« A simple New Keynesian brain-teaser | Main | The anti-NK model and minimum wages »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm always a bit suspicious of comparisons like this (GDP comparisons as well) because you're comparing countries which in some cases have growing populations and labour forces and others with stagnant populations, which presumably don't need as much growth to keep up the standards. What would the numbers look like if you compared employment rates say rather than employment levels?

I wanted to do a "job creation" comparison but I do have unemployment rates and the results there would not be as impressive for Canada. In 2013 (IMF estimate), across these 34 countries, unemployment rates range from a low of 2.1 percent in Singapore to a high of 27 percent in Greece. Australia is tied with Germany at 5.6%. Canada is seventeenth lowest at 7.1% and the US is 20th at 7.6%.

More evidence that the European Central Bank's policy is fine -- as long as you are Germany. The less like Germany you are, the more screwed over by ECB policy you are.

Just comparing employment growth since the bottom fell out ignores differences in the relative magnitudes of job losses during the recession. If the hits were bigger in some countries than others you are only seeing how fast countries are at getting out of different sized holes, not how close they are to getting back to or surpassing where employment was initially.

Oz may need an update considering that the auto industry
is shutting up shop and Alcoa is closing a smelter. But
they're still digging stuff out of the ground. Imagine.

I was so impressed by Figure 1 that I nearly posted it. But I checked the employment numbers in the October 2013 IMF WEO and according to it employment grew at a faster rate in Germany between 2009 and 2013 than in the US and the UK:


Are you sure Figure 1 is correct?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad