Until the third quarter of this year, the number one doubt facing the US economy was the Pyrrhic character of its "jobless" recovery. Then, during September and last month, net employment grew by 290,000, well ahead of most forecasts. But while more than 300,000 new jobs were created in services, over 50,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. This is more than can be explained by the long-term shift of the economy out of manufacturing and into services.
At the same time, the jump in labor productivity in manufacturing -- by 7.2 percent in the third quarter -- indicates that there remains a great deal of excess capacity in the manufacturing sector. So don't look for any improvement in US employment to come through factory jobs. Instead, it is the greater flexibility of services that has produced the resumption of employment growth in the US.
Evidence for such growth abounds. For example, Kohl's, a large department store, opened 48 new sites in October, hiring some 140 people at each of them. Stop Shop, a chain of supermarkets, has reintroduced a delivery service from cashiers to a client's car -- something done away with decades ago -- and has extended opening hours in many stores.
America's reborn service economy stands in stark contrast to what is found in Europe. Thanks to the European Commission's tough competition policy, Europe has gone a long way toward making its industries more viable.
In the service sector, by contrast, deregulation has been much more limited, probably because services are much less exposed to international competition, which means that old hidebound rules are easier to preserve.
The outcome is that in Europe, unlike in the US, an increase in demand for services produces higher rents, rather than more jobs. Take the simple case of taxi licenses: if the number of taxi licenses is fixed, and consumers start using taxis more often, what you will observe is, at most, an increase in the demand for powerful Mercedes cars that taxi drivers use, not an increase in jobs.
In Europe, a `plot'
In other words, a good indicator of the state of the US economy is how many people take care of you at a supermarket cashier. In many European countries, you should instead look at the quality of the stereo in your taxi.
The labor market flexibility in the US service sector is truly remarkable.
During recessions and booms, you can feel the changes in quality and number of waitresses in restaurants, in the size of staffs in shops, in the availability of cleaning services. In the roaring 1990s, it was almost impossible to find qualified restaurant staff to fill vacant jobs. During the stagnant economic years of the Bush administration, such workers were plentiful.
In Europe, you simply can't see these differences: waiters, busboys, and cooks all have job security.
Part of the problem here is that temporary, short-term jobs in Europe have a very bad connotation. To be sure, the little employment growth that has been seen recently in Europe has mostly been as a result of temporary jobs. Even so, such jobs are widely regarded as a "plot" by companies seeking to fire employees at their leisure. The fact that obstacles to short-term employment contracts lead to long-term unemployment traps is often forgotten.
Such perceptions reflect a deeper difference. By and large, workers and management in Continental Europe retain many of the old class antagonisms that first emerged with the rise of industrialism in the 19th century. To this day, they often still see each other as "enemies."
Crossing the pond
In the US, such sentiments are much less ingrained in the culture. Leading 19th-century American thinkers -- and even trade unionists -- spoke of a "harmony of interests" between labor and capital, and workers and managers continue to view each other more as a partner than an adversary. This is all the more remarkable in light of the enormous -- and still growing -- disparities in compensation within US companies. The pay gap between workers and chief executive officers is far wider in the US than in Europe, and yet resentment of the "boss" appears to be far higher in Europe.
Yet beneath the surface, things are beginning to move in Europe. Stealthily, the competition authorities of the European Commission are starting to get tougher on professional services (consider, for example, "Competition Policy and Liberal Professions," a statement that can be found on the European Commission's Web site, www.europa.eu.int).
Once they have brought the cozy cartels of lawyers and accountants into line, other service industries seem destined to be opened up to greater competition, and hence to become great engines of job creation.
Notwithstanding Europe's labor unions, temporary jobs are starting to be accepted. The American service industry job machine may be on its way across the Atlantic.
Alberto Alesina is professor of economics at Harvard University and Francesco Giavazzi is professor of economics at Bocconi University, Milan.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations