Nonsense. Should I post the graphs again? The graphs clearly demonstrate increased production without a corresponding increase in employment. This is the "jobless recovery" that many columnists lament. Some graphs again:
According to Keynesians (e.g. Krugman), recessions are caused by labor not becoming cheap in response to exogenous shocks (due to sticky nominal wages). Do you disagree with this theory?
Nonsense. Should I post the graphs again? The graphs clearly demonstrate increased production without a corresponding increase in employment. This is the "jobless recovery" that many columnists lament. Some graphs again:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PAYEMS
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPC1
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MANEMP
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN
And recessions are generally times of low change, since it doesn't make sense to invest in labor-saving technology when labor is cheap.
Labor is more expensive than ever before. Another graph for you to ignore:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECIWAG
According to Keynesians (e.g. Krugman), recessions are caused by labor not becoming cheap in response to exogenous shocks (due to sticky nominal wages). Do you disagree with this theory?