Home > Uncategorized > Economics textbooks transmogrifying truth — wages and unemployment

Economics textbooks transmogrifying truth — wages and unemployment

from Lars Syll

51j8ZC7N3QL._SY400_A couple of weeks ago yours truly was sent a copy of the new edition of Chad Jones intermediate textbook Macroeconomics (4th ed, W W Norton, 2018). There’s much in the book I like, e. g. Jones’ combining of more traditional short-run macroeconomic analysis with an accessible coverage of the Romer model — the foundation of modern growth theory — and DSGE business cycle models.

Unfortunately it also contains some utter nonsense!

In chapter 7 — on “The Labor Market, Wages, and Unemployment” — Jones writes (p. 184):

The point of this experiment is to show that wage rigidities can lead to large movements in employment. Indeed, they are the reason John Maynard Keynes gave, in The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936), for the high unemployment of the Great Depression.

A serious editor — who really checked the facts — would immediately find that although Keynes in General Theory devoted substantial attention to the subject of wage rigidities, he certainly did not hold the view that wage rigidities were “the reason … for the high unemployment of the Great Depression.” 

Since unions/workers, contrary to classical assumptions, make wage-bargains in nominal terms, they will — according to Keynes — accept lower real wages caused by higher prices, but resist lower real wages caused by lower nominal wages. However, Keynes held it incorrect to attribute “cyclical” unemployment to this diversified agent behaviour. During the depression money wages fell significantly and — as Keynes noted — unemployment still grew. Thus, even when nominal wages are lowered, they do not generally lower unemployment.

In any specific labour market, lower wages could, of course, raise the demand for labour. But a general reduction in money wages would leave real wages more or less unchanged. The reasoning of the classical economists was, according to Keynes, a flagrant example of the “fallacy of composition.” Assuming that since unions/workers in a specific labour market could negotiate real wage reductions via lowering nominal wages, unions/workers in general could do the same, the classics confused micro with macro.

Lowering nominal wages could not — according to Keynes — clear the labour market. Lowering wages — and possibly prices — could, perhaps, lower interest rates and increase investment. But to Keynes it would be much easier to achieve that effect by increasing the money supply. In any case, wage reductions was not seen by Keynes as a general substitute for an expansionary monetary or fiscal policy.

Even if potentially positive impacts of lowering wages exist, there are also more heavily weighing negative impacts — management-union relations deteriorating, expectations of on-going lowering of wages causing delay of investments, debt deflation etc. etc.

So, what Keynes actually did argue in General Theory, was that the classical proposition that lowering wages would lower unemployment and ultimately take economies out of depressions, was ill-founded and basically wrong.

To Keynes, flexible wages would only make things worse by leading to erratic price-fluctuations. The basic explanation for unemployment is insufficient aggregate demand, and that is mostly determined outside the labor market.

Unfortunately, Jones macroeconomics textbook is not the only one containing this kind of utter nonsense on Keynes. Similar distortions of Keynes’s views can be found in, e. g., the economics textbooks of  ‘New Keynesian’ economists like Greg Mankiw and Paul Krugman. How is this possible? Probably because these economists have but a very superficial acquaintance with Keynes’s own works, and rather depend on second-hand sources like Hansen, Samuelson, Hicks and the likes.

Fortunately there is a simple solution to the problem. Keynes’s books are still in print.

Read them!

The classical school [maintains that] while the demand for labour at the existing money-wage may be satisfied before everyone willing to work at this wage is employed, this situation is due to an open or tacit agreement amongst workers not to work for less, and that if labour as a whole would agree to a reduction of money-wages more employment would be forthcoming. If this is the case, such unemployment, though apparently involuntary, is not strictly so, and ought to be included under the above category of ‘voluntary’ unemployment due to the effects of collective bargaining, etc …

the-general-theory-of-employment-interest-and-money-original-imadd345yguuqecuThe classical theory … is best regarded as a theory of distribution in conditions of full employment. So long as the classical postulates hold good, unemploy-ment, which is in the above sense involuntary, cannot occur. Apparent unemployment must, therefore, be the result either of temporary loss of work of the ‘between jobs’ type or of intermittent demand for highly specialised resources or of the effect of a trade union ‘closed shop’ on the employment of free labour. Thus writers in the classical tradition, overlooking the special assumption underlying their theory, have been driven inevitably to the conclusion, perfectly logical on their assumption, that apparent unemployment (apart from the admitted exceptions) must be due at bottom to a refusal by the unemployed factors to accept a reward which corresponds to their marginal productivity …

Obviously, however, if the classical theory is only applicable to the case of full employment, it is fallacious to apply it to the problems of involuntary unemployment – if there be such a thing (and who will deny it?). The classical theorists resemble Euclidean geometers in a non-Euclidean world who, discovering that in experience straight lines apparently parallel often meet, rebuke the lines for not keeping straight – as the only remedy for the unfortunate collisions which are occurring. Yet, in truth, there is no remedy except to throw over the axiom of parallels and to work out a non-Euclidean geometry. Something similar is required to-day in economics. We need to throw over the second postulate of the classical doctrine and to work out the behaviour of a system in which involuntary unemployment in the strict sense is possible.

