Oskar Morgenstern’s conference paper, published as a journal article in a Papers and Proceedings supplement, examines the limits of explaining and forecasting American unemployment. Its central argument is that unemployment cannot be understood through an isolated labor-market model or a regular business cycle: it emerges from interacting changes in production, institutions, investment, and international politics. The paper proceeds from methodological cautions through statistical problems to five substantive factors—wages, monopoly, investment, armaments, and foreign trade. These provide a framework for inquiry, not a quantitatively established forecast.
Morgenstern begins by distinguishing scientific analysis from informed conjecture. Unemployment’s human costs understandably create pressure for remedies, but insufficiently grounded advice can aggravate the conditions it seeks to relieve. War makes the distinction especially urgent: American employment depends on political and military developments whose timing and consequences economists cannot know. Longer forecasting horizons also admit influences absent or insignificant in the short run. The appropriate object of investigation therefore extends beyond unemployment itself:
On the contrary, it is necessary to start with the fact that unemployment is only an aspect of a much wider and much more complex phenomenon which must be the real object of study whenever a comprehensive picture is to be drawn.
This enlargement leads Morgenstern to analyze employment alongside national income and its distribution. More employment need not mean a proportionate increase in real income, especially under armament production. Conversely, a larger income produced by fewer workers raises the difficult question of supporting those excluded from production. Neither maximum output nor full employment alone supplies an adequate measure of economic success.
The statistical discussion challenges the seemingly neutral separation of trend, cyclical, and random movements. American data cannot securely distinguish cyclical unemployment from lasting institutional changes. Moreover, classifications based on earlier regularities may assume precisely what they purport to discover:
The statistical method, therefore, already to some extent postulates the facts it is supposed to reveal, and it is usually only after a further lapse of time that relevant factors can be shown.
Theory cannot simply compensate for deficient statistics, since its assumptions also require factual support. This warning governs the substantive discussion: apparent regularities must not substitute for knowledge of the changing historical structure.
Wages receive the most extensive treatment. Morgenstern attacks purchasing-power arguments that make high or stable wages a general guarantee of prosperity. A single “general wage level” conceals differences among industries, production techniques, and capital requirements. His alternative emphasizes cost-price-profit relationships and the time-structure of production. Higher wages, reinforced by collective bargaining and cheap capital, may encourage substitution of machinery for labor. Once production has been reorganized, lower wages cannot immediately restore displaced jobs. Cyclical disturbances can thus produce structural changes that outlast the cycle.
Despite these qualifications, Morgenstern recommends trying money-wage reductions while seeking to prevent a sustained fall in the total wage bill through a liberal monetary policy. The recommendation remains explicitly a judgment rather than a demonstrated universal remedy. His discussion of monopoly is similarly differentiated: evidence that industrial monopoly has grown sufficiently to explain persistent unemployment is inconclusive, although high monopoly prices can restrict other industries. He gives greater weight to collective bargaining’s exclusionary effects, arguing that improved conditions for protected workers can narrow opportunities for others.
The investment discussion rejects the claim that American capitalism has exhausted profitable opportunities. Morgenstern accepts the importance of investment for income and employment but disputes the diagnosis of saturation. He directs attention instead to obstructed price-cost adjustments, wage rigidities, taxation, and political uncertainty. Changing markets may require painful adaptation without implying the disappearance of invention or unmet wants. Public investment does not automatically stabilize the system; its political objectives and uncertain relation to private production introduce additional complications. Replacement requirements for deteriorating durable goods also suggest substantial future investment demand.
Armaments expose most sharply the inadequacy of aggregate reasoning. Idle resources are not interchangeable: military production demands particular skills, machinery, and materials, creating bottlenecks while unemployment persists elsewhere. Its products avoid direct competition with civilian output, but its resource demands compete with civilian production:
Very likely those who have suffered most because of prolonged unemployment will be least likely to benefit.
Employment and money wages can therefore rise without corresponding gains in civilian welfare. Morgenstern anticipates severe adjustment when arms demand ends, involving both a change in production and a possible return from controls to free pricing. Stimulating consumer demand may create inflation before production adjusts. Yet rapid dismantling of controls could discredit the restored market economy, while successful planning could strengthen support for collectivist institutions.
Foreign trade completes this argument. Abruptly declining war exports would compound domestic contraction; reconstruction demand might bridge the gap, but only with timely international credit. Damaged European financial systems and American resistance to foreign lending make that solution uncertain. The paper’s enduring relevance lies in linking unemployment to production structure and institutional transition while questioning confident extrapolation. Its concluding warning includes the possible failure of the very regularity on which forecasts depend:
What might appear to be the one anchor of their hopes—the regularity of the business cycle—may also go to pieces, thus depriving them of the principal key with which to unlock a door to the future.
This work was divided into 8 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 8 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian