Why 'labour shortages' don't really exist
Talk to a business owner in any country and, before long, they will voice a familiar complaint. In low-unemployment America, a third of firms say they experience recruitment challenges as candidates lack the right skills. In high-unemployment Italy, a quarter have the same complaint. Labour shortages are, apparently, not just a problem in rich countries. Goldman Sachs, a bank, reports that officials, regulators and private-sector folk in India worry about a lack of skilled labour. From Hong Kong to Guatemala, over two-thirds of employers moan about a talent shortage, according to a survey by ManpowerGroup, a consultancy.
The story is consistent over time. When jobs are plentiful, people say there is a labour shortage. It is hard for bosses to find staff. But when unemployment is high, people still say there is a shortage. 'There are 3m jobs available in America that are not filled because too many of our people don't have the skills for those jobs," said Marco Rubio, now America's secretary of state, in 2013, when the jobless rate was north of 7%. The story is also consistent across industries. Some economists say there is a lack of blue-collar workers; others worry about who will pick vegetables. Still others focus on care workers. Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University has written about 'the extreme shortage of high-IQ workers". In sum, people always say there is a labour shortage. This tells you something: the term is slippery, perhaps even incoherent.
It makes most sense when related to the macroeconomic cycle. Demand for labour can run above supply, such as after the covid-19 pandemic, when high spending boosted demand for labour. In such circumstances, wages rise as firms compete for staff. Across the G10, average nominal pay is 20% higher than in 2019. For a while, higher nominal pay can eliminate labour shortages by encouraging work and discouraging hiring. But because economywide labour shortages are ultimately inflationary, higher wages do not bring demand and supply into line. Central banks must instead raise interest rates to reduce demand for labour.
The micro level presents a different story. Here, a labour shortage is a question of price and distribution, rather than scarcity. If a company complains about a shortage of vegetable-pickers, what it really means is that it cannot hire them at the wage it would like to pay. The term 'labour shortage" thus implies a normative claim—that there 'should" be more workers at the prevailing wage—rather than describing an economic reality.
When you dig into the data, evidence of shortages often melts away. Consider construction, a classic 'shortage occupation" in many places. America's homebuilders' trade group talks of a 'dire need" for new workers. In reality, over the past decade, the share of the American workforce involved in construction has risen from 4.5% to 5.2%, which does not scream 'shortage". Maybe the 'true" share of construction workers in America should be even higher. But this is hard to square with the data on wages. In the past decade earnings growth in American construction has been slower than the overall average. People simply do not want to pay more for their builders. As such, the market seems perfectly satisfied.
Even high wages are not necessarily proof of a labour shortage. Consider Erling Haaland, Manchester City's star striker. Mr Haaland commands a huge salary because he scores so many goals. In a sense, then, there is a global shortage of Erling Haalands. But that is an absurd position. No amount of wage increases will create more of him. His ability to command a huge salary is a function of unique ability, not a failure of market supply. It is on this logic that Mr Tabarrok errs in saying there is an 'extreme shortage" of high-IQ people. There is always scarcity of very high-performing individuals—that's why they are valuable. Calling that a 'shortage" is just relabelling market-clearing price differences.
A minority of professions do experience genuine labour shortages, but only when some non-market mechanism prevents the market from clearing. In Britain, for instance, there is both a shortage of doctors and a shortage of training places for doctors. The National Health Service has long faced recruiting difficulties. And yet the government, facing funding pressures, has long capped the number of places at medical schools. In America stringent occupational-licensing requirements make it difficult for workers to move to in-demand jobs. In 2020 the OECD noted that, across the rich world, driving instructors face some of the toughest licensing requirements. If you are ever struggling to find an instructor to help your child pass her driving test, blame the bureaucrats.
Another list will do the trick
Recognising the truth of labour shortages has important policy implications. At present officials are afflicted by shortage-itis. Australia maintains an 'occupation shortage list" to monitor which industries need state assistance. Germany maintains a similar list and gives people in these professions preferential migration treatment. In America Joe Biden tried to tackle a perceived labour shortage in certain industries via apprenticeships. Sir Keir Starmer, Britain's prime minister, wants to boost spending on training British-born workers to alleviate his country's labour shortage. Businesspeople bleat so much about labour shortages in part because hefty subsidies are up for grabs.
