Agribusiness Reveals its Dislike of Deferred Action for Unauthorized Immigrants
As I and others have written over the past month and half or so, President Obama’s new Deferred Action for Parental Accountability initiative (DAPA) will shield from deportation and provide work authorization to unauthorized immigrants who have a son or daughter who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident, if they are not an enforcement priority and have been residing in the country for at least five years. DAPA will give the potentially four million who qualify the full spectrum of workplace rights provided under U.S. law. This means immigrant workers will be able to hold accountable employers who commit wage theft or violate workplace safety laws, without fearing threats of deportation that employers may lob at them to keep them from complaining. It’s easy to see how raising the floor for unauthorized immigrant workers in this way will benefit all workers, raise wages, and increase tax revenue. But nevertheless, not everyone is happy about it.
I always suspected that the agricultural industry would not support deferred action or any DAPA-like program, but until now the industry had been relatively quiet about their position. My assumption was that—because unauthorized immigrants comprise such a large share of the workforce employed in agricultural occupations, and because ag employers directly benefit from having unauthorized immigrant employees who can’t complain about dangerous workplaces where pesticides are in the air and extreme, triple-digit temperatures are the norm—they would find objectionable anything that increased farmworkers’ bargaining power or that allowed them to move to better-paying jobs in other industries. Because unauthorized immigrants don’t have a lot of bargaining power and are mostly employed by bosses willing to violate the law, they can’t easily get a job anywhere else, which means they have to put up with the low wages that are on offer in ag.
So I was pleasantly surprised to see some truth seep out onto the airwaves, thanks to a three-minute interview conducted by Tucker Carlson the other day on Fox and Friends, which sheds some light on what the ag industry really thinks about DAPA.
The President Set a Goal of Doubling Exports by 2014—Why Haven’t We?
The United States failed to achieve a doubling of exports between 2009 and 2014, as promised in President Obama’s National Export Initiative (NEI). It wasn’t even close. Total U.S. goods and services exports increased by less than 50 percent ($766 billion, or 48.4 percent) between 2009 and 2014 (estimated), as shown in the figure below. Meanwhile, imports increased by an even larger $883.8 billion, and as a result, the U.S. trade deficit increased by $117.0 billion.
Expanding exports alone is not enough to ensure that trade adds jobs to the economy. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in the United States, but increases in imports lead to job loss—by destroying existing jobs and preventing new job creation—as imports displace goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers. Between 2009 and 2014 the growth in imports more than offset the increase in exports, resulting in a growing trade deficit, as shown in the figure. Growing trade deficits have eliminated millions of jobs in the United States, and put downward pressure on employment in manufacturing, which competes directly with most imported products. For example, growing trade deficits with China alone have displaced 3.2 million U.S. jobs between 2001 (when China entered the WTO) and 2013, with 1.3 million of those jobs lost since 2009 alone.
U.S. exports, imports, and trade balance change, 2009 –2014
| Goods | Services | |
|---|---|---|
| Exports | $569.00 | $197.84 |
| Imports | $792.00 | $91.77 |
| Trade Balance | $0.00 | $-117.00 |
Sources: EPI's analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services
The Economy Really is Doing a Bit Better—So Let’s Not Ruin It
People are excited by recent good news on the economy—especially the 321,000 jobs created in November and the 5.0 percent (annualized) growth rate posted by gross domestic product (GDP) in the third quarter of this year. The excitement is understandable—this is genuinely good news. Yet we shouldn’t lose sight of how far away from a healthy economy we remain. We’re climbing more rapidly out of the hole that the Great Recession left us in, but we’re still really only halfway there.
You can see this measured in terms of how many jobs we need to restore the labor market health that prevailed immediately before the Great Recession began, or in the share of “prime-age” adults (ages 25-54) that have jobs.
And in terms of restoring average wage growth we’re not even halfway there. In fact, we’re still essentially nowhere yet.
All of this makes one twist on the commentary about recent good news really odd—the idea that there may be a dark cloud to the silver lining if it makes the Fed raise interest rates sooner and slow recovery. This perspective shows just how strange an economic world we’re living in.
