Atlantic Business Channel

« In Defense -- Yes, Defense! -- Of The Rating Agencies | Main | Ben Bernanke's Double Talk on the Dollar »

Nov 16 2009, 2:34 pm

Should We Try to Make More Public or Private Sector Jobs?

Alan Blinder writes in the Wall Street Journal that the two big ideas in Washington for creating jobs are (1) public-service employment and (2) a tax credit for companies that hire. (For the record, I can think of a few more, including a payroll tax holiday, state relief and job sharing.) The first idea fights unemployment by adding public sector jobs. The second idea adds private sector jobs. Let's talk about their problems.

The idea of directly employing millions of jobless Americans intrigues me. Think about it this way. Congress just voted to extended jobless benefits. This put money in the hands of those most likely to spend their next marginal dollar. Public works projects are an extension of that principle. The government might pay about $30,000 a year -- more than jobless benefits but less than the average private sector job -- to put unemployed Americans to work -- cleaning up parks and urban areas and so on. It would be an efficient investment for the government -- "the stimulus equivalent of getting the middlemen out of the student loan program." Two problems: Public works projects can take months to set up, and what do you do with workers on public payrolls when the economy picks up -- dump them or continue to run a neo-WPA into 2011 and beyond?

Politically, the more palatable solution is to incent companies to hire with tax credits. Dean Baker explained how offering companies cash to cut their workers' weekly hours could both protect payrolls and give employers more cash to hire workers. This strategy, which is more common in Europe, is called job sharing (the government shares the responsibility to pay for the workers' shortened week).

But Blinder considers offering companies a tax credit only after they hire. This is a complicated strategy and he expertly details some ways companies could game this system: (1) Fire Peter, hire Paul, and say "Look we hired! Tax cut please." (2) Replace one full-time worker with two part-timers (3) Divide one company into multiple companies on paper, then shuffle workers around to increase the payroll at those companies.

So these private sector job-creating strategies are implicit. Job sharing doesn't guarantee new jobs, it only guarantees more money for the employer. Tax credits are difficult to structure so that companies don't exploit the loopholes for taxpayer money. As in most public policy, there is no silver bullet in job creation.

Comments (3)

Giving cash to the unemployed creates (or saves) jobs. They spend that cash, which creates demand.

It's the easiest thing to administer, and the easiest thing to end when the economy picks up. It actually ends automatically as the economy picks up and people are no longer unemployed.

What's not to like? Unless you just want more government spending and more social engineering.

"The government might pay about $30,000 a year -- more than jobless benefits but less than the average private sector job -- to put unemployed Americans to work -- cleaning up parks and urban areas and so on. It would be an efficient investment for the government"

When this came up following welfare reform. a lot of the oh so wonderful public employee unions went nuts. Since many of them are being paid far more than their jobs are really worth, the public would see that you could get the same work results for 1/3 to 1/4 the cost and ask "why are we paying these clowns so much?"

"But Blinder considers offering companies a tax credit only after they hire. This is a complicated strategy and he expertly details some ways companies could game this system: (1) Fire Peter, hire Paul, and say "Look we hired! Tax cut please." (2) Replace one full-time worker with two part-timers (3) Divide one company into multiple companies on paper, then shuffle workers around to increase the payroll at those companies."

As Blinder suggests, there are ways to deal with all three of these problems. Two of these issues are explicitly addressed in the October 2009 report proposing a Job Creation Tax Credit that I wrote with John Bishop for the Economic Policy Institute. The third issue was addressed in the New Jobs Tax Credit of 1977-78.

On the firing and rehiring issue, this is not a problem if the tax credit is based on the increase in overall employment or the increase in overall payroll compared to a base period, where the base period is prior to the legislation being proposed. That is the way the NJTC was designed in 1977-78, and it is also what we propose for the JCTC. For example, our proposed JCTC has a base period that ends September 30, 2009, so it is impossible to claim a credit by firing people now and rehiring them later.

On the replacing full-timers with part-timers issue, this is not a problem if the tax credit is based on the increase in overall payroll. That is the design we propose for the JCTC.

On the issue of creating new corporate entities, this was dealt with in the NJTC of 1977-78 by cutting the credit in half for new corporate entities. It can also be dealt with in part by simply prohibiting businesses from claiming the credit by creating new corporate entities with no net increase in payroll, with hefty penalties for violating this provision.