Politicians could have more impact by getting out of the way. Economists are fond of the idea of allowing firms to bid for visas. This would ensure new workers flow to industries that have greatest need. Relaxing land-use rules would allow people to move to areas where jobs growth is strongest. Politicians should also loosen occupational-licensing requirements. Aside from that, central banks are responsible for managing aggregate labour shortages, by supervising the overall economic cycle. Next time you hear the cursed term, be suspicious. There's only one Erling Haaland.
Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
US aerospace industry anxious as tariffs loom
US airlines and aerospace manufacturers insist they have no use for tariff protections, warning that the proposed Trump administration levies could eat into the healthy trade surplus the sector has enjoyed for more than 70 years. At the request of President Donald Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's department launched an investigation on May 1 to determine whether to impose tariffs of between 10 and 20 percent on civil aircraft and parts, including engines. The US industry those tariffs were crafted to protect swiftly let the administration know it was not interested. "Imposing broad tariff or non-tariff trade barriers on the imports of civil aviation technology would risk reversing decades of industrial progress and harm the domestic supply chain," the Aerospace Industries Association said in a letter addressed to Lutnick and obtained by AFP. The interested parties were given until June 3 to communicate their positions. The very next day, Lutnick announced that Washington aimed to "set the standard for aircraft part tariffs" by the end of this month. "The key is to protect that industry," he said, adding: "We will use these tariffs for the betterment of American industry." But AIA and the Airlines for America trade association voiced fear that far from helping, the tariffs would end up harming US manufacturers. "Unlike other industries, the civil aviation manufacturing industry prioritizes domestic production of high-value components and final assembly," AIA pointed out. According to the organization, US aerospace and defense exports reached $135.9 billion in 2023, including $113.9 billion for civil aviation alone. This allowed the sector to generate a trade surplus of $74.5 billion and to invest $34.5 billion in research and development, it said. The sector employs more than 2.2 million people in the United States across more than 100,000 companies, which in 2023 produced goods worth nearly $545 billion. In its response to Lutnick, the A4A highlighted how beneficial the international Agreement on Trade in Commercial Aviation had been by helping to eliminate tariffs and trade barriers over nearly half a century. "The US civil aviation industry is the success story that President Trump is looking for as it leads civil aerospace globally," it insisted. A full 84 percent of production was already American, it said, stressing that Washington "does not need to fix the 16 percent" remaining. "The current trade framework has enhanced our economic and national security and is a critical component to maintaining our national security moving forward," it said. For manufacturers, the potential tariffs would act like sand jamming a well-oiled machine that has been running smoothly for decades, experts warned. They would also throw off balance an ultra-sensitive supply chain still recovering from the Covid-19 pandemic. "To avoid the situation getting worse, we advocate to keep aerospace outside of trade wars," Willie Walsh, head of the International Air Transport Association , told the organization's general assembly last week. AIA meanwhile stressed that "aircraft and parts are already in high demand and have a limited supply." "Integrating new suppliers and expanding capacity is complex, timely, and costly," it warned, pointing out that finding suppliers capable of meeting rigorous safety certifications could "take up to 10 years." Delta Air Lines also argued for sticking with the status quo, cautioning that the proposed tariffs "would hinder Delta's ability to maintain its current trajectory." "If component parts incur tariffs upon entering the United States, Delta will be at a competitive disadvantage to foreign competitors," it said. "The action would also impose an unexpected tax on Delta's purchases of aircraft contracted years in advance." Delta chief Ed Bastian insisted in late April that the airline "will not be paying tariffs on any aircraft deliveries we take," adding that it was "working very closely with Airbus" to minimize the impact. Delta pointed out in its letter to Lutnick that it currently had 100 aircraft on order from Boeing, and that it was demanding that its Airbus A220s be produced primarily in Mobile, Alabama. But if the tariffs are imposed, it warned, "Delta would likely be forced to cancel existing contracts and reconsider contracts under negotiation." elm/tu/ph/nl/aha AIA Group Delta Air Lines Airbus Group BOEING


Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
Aravind Srinivas claims ‘After Perplexity Labs, AI's IPO drafting accuracy rises to 98-99%'
Published 8 Jun 2025, 05:42 AM IST Taking the cue from Goldman Sachs' CEO David Solomon's statement that 'AI can write 95% of an IPO prospectus accurately', Perplexity boss Aravind Srinivas made an even bolder assertion — after Perplexity Labs, he believes that the probability of AI writing an IPO prospectus accurately has increased to 98-99%. Earlier this year, Solomon, while at the Cisco AI Summit in California, claimed that AI can write 95% of an IPO prospectus accurately and humans are required for the last 5% of the work, a Financial Times report had pointed out. Discussing the process of drafting an initial registration prospectus for an IPO, known as the S1, Solomon noted that while a team of six people can complete it in around two weeks, AI can now accomplish the same task 'within minutes.' 'The work of drafting an S1 might have taken a six-person team two weeks to complete, but it can now be 95 per cent done by AI in minutes. The last 5 per cent now matters because the rest is now a commodity,' he said. Goldman Sachs has 11,000 engineers among its 46,000 employees, who Solomon said are 'using AI to help draft public filing documents', the FT report added.


Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
India seeks exemption from US' 10% baseline tariff
The fate of the 10% baseline tariffs that the Trump administration invoked on imports from all countries on April 2 is among the issues now at the heart of negotiations between New Delhi and Washington as they attempt to hammer out an early tranche of the trade deal, people aware of the matter have said. Delhi is not in favour of replicating, as suggested by the American negotiators, the approach in the trade deal struck between the US and the UK, where British goods are still subject to the baseline tariffs, these people added. According to a person with direct knowledge of the discussions, Indian negotiators are pushing for their American counterparts to remove the baseline 10% rate as well as commit to assurances that the additional 16%, due to be implemented on July 9, will be left off. An American negotiating team led by assistant US Trade Representative Brendan Lynch 4 landed in Delhi on June for what is the fifth time negotiators from either side have gone to the other's capital for face-to-face talks. The American delegation is expected to be in Delhi till June 10, longer than the previously expected two-day visit. ALSO READ | India-US trade negotiations hit top gear, American delegation extends Delhi stay 'Ideally, both the 10% baseline tariff on Indian goods and the additional 16% from July 9 must end simultaneously after an interim deal is signed. Else, India will also have rights to continue proportionately similar tariffs on American goods till the time the US withdraws the entire 26% reciprocal tariff,' one of them said, citing a joint statement by the two countries' leaders issued on February 13 in Washington. While expounding 'Mission-500' to double bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030 on February 13, the two leaders – Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump – in their joint statement mentioned the need for new 'fair-trade terms' that are 'mutually beneficial', the person said. A second person aware of the matter corroborated India's stance: 'Only a mutually beneficial deal would have a long life'. 'Both India and the US are sovereigns. One is the oldest democracy and the other is the largest democracy. While the US is the largest economy, India is the fastest growing major economy of the world. Hence, the deal must be balanced, equitable, fair and acceptable to their people,' the first person said. The second person added that India sees trade interests between both nations as being 'complementary and not competitive', hence New Delhi is open to giving greater market access to the American goods in the Indian market provided Washington reciprocates. 'The trade negotiations continue in New Delhi covering all these matters in a constructive manner as we speak and both sides are hopeful for a win-win,' he said. ALSO READ | Donald Trump claims India willing to cut 100% tariffs on US goods, 'but…' After UK industries faced American tariffs of 25% on all aluminium, steel and derivatives (announced on March 12), 25% tariff on passenger vehicles (announced on April 3), 25% tariff on automobile parts (beginning May 3), and a 10% baseline tariff on all imports (from April 5) – the UK and the US on May 8 announced an economic prosperity deal (EPD). The mini deal secured some concessions for the UK, but the 10% baseline tariff continued. Both partners are racing to conclude an interim, or regarded as an 'early harvest', deal before July 9, which will be followed by a wider first tranche of Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) by September-October 2025. After that a comprehensive BTA will be negotiated, they said. ALSO READ | How Donald Trump decided the tariff for India The current negotiations for an early harvest deal involve greater market access for goods by eliminating tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers, and improving supply chain integration, they said. The current New Delhi round is followed by a face-to-face negotiation between the two teams in the US. During that period, Union commerce and industry minister Piyush Goyal was also in the US from May 17-22 where he held meetings with his counterparts, US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick and USTR Jamieson Greer.