Yes, we’re now growing relatively fast, both on the GDP and jobs side. But that’s what’s supposed to happen following recessions: you have to re-absorb the workers who were laid-off during the recession as well as provide jobs for the normal inflow of potential workers into the labor force. What’s been remarkable in the recovery since the Great Recession so far is that this above-trend growth really never happened. Moreover, there’s nothing in a period of above-trend growth following a recession that argues the Fed must spring into action to stomp on it.
Five Things We Could Change if the Real World Worked More like the Fictional World of Annie
In the spirit of the season, this post combines a few of my favorite year-end traditions—reflecting on the past, setting goals for the future and December movie releases. At the top of my “movies to see” list is a remake of one of my childhood favorites, Annie. The 2014 adaptation of the film includes a few twists on the 1982 version of the film I first fell in love with—the most obvious being African American actors playing the lead roles of Annie and Will Stacks (originally Oliver “Daddy” Warbucks).
In fact, Annie’s story has been reincarnated many times over since cartoonist, Harold Gray, first introduced his Little Orphan Annie comic strip in 1924 but the basic premise has stayed the same. A rich benefactor, who has amassed immense wealth through capitalism (specifically in World War I, hence the name Warbucks), adopts a little girl and transforms her life from that of a poor, abused, outcast orphan into a beloved daughter with full access to anything she can dream of.
Early versions of the Little Orphan Annie comic strip often espoused views of politics that sound awfully familiar today—including the idea that providing the masses with jobs that pay fairly and treating workers with respect is the obligation of virtuous capitalists. Also central to the story of Annie is how the perspective and priorities of the adults in charge of her well-being shape the child’s future. As a man of great wealth, power and influence, Warbucks didn’t suggest a bootstraps approach as the way to a better life, rather he offered the girl support as needed and often intervened in Annie’s life during crisis.
While Annie’s story is a fictional expression of her creator’s political views, it can also serve as a metaphor for many of today’s social and economic challenges. I’m not suggesting in any way that paternalism is the solution to inequality and poverty. Rather, I offer a list of five things that might be different if more of our nation’s wealth, power and influence were used to positively transform lives and promote economic mobility.
There Should Be Overtime Protection—and Pay—For Anyone Paid Less Than $51,000 a Year
In March 2014, President Obama directed Secretary of Labor Tom Perez to prepare an update of the regulations that govern exemptions from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requirement that employers pay time-and-a-half for work beyond 40 hours in a week. The so-called “white collar” exemptions for professionals, executives, and administrators include a threshold salary below which every employee is guaranteed overtime pay regardless of his or her work duties. Above that salary level, the employer doesn’t have to pay anything for overtime hours—not even minimum wage—if the work performed meets certain criteria.
The salary threshold has rarely been increased, and since 1975, its real value has been eroded by inflation. It currently stands at $455 a week, or $23,660 a year—below the poverty level for a family of four and nothing like a true executive or professional salary. Whereas 65% of salaried workers were guaranteed overtime coverage by the salary threshold in 1975, just 11% are covered today.
In the past year, four significant proposals have been made to update the salary threshold, and each would guarantee coverage to a different number of workers. The figure and table below show that as the threshold increases, millions more employees are guaranteed overtime coverage.
20 States Raise Their Minimum Wages While the Federal Minimum Continues to Erode
On January 1st, 20 states will raise their minimum wages, lifting the pay of over 3.1 million workers throughout the country.1 New York, meanwhile, will have already raised its minimum wage on December 31st. In nine of these states (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington) the increases are routine—the minimum wage in those states is “indexed” for inflation so that each year the minimum is automatically increased to account for rising prices. The increases in the other 11 states, plus DC, are the result of changes to minimum wage laws—either legislation passed by state lawmakers or referenda passed directly by voters at the ballot box. Later in the year, another half-a-million workers in Delaware and Minnesota will also get a raise as legislated increases take effect there.
As the table below shows, the increases range from a 12-cent inflation adjustment in Florida—raising the minimum to $8.05—up to a $1.25 increase in South Dakota that will lift the state floor to $8.50. The smaller inflation-linked increases will lift pay for the roughly 4 to 7 percent of workers with wages at or very close to the minimum. The states instituting larger increases, however, will see a more sizeable portion of the state workforce getting a raise—such as in Minnesota, where the $1.00 increase later in the year is expected to lift pay for nearly a fifth of wage earners in the state.
