- Record resignations and a persistently low labor force participation rate have sparked concerns about the health of the labor market, given its impact on inflation, growth, and productivity.
- COVID-19 made certain trends in the labor market more observable and accelerated others—in many instances, these developments are structural in nature.
- We should reassess established tools and frameworks used to understand the labor market because they may not fully capture important changes that have taken place in recent years.
A shrinking labor market?
Some call 2021 the year of the Great Resignation, a period during which a record number of U.S. workers said goodbye to work for good. It’s a trend that’s been picked up by the media and widely framed as a collective response to the pandemic. Readers were treated to moving profiles of individuals who left work to care for the young and the vulnerable and others who decided to call time on the rat race to embrace a simpler, more meaningful life. It’s an appealing narrative that appears to be supported by economic data.
More than 4.3 million workers left their positions in December, following the record 4.5 million set in November, bringing the tally of those who resigned from their roles in 2021 to nearly 47.5 million, which is roughly 12.5 million more than all of 2020.¹ This coincided with reports of a sustained labor shortage, thereby sparking concerns about the long-term health of the U.S. labor market.
Some observers have been quick to note that resigning differs from leaving the workforce permanently. This is why economists have been focusing on the labor force participation rate (LFPR), which measures the percentage of the population that’s either working or actively looking for work, a metric that offers a more representative perspective of the U.S. labor market. That said, the LFPR fell more than five percentage points during the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak, between February and April 2020, and has since only recouped just over half of what it lost, lending credence to those concerns.
There’s been no shortage of research illustrating how the pandemic has dampened our desire to resume work—the fear of contracting COVID-19, stimulus checks, care responsibilities, and school closures—but labor supply remained stubbornly constrained even as some of these factors dissipated in the second half of 2021. While early retirement (those aged 55 and above) and falling immigration contributed to the situation, they’re only part of a bigger picture.
It would be overly simplistic to view recent developments in the labor market as a net new disruption brought about by the pandemic. Historical data suggests what we’re experiencing is a multidecade trend: The total LFPR for those over the age of 16 peaked in early 2000 and has been falling ever since. Similarly, the employment-to-population ratio peaked at 64.6% in March 2000 and currently sits at 59.5%. Perhaps the question that requires answering isn’t when U.S. workers will heed the call to return to work, but do we need to revisit the way we look at the labor market?
Our understanding of the concept of work has changed in the past few decades, including what we (as workers) expect to get out of it and how work should fit into our lives. Meanwhile, the unending drive toward increased productivity and efficiency has also informed our experience of work. Within this context, we highlight five trends (many of which predate COVID-19) that we believe will shape the labor market.
1 Job seekers versus employers: the balance of power has shifted
Persistent labor shortages can shift the balance of power between employers and workers, giving additional leverage to those who are able and willing to work, enabling them to demand better wages and perks such as flexible working hours and choice of location.
The law of supply and demand suggests that workers with the most bargaining power will be concentrated in sectors in which shortages are most acute and, in this instance, the honor goes to the leisure and hospitality segments. The media, thankfully, brought some much-needed levity to the troubling development by highlighting the lengths that employers are willing to go to hire staff, from generous hiring bonuses to pledges to invest in innovations to make a barista’s job easier to free canapes for aspiring waiters and waitresses. Curiously, while wage growth is highest in leisure and hospitality, the industry is still facing staffing shortages. What happened to our economic model, which basically states that higher wages attract more workers? Clearly, workers are looking for more.
The thirst and demand for higher wages and better working conditions isn’t new. This can be seen in the surge in the number of workers involved in major work stoppages since 2017 (understandably, data for 2020 is distorted by the pandemic). While we’re a long way from where we were in the 1970s, it’s obvious that the idea of collective bargaining might be gaining traction, and the pandemic has perhaps tipped the odds in the job seeker’s favor.
The longer workers can hold onto their bargaining power, the more they’re likely to reap the rewards, from higher pay to additional benefits. From an economic perspective, their bargaining power will also be relevant to longer-run inflationary dynamics. That said, there’s a risk that labor-dependent companies might change tack and address their staffing situation differently. Although we expect workers to continue to hold the upper hand in 2022, and perhaps in 2023, there’s an emerging trend that may place a cap on how long this could last: automation.
The rise in automation is a thematic trend that was in place before COVID-19 and that’s accelerated in the past two years: It’s a powerful force that will reshape the labor market. In the first nine months of 2021, companies in North America ordered 29,000 robots—a record number—to speed up production amid difficulties in hiring. Tellingly, robot manufacturers found themselves fielding orders from relatively unexpected parts of the economy. Fast-food restaurants and hotels, for example, turned to technology and robots to replace workers who were difficult to retain given the high-interaction nature of their roles (which heightens the risk of exposure to COVID-19). In our view, the offset between labor shortages and the speed and effectiveness that automation promises will become a critical component of the medium-term labor market dynamics, wages, and price pressures in the years ahead.
