Skip Navigation
Megan McArdle

Megan McArdle - Megan McArdle is a senior editor for The Atlantic who writes about business and economics. She has worked at three start-ups, a consulting firm, an investment bank, a disaster recovery firm at Ground Zero, and The Economist. She is currently on leave.
More

Megan was born and raised on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and yes, she does enjoy her lattes, as well as the occasional extra-dry skim-milk cappuccino. Her checkered work history includes three start-ups, four years as a technology project manager for a boutique consulting firm, a summer as an associate at an investment bank, and a year spent as sort of an executive copy girl for one of the disaster-recovery firms at Ground Zero � all before the age of 30.

While working at Ground Zero, Megan started Live From the WTC, a blog focused on economics, business, and cooking. She may or may not have been the first major economics blogger, depending on whether we are allowed to throw outlying variables such as Brad Delong out of the set. From there it was but a few steps down the slippery slope to freelance journalism. She has worked in various capacities for The Economist, where she wrote about economics and oversaw the founding of Free Exchange, the magazine's economics blog. She has also maintained her own blog, Asymmetrical Information, which moved to The Atlantic, along with its owner, in August 2007.

Megan holds a bachelor's degree in English literature from the University of Pennsylvania and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago. After a lifetime as a New Yorker, she now resides in northwest Washington, D.C., where she is still trying to figure out what one does with an apartment larger than 400 square feet.

What to Do About Long-Term Unemployment?

By Megan McArdle
Mar 1 2010, 3:17 PM ET Comment

I agree with Kevin Drum when he says that "Mass, long-term unemployment is one of the most corrosive things any country can go through". But then he follows with "The fact that we're basically doing nothing about it is not just disgraceful, it's genuinely dangerous." This sounds great. But what, precisely, are we supposed to do?

You see the same thing in every recession for the last twenty years, at least: as jobs get scarcer, employers get pickier about filling their positions. Programmer jobs that once demanded anyone with a pulse and a C++ manual now require that you also have at least three years of experience designing websites for a fast food multinational, speak fluent Tajik, and be proficient in hacky sack. So just as employees are flooding the market from industries that need to permanently downsize, it becomes harder to transition into a new industry or job description.

The result: long term unemployment. What is the government supposed to do about that? Let's do some math: by generous estimates from non-White House sources, the $787 billion stimulus has created (or saved!) something under 2 million jobs. Currently, there are 11-12 million people unemployed. Soaking up half that would require three more huge stimuluses, even if you assume that returns are linear and do not diminish with more money spent. Yet even then, we would not guarantee that we helped the long term unemployed; we might just as easily boost employment for people who aren't finding it particularly hard to get a new job.

Roosevelt could make some actual inroads into the plight of the worst off by the simple expedient of hiring them. But this was before public sector unions got powerful, and the government wrapped itself in yards and acres of procedural red tape surrounding federal hiring, and public works projects. It was also in an era when public works involved considerably more raw human muscle power, and a larger percentage of the workforce was employed in relatively undifferentiated manual labor.

The sad fact is that there's not much to be done for the long term unemployed, other than the obvious step of making sure that they don't miss any meals. Government retraining programs have a dismal record. So do tax credits for hiring workers, which are notoriously easy to game. Stimulus is a blunt tool. And the government can't hire the workers itself. What's left? Threatening employers at gunpoint?

The answer is, nothing. We can, and should, ease the pain of those who lose jobs. But the government can't find you a job any more than it can find you a spouse or a hobby. The process of matching individuals to employers can only be done by individuals.

(Image: bobster855/flickr)



Presented by

More at The Atlantic

Buying a Piece of America: Why Chinese Shoppers Love U.S. Brands Why Chinese Shoppers Love American Brands
Silicon Valley's Next Big Thing: Beer Silicon Valley's Next Big Thing: Beer
Chris Matthews and Newt Gingrich: The Most Entertaining (and Reptile-Centric) Political Interview Ever Gingrich Meets Matthews: A Reptile-Centric Interview
The Brash Hypocrisy of Lanny Davis This Man Represents Everything Wrong in Washington
Watch and Buy: Kickstarter Is the Hipster Home Shopping Network Kickstarter Is the Hipster Home Shopping Network

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
blog comments powered by Disqus
View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

Where in the World? Part 3: A Google Earth Puzzle

May 25, 2012

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

Megan McArdle
from the Magazine

Why You Can’t Get a Taxi

And how an upstart company may change that

Europe’s Real Crisis

The Continent’s problems are as much demographic as financial. They won’t go away soon.

Why Companies Fail

GM’s stock price has sunk by a third since its IPO. Why is corporate turnaround so difficult…