--%>

Okun's Law Coefficient Is so Large

Why the Okun's Law Coefficient Is so Large? Okun's Law posits not a 1-to-1 relation but a 2.5-to-1 relationship between real GDP growth and the unemployment rate. That is, a one percentage-point fall in the unemployment rate is associated not with a 1 but a 2.5 percent boost in the level of production. Why is this Okun's Law coefficient so large? Why isn't it the case that a one percentage point fall in unemployment produces a one percent rise in output, or even less? One answer is that the unemployment rate, as officially measured, does not count discouraged workers. In a recession, the number of people at work falls, the number of people looking for work rises, and the number of people who are not looking for work because they doubt they could find jobs--but would be working if business conditions were better--rises. Because the conventionally-measured unemployment rate does not include these discouraged workers, more than a 1 percent rise in real GDP is needed to reduce the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point. Moreover, when business returns to normal, firms' initial response is not to hire more employees, but to ask existing employees to work longer hours. So average hours of work per week go up, and the unemployment rate falls by less than one would otherwise expect. Finally, in some industries employing more workers increases production by more than a proportional amount: product design and set-up need to be done only once, no matter how much is produced. Thus businesses which have economies of scale do not need twice as many workers to produce twice as much output.

   Related Questions in Microeconomics

  • Q : Problem on Yellow Dog Contracts Now the

    Now the illegal labor market practice of signing the yellow dog contracts includes requiring: (1) Nonunion workers to pay the union dues as the condition of employment. (2) Job applicants to sign the agreements not to join unions previous to hiring them. (3) Unions to

  • Q : Theory of microeconomic game in market

    The theory of market structure which several microeconomic game theorists were ready to toss within the dustbin of intellectual history into the 1970 year but that, in the early 1980s, turned into a foundation for the “new&rdquo

  • Q : Problem on siyazama production

    The table below  contains information about  the production possibilities frontier ( PPF or PPC)  of siyazama agricultural cooperative.

  • Q : Problem on long run competitive

    The technology is such that LAC is minimized at firm’s output equivalent to 10 and minimum LAC is Rs. 15. Assume that the demand schedule for the product is given as shown:

    Q : Negative GDP gap A large negative GDP

    A large negative GDP gap implies: A) an excess of imports over exports. B) a low rate of unemployment. C) a high rate of unemployment. D) a sharply rising price level.

  • Q : Collective bargaining agreements Tell

    Tell me the answer of this question. Collective bargaining agreements cover: A) wages and hours. B) union status. C) seniority and job opportunities. D) all of the above.

  • Q : Maximum possible total revenue by sales

    Maximum possible total revenue by sales of the especially popular St. Valentine’s Day software is about: (i) $140 million. (ii) $250 million. (iii) $350 million. (iv) $420 million. (v) $1 billion.

    Q : Pure competition and monopolistic

    Pure competition and monopolistic competition are: (1) polar opposites on the continuum of market structures. (2) the two market structures in that firms are pure quantity adjusters. (3) both characterized by an absence of barriers to long run entry a

  • Q : Revenue when short-run losses minimize

    To minimize short-run losses, then a firm’s revenue should at least cover its short-run total as: (w) explicit costs. (x) fixed costs. (y) variable costs. (z) implicit costs. Hey friends please give your opin

  • Q : Illustrations of Predatory Behavior

    Tactics as like [a] lowering prices, [b] expanding output beyond a short run profit maximizing level, and [c] aggressively advertising or redesigning existing products to make them incompatible along with rivals’ products are most likely to be interpreted as ill