All told, these increases will provide workers with $1.6 billion in additional wages over the course of the year. This added pay represents a modest, but significant, boost to the spending power of the affected workers, many of whom have children and families to support.
Even in the states where the minimum is simply being adjusted for inflation, the buying power of low-wage workers is being preserved, so they can still afford the same quantity of goods and services year-to-year. Given that consumer spending accounts for roughly 70 percent of the U.S. economy, this automatic adjustment of the minimum wage each year should be a no-brainer. Just as workers across the spectrum need regular pay increases so they can continue to afford their basic needs, businesses need a customer base with growing incomes if they’re going to thrive and expand. And because minimum wage increases overwhelming benefit low- to moderate-income households, they’re an easy way to put more money in the pockets of families that are likely to go out and spend it right away. As the last column of the table shows, the $2.5 billion in added wages generated by next year’s increases will translate into about $1.1 billion in economic growth as those dollars ripple out through the economy.
It’s encouraging that five states—Alaska, Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota, Vermont—and the District of Columbia that have larger increases taking effect next year also enacted indexing that will take effect in future years. As shown in the map below, this will bring the number of states with some form of indexing up to 15. The map also shows that as of the new year, 29 states and the District of Columbia (as well as a number of cities and smaller municipalities) will have minimum wages above the federal minimum of $7.25. At that time, 60 percent of all U.S. workers will be in states with wage floors above the federal.
All this action at the state level speaks to how broadly voters and policymakers throughout the country recognize that the federal minimum is too low. At $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum wage is worth roughly 23 percent less than it was worth in the late 1960s, and its eroding value has led to more and more workers turning to federal safety net programs because they’re paid too little from work to make ends meet. Given that the country has grown vastly richer and more productive over the past 45 years, there’s no reason why workers in any state should be getting paid less today than their counterparts a generation ago.
The good news is that states aren’t waiting for the federal government to act. This is the first time in history that so many states will be raising their wage floors in the absence of a federal increase, and the first time since 2008—when states were raising their wage floors in anticipation of the last federal increase—that so many states will be above the federal minimum. But many other states still have minimum wages at or below the federal minimum, and states with minimum wages that aren’t indexed will see their wage floors erode in the coming years. We need a national wage floor that ensures a decent level of pay for work regardless of what state one lives in. That’s why Congress should follow the example set by voters and legislators in their home states and raise and index the federal minimum wage—fixing this problem once and for all.
Note: This post has been updated from an earlier version. The previous version incorrectly accounted for state minimum wage increases that took place in 2014. The figures and table have been updated to correctly account for these increases. The earlier post also incorrectly stated that the DC minimum wage will take place on January 1. It will take place on July 1.
1. Although originally scheduled to take effect on January 1, the Alaska minimum wage increase will not go into effect until February 24th. This should not measurably change the statistics for Alaska listed in the table. Additionally, tens of thousands of workers in the District of Columbia will also get a raise next July when the District minimum wage rises from $9.50 to $10.50. Estimates for DC are not included here because data challenges make identifying affected workers in the District more challenging, although a ballpark estimate would be roughly 100,000 workers.
Even with Recent Low Inflation, Real Wages Continue to Stagnate
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the Consumer Price Index for November 2014 today, which lets us look at trends in real (inflation-adjusted) wages. The figure below shows real average hourly earnings of all private employees (top line) and production/nonsupervisory workers (bottom line) since the recession began in December 2007. For both series, you can see that real wages fell during the recession, then jumped up in late 2008, in direct response to a drop in inflation. When inflation falls and nominal wages hold steady, the mathematical result is a rise in inflation-adjusted wages. After the deflation leading up to 2009 stopped boosting real wages, wage growth has been flat.