  1. Paul Davidson
    June 10, 2017 at 9:19 pm

    in chapter 19 of the GT Keynes demonstrates that in his theory even if wages and prices are perfectly flexible, unemployment can persist. See p. 257 first paragraph where Keynes notes it is classical theory that assumes “fluidity of money wages” assumption that is the basis of the “self adjusting” character of the economic system — an “when there is rigidity to lay on this rigidity the blame of maladjustment”. He then goes on to indicate his theory is different

    Thus any macroeconomic theory that has rigidity to blame is a form of CLASSICAL theory — not Keynes!

    In Chapter 17, entitled “The Essential Properties of Interest and Money” Keynes spells out what causes unemployment in terms of two essential properties.

    all of this I develop in my forthcoming new book entitled WHO’S AFRAID OF JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES?

  2. Norman L. Roth
    June 10, 2017 at 9:22 pm

    June 10, 2017
    Please read “Keynesian Unemployment” ….Dec. 24 and Dec, 25, 2016 of this blog. Scroll down to comments by Norman L. Roth .there – in.

    “Work out the behavior of a system in which involuntary unemployment is possible.” ?
    That’s what TELOS and TECHNOS is all about.
    Involuntary Unemployment is hardly the only thing possible in a real-life, inter-active,organic economic system that allows many degrees of freedom.
    i.e. TELOS & TECHNOS.is a fait-accompli.

    . Why is this so hard to live with ?

    Please GOOGLE:
    {1} Norman L. Roth
    {2} Norman L. Roth, Technological Time
    {3} Norman L. Roth, Economics of Work
    {4} Norman L. Roth, economist

  3. June 13, 2017 at 12:23 am

    I can never decide whether well-cited mainstream economists, like Chad Jones, are just ignorant or consciously lying. They have certainly agreed on lots of stuff that is either incorrect or not even wrong.

    I come to this conclusion even about some I think might being having a positive effect on this backwards world.

  4. June 13, 2017 at 12:24 am


    • Risk Analyst
      June 13, 2017 at 7:58 pm

      There are other choices than lying or ignorance. For example, the “straw man” argument in which one makes an opponent’s opinion seem to be other than what it is to more easily defeat or dismiss it. I did a quick look on Amazon for this book and noted in the first chapters he builds a demand and supply curve for labor that reaches equilibrium at one wage rate where demand equals supply, so we know where he stands.

  5. James Charles
    June 15, 2017 at 9:19 am

    “Lowering nominal wages could not — according to Keynes — clear the labour market.”

    However, Keynes does not exclude this possibility.

    “A reduction in money-wages is quite capable in certain circumstances of affording a stimulus to output, as the classical theory supposes.”


  6. James Charles
    June 15, 2017 at 9:54 am

    ” But to Keynes it would be much easier to achieve that effect by increasing the money supply. In any case, wage reductions was not seen by Keynes as a general substitute for an expansionary monetary or fiscal policy..”

    He does, however, conclude:

    “There is, therefore, no ground for the belief that a flexible wage policy is capable of maintaining a state of continuous full employment; — any more than for the belief that an open-market monetary policy is capable, unaided, of achieving this result. The economic system cannot be made self-adjusting along these lines.”


    Open-market monetary policy is ineffective in eliminating any involuntary unemployment?

    Any increase in the ‘money supply’, decrease in the rate of interest and increase in investment will not be sufficient to eliminate any involuntary unemployment.

    What he does say, {and this makes him the bete noir of the Conservative/Republican right?} is:

    “Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investment. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative.”


    D.J.T. has been reading the G.T.?

    • November 9, 2017 at 9:27 am

      This D.J.T. has. Are you quoting another? Very interesting, anyway. My reading of Keynes is that he is anticipating the systems theory that Egmont Kakarot-Handtke ridicules him for not having, and the bit here about “The economic system cannot be made self-adjusting” helps place him as anticipating my argument that “the system” is like the internet – it doesn’t determine what will happen but defines what is possible. We should be looking for something like the rules of navigation, which tell us what WE need to do to get safely to all the different places we want to go to.

  7. Norman L. Roth
    November 7, 2017 at 10:35 pm

    Nov. 07, 2017

    Read TECHNOS & TELOS, Especially Chapter 4. & the back cover. And refer back to my blog of June 10,2017, 9:22 P.M.

    A steady state of “full employment equilibrium” is a utopian fantasy for which there is no panacea: Monetarism, Keynesian ‘I’ , buggering about with minimum wage laws, or conspiracy-theory based totalitarian enforcement. e.g. “scientific socialism”:: No matter how sanctimonious or hysterically indignant any of their advocates are. Pay special attention to the emergent property called the “Natural Participation Rate” {Nr } in Chapter 4.

    I do not enjoy having to say this. . There’s a long rocky road ahead. The road is poorly maintained..

    Please GOOGLE {1} Norman L. Roth {2} Norman L. Roth, Technological Time {3} Norman L. Roth, Economics of Work {4} Norman L. Roth, economist {5} Norman L. Roth, Origins of Markets

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.