unemployment rate falls as a consequence.

Conversely, I’d like to see growing public confidence in the labor market as measured by increased movement of people from out-of-the labor-force status into the labor force—that is, growing labor force participation. I would interpret a reduction in the number of marginally attached workers as a sign of improvement, even if the unemployment rate goes temporarily higher.

Third, I’d look for employment gains that are associated with reductions in underemployment. I would interpret a pickup in job growth less positively if it is associated with increases in part-time jobs for people who seek full-time work.

Finally, I’d like to see signs that improvements in all these indicators are gaining momentum and are sustainable. A framework for assessing labor market conditions needs to include forward indicators of labor market health, such as falling claims for unemployment insurance..

Lockhart es solo uno de 12 integrantes del Comité de Mercado Abierto de la Reserva Federal (FOMC). Además, todavía es temprano. Estaremos atentos a los discursos de todos los integrantes del Comité y a las minutas de sus reuniones antes de pensar en ajustar nuestra perspectiva.