Real average hourly earnings, December 2007– November 2014
| All private employees | Production/Nonsupervisory | |
|---|---|---|
| Dec-2007 | $23.84 | $19.90 |
| Jan-2008 | $23.79 | $19.88 |
| Feb-2008 | $23.81 | $19.89 |
| Mar-2008 | $23.83 | $19.90 |
| Apr-2008 | $23.79 | $19.90 |
| May-2008 | $23.76 | $19.86 |
| Jun-2008 | $23.56 | $19.72 |
| Jul-2008 | $23.47 | $19.65 |
| Aug-2008 | $23.62 | $19.76 |
| Sep-2008 | $23.63 | $19.77 |
| Oct-2008 | $23.89 | $20.01 |
| Nov-2008 | $24.44 | $20.43 |
| Dec-2008 | $24.71 | $20.67 |
| Jan-2009 | $24.65 | $20.64 |
| Feb-2009 | $24.62 | $20.60 |
| Mar-2009 | $24.69 | $20.69 |
| Apr-2009 | $24.71 | $20.69 |
| May-2009 | $24.69 | $20.68 |
| Jun-2009 | $24.51 | $20.55 |
| Jul-2009 | $24.56 | $20.59 |
| Aug-2009 | $24.56 | $20.59 |
| Sep-2009 | $24.51 | $20.60 |
| Oct-2009 | $24.50 | $20.58 |
| Nov-2009 | $24.48 | $20.58 |
| Dec-2009 | $24.47 | $20.60 |
| Jan-2010 | $24.50 | $20.64 |
| Feb-2010 | $24.55 | $20.68 |
| Mar-2010 | $24.57 | $20.68 |
| Apr-2010 | $24.61 | $20.74 |
| May-2010 | $24.66 | $20.80 |
| Jun-2010 | $24.65 | $20.81 |
| Jul-2010 | $24.68 | $20.81 |
| Aug-2010 | $24.68 | $20.83 |
| Sep-2010 | $24.69 | $20.82 |
| Oct-2010 | $24.68 | $20.86 |
| Nov-2010 | $24.63 | $20.81 |
| Dec-2010 | $24.54 | $20.72 |
| Jan-2011 | $24.58 | $20.76 |
| Feb-2011 | $24.48 | $20.68 |
| Mar-2011 | $24.37 | $20.58 |
| Apr-2011 | $24.34 | $20.55 |
| May-2011 | $24.32 | $20.53 |
| Jun-2011 | $24.31 | $20.50 |
| Jul-2011 | $24.34 | $20.53 |
| Aug-2011 | $24.25 | $20.48 |
| Sep-2011 | $24.23 | $20.45 |
| Oct-2011 | $24.34 | $20.49 |
| Nov-2011 | $24.29 | $20.49 |
| Dec-2011 | $24.30 | $20.48 |
| Jan-2012 | $24.27 | $20.44 |
| Feb-2012 | $24.26 | $20.41 |
| Mar-2012 | $24.26 | $20.40 |
| Apr-2012 | $24.29 | $20.45 |
| May-2012 | $24.33 | $20.47 |
| Jun-2012 | $24.37 | $20.47 |
| Jul-2012 | $24.43 | $20.52 |
| Aug-2012 | $24.29 | $20.41 |
| Sep-2012 | $24.24 | $20.33 |
| Oct-2012 | $24.17 | $20.32 |
| Nov-2012 | $24.31 | $20.42 |
| Dec-2012 | $24.38 | $20.45 |
| Jan-2013 | $24.40 | $20.50 |
| Feb-2013 | $24.31 | $20.43 |
| Mar-2013 | $24.38 | $20.50 |
| Apr-2013 | $24.47 | $20.55 |
| May-2013 | $24.46 | $20.54 |
| Jun-2013 | $24.47 | $20.53 |
| Jul-2013 | $24.42 | $20.53 |
| Aug-2013 | $24.46 | $20.53 |
| Sep-2013 | $24.46 | $20.55 |
| Oct-2013 | $24.49 | $20.58 |
| Nov-2013 | $24.52 | $20.61 |
| Dec-2013 | $24.48 | $20.61 |
| Jan-2014 | $24.50 | $20.63 |
| Feb-2014 | $24.55 | $20.71 |
| Mar-2014 | $24.53 | $20.65 |
| Apr-2014 | $24.47 | $20.62 |
| May-2014 | $24.44 | $20.59 |
| Jun-2014 | $24.44 | $20.58 |
| Jul-2014 | $24.43 | $20.59 |
| Aug-2014 | $24.56 | $20.69 |
| Sep-2014 | $24.54 | $20.66 |
| Oct-2014 | $24.57 | $20.70 |
| Nov-2014 | $24.66 | $20.74 |
Note: Earnings are adjusted to November 2014 dollars.
Source: Author analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics's Current Employment Statistics and Consumer Price Index, public data series.
In the past month, we have also started to see falling prices, particularly with respect to gas prices. If nominal wage growth holds in the coming months, it may mean a rise in real wages. But so far, the data indicates that over the last year, real wage growth has continued to be stagnant. Average hourly earnings of private sector workers were $24.66 in November, and real hourly earnings averaged $24.51 over the last year. These wages are no better than we saw in the year ending November 2009 or November 2010, where average hourly earnings were $24.60 and $24.61, respectively. As shown in the figure below, real wage growth has been about zero on average for the last five years, and there is no sign of acceleration.
Year-over-year change in real average hourly earnings of all private nonfarm employees and private production/ nonsupervisory employees, November 2009– November 2014
| All Private Employees | Production/Nonsupervisory | |
|---|---|---|
| Nov-2009 | 0.15% | 0.76% |
| Dec-2009 | -0.98% | -0.31% |
| Jan-2010 | -0.62% | 0.01% |
| Feb-2010 | -0.32% | 0.35% |
| Mar-2010 | -0.50% | -0.01% |
| Apr-2010 | -0.40% | 0.25% |
| May-2010 | -0.10% | 0.57% |
| Jun-2010 | 0.55% | 1.26% |
| Jul-2010 | 0.46% | 1.08% |
| Aug-2010 | 0.49% | 1.18% |
| Sep-2010 | 0.73% | 1.08% |
| Oct-2010 | 0.72% | 1.34% |
| Nov-2010 | 0.60% | 1.12% |
| Dec-2010 | 0.29% | 0.56% |
| Jan-2011 | 0.30% | 0.56% |
| Feb-2011 | -0.26% | 0.02% |
| Mar-2011 | -0.80% | -0.52% |
| Apr-2011 | -1.13% | -0.94% |
| May-2011 | -1.36% | -1.30% |
| Jun-2011 | -1.39% | -1.46% |
| Jul-2011 | -1.35% | -1.35% |
| Aug-2011 | -1.74% | -1.70% |
| Sep-2011 | -1.85% | -1.80% |
| Oct-2011 | -1.36% | -1.75% |
| Nov-2011 | -1.38% | -1.58% |
| Dec-2011 | -1.01% | -1.16% |
| Jan-2012 | -1.23% | -1.53% |
| Feb-2012 | -0.90% | -1.31% |
| Mar-2012 | -0.47% | -0.89% |
| Apr-2012 | -0.19% | -0.48% |
| May-2012 | 0.03% | -0.30% |
| Jun-2012 | 0.24% | -0.16% |
| Jul-2012 | 0.35% | -0.03% |
| Aug-2012 | 0.17% | -0.35% |
| Sep-2012 | 0.03% | -0.57% |
| Oct-2012 | -0.68% | -0.86% |
| Nov-2012 | 0.11% | -0.35% |
| Dec-2012 | 0.33% | -0.13% |
| Jan-2013 | 0.51% | 0.26% |
| Feb-2013 | 0.18% | 0.12% |
| Mar-2013 | 0.51% | 0.51% |
| Apr-2013 | 0.75% | 0.51% |
| May-2013 | 0.52% | 0.35% |
| Jun-2013 | 0.44% | 0.30% |
| Jul-2013 | -0.04% | 0.02% |
| Aug-2013 | 0.71% | 0.62% |
| Sep-2013 | 0.92% | 1.06% |
| Oct-2013 | 1.30% | 1.32% |
| Nov-2013 | 0.86% | 0.97% |
| Dec-2013 | 0.44% | 0.81% |
| Jan-2014 | 0.41% | 0.63% |
| Feb-2014 | 0.99% | 1.33% |
| Mar-2014 | 0.60% | 0.75% |
| Apr-2014 | 0.01% | 0.33% |
| May-2014 | -0.08% | 0.25% |
| Jun-2014 | -0.11% | 0.21% |
| Jul-2014 | 0.05% | 0.28% |
| Aug-2014 | 0.40% | 0.75% |
| Sep-2014 | 0.33% | 0.55% |
| Oct-2014 | 0.34% | 0.56% |
| Nov-2014 | 0.82% | 0.87% |
Note: Earnings are adjusted to November 2014 dollars. Light shaded area denotes recession.
Source: Author analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics's Current Employment Statistics and Consumer Price Index, public data series.
The Fed’s Language May Change This Week—Let’s Hope It Doesn’t Signal Interest Rates Going up Sooner
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will meet on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. Word on the street is that they will shift the language they use to describe the likely future path of short-term interest rates. Recently this language has stressed that very low short-term rates are likely to persist for “a considerable time.” The new language may instead stress the need for Fed “patience” with lower rates.
To real-life human beings, of course, parsing such language is an exercise that goes so far beyond splitting hairs it’s absurd.
But it matters. The Fed is the most important economic policymaking institution in the United States right now. They have, by far, the most influence on whether American workers’ hourly wages and living standards will begin rising or not in coming years. If they raise interest rates before genuine recovery from the Great Recession is secured, the hopes for real (inflation-adjusted) wage increases for the vast majority of Americans will be torpedoed. And, this switch from “considerable time” to “patience” will be interpreted as inflation hawks on the Fed who want to see an earlier interest rate increase gaining a small patch of intellectual territory.
Does surrendering this small patch of rhetorical territory actually mean that rates will begin rising faster than they would have otherwise? I have no idea.
New Trade Agreements will Take Center Stage in 2015. So Will Bad Arguments Made on their Behalf.
Next year, we are going to see lots of debate over trade policy. And, like clockwork, when trade policy rises to the top of policy debate, lots of bad arguments start getting thrown around on behalf of more trade agreements. Ed Gresser submits the latest round of bad ones in a paper released last week.
Gresser goes wrong out of the gate by implying very strongly that inequality is irrelevant to the living standards of low and moderate-income households. In his own words he argues:
“But “growing apart” [editor’s note: this means the rise in inequality] appears to be a phenomenon in which wealthy people rise fastest, not one in which they rise while the middle class and poor lose ground. Americans have actually grown more affluent at all income levels.”
This implicit claim is deeply wrong—the rise of inequality over the past generation has in fact been the primary drag on living standards growth for low- and moderate-income families. Gresser arrives at his irrelevance conclusion by essentially noting that cumulative income growth for low- and moderate-income households has exceeded zero over multiple decades. Well, congratulations to us, I guess. But very few countries outside of maybe North Korea have ever posted negative income growth over decades for the majority of their population.
It’s especially ironic to get this interpretation of rising inequality wrong when discussing its with expanded trade. The standard trade theory that links falling trade costs and rising inequality in rich countries like the United States is clear that this rise in inequality is accompanied by absolute (not just relative) income declines felt by the losing group. In the United States, the losing group is generally proxied by either production and nonsupervisory labor, or workers without a college degree—in either case the majority of the workforce. And while these trade-induced losses (which I estimated to be roughly $1,800 annually for a full-time worker without a college degree) do not explain all, or even the majority, of the rise in inequality over the past generation, they’re not trivial. Gresser claims to have cast doubt on these results (which are based on off-the-shelf standard trade models), but as I’ll show below, his analysis of them is completely irrelevant.
Recovery Is Nowhere Near Accomplished, and the Fed Shouldn’t Tighten Policy Until It Is
What follows are lightly edited remarks made by EPI Research and Policy Director Josh Bivens at a Dec. 9 event—Managing the Economy: The Federal Reserve, Wall Street, and Main Street—sponsored by EPI, Americans for Financial Reform, and the Roosevelt Institute Project on Financialization. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Paul Krugman were the event’s featured speakers.
The event examined key policy questions facing the Federal Reserve in coming years. Bivens’s remarks focused on the need for monetary policy to allow a genuine recovery to happen, and argued that fears over coming inflation should not persuade the Fed to hike short-term interest rates before a full recovery is achieved.
===
I’ll begin by trying to frame why we think the topics being addressed by today’s panels and speakers are so important.
They’re important first because the economy remains far from fully recovered from the Great Recession. In fact, even after last month’s excellent jobs report, we’re still only about halfway recovered in terms of employment conditions, evidenced in the figure below simply by the share of adults between the ages of 25 and 54 with a job. If I had to pick one desert-island measure of labor market slack, this one seems pretty good to me.