2 Changing work preferences
Flexible work arrangements or, more specifically, working from home (WFH), have become a defining feature of life for many of us in the past two years. No longer a perk that managers can use to occasionally incentivize staff, it became a necessary component of working during the pandemic. Like kids who have been introduced to candy, we now expect it, and we find it difficult to revert to life as it was before.
By some estimates, WFH accounted for 5% of fully paid workdays in the United States before the pandemic—that quickly rose to 60% before stabilizing around the 40% mark. It’s impossible to know how much of the U.S. workforce will be able to WFH permanently, but there are suggestions that the numbers could ultimately land somewhere between 20% and 25%. We believe this will have a positive impact on LFPR, as a more flexible approach to work removes potential barriers to employment (e.g., care responsibilities, geography).
Such a shift would undoubtedly have a far-reaching impact on the economy. While it’s difficult to foretell what’s going to happen and to what extent things will change, it wasn’t hard to see early on in the pandemic that the WFH trend would translate into growth opportunities for those in the business of creating software and hardware that make remote working possible. But where there are winners, there are also going to be losers, and we question whether the broad economic consensus has fully internalized what WFH means to the economy and to growth.
A recent study found that WFH could reduce consumer spending in major city centers by 5% to 10%, a development that could alter expected growth trajectories for major cities and regional towns. Equally important is how remote working might affect productivity. While it’s widely accepted that WFH has boosted productivity, it stands to reason that the actual impact on productivity will differ from industry to industry and role to role. It’s also important to recognize that WFH isn’t for everyone, regardless of whether it’s an option. Space and setting are key considerations, not to mention concerns (among some) that WFH could diminish prospects for promotion. Meanwhile, research has also shown that in some cases, remote workers were less productive. We could write several papers on WFH, but our point is that a range of economic indicators—from growth to productivity to housing markets—needs to be reevaluated in the context of a new way of working.
3 Deglobalization and the emphasis on supply chain sustainability
If there’s one thing we’ve learned about global trade in the past two years, it’s the fragility of the global supply chain. Lockdowns and port closures have led to shortages of all kinds, from semiconductors to toilet rolls, and highlighted the drawbacks of being overly dependent on global trade and the just-in-time mode of production.
That said, the slow march toward deglobalization began before the COVID-19 outbreak, crystalized perhaps by several events between 2016 and 2018, including Brexit and escalating trade tensions between the United States and China. A concept that’s closely associated with deglobalization is the idea of bringing jobs back home, an initiative that received a further boost when U.S. President Joe Biden signed two executive orders—one on supply chain sustainability and another relating to jobs─shortly after he took office in 2021.
According to a widely cited report, the United States was on track to add nearly 140,000 jobs in 2021 through reshoring alone; a related push to attract investments into the country added roughly 86,000 jobs to the tally. There’s reason to believe this trend will continue: A survey of U.S. manufacturing executives last year showed that a quarter of them planned to shift some parts of the production process back to the United States in addition to the reshoring activities that had taken place in the previous three years.
One thing to bear in mind, though, is that reshored U.S. wages will likely be higher than offshore wages, therefore creating an additional wage-cost pressure that could be inflationary. In our view, however, the bigger question is whether these reshored positions can be filled.
That said, the return of jobs and investment should be seen as a positive for the U.S. economy, but it highlights an issue that we had hinted at earlier—the gap between the jobs that are on the market and people who are actively seeking jobs. Research has suggested that the next generation of U.S. workers, the Zoomers (those born between 1997 and 2012), aren’t all that interested in frontline manufacturing work, viewing these positions as low-skilled and potentially low-paying jobs. Taking that into account, we can't help but wonder if reshoring would contribute to creating a bigger mismatch between labor demand and supply?
4 Mapping the disconnect between employers and job seekers
Many would agree that the much-discussed skills gap—the difference between the skills possessed by job seekers and the actual skills needed to perform their work effectively—is a key reason behind the current labor squeeze. Once again, it wouldn’t be right to pin the blame on the pandemic, as this is an issue that’s long troubled employers.
In 2016, a study revealed that 92% of U.S. employers thought that American workers weren’t as skilled as they needed to be. This finding was echoed in a recent survey, which noted that one in four small businesses identified labor quality as their biggest problem. That said, it’s fair to say that the COVID-19 outbreak also had a considerable impact on the kinds of skills needed for the jobs that are available.
"Employers, especially larger organizations, are increasingly relying on technology to help them recruit the best talent."
Identifying mismatches: skills, geography, and preferences
The pandemic has led to a sharp spike in demand for healthcare professionals, and hospitals around the country are struggling to find nurses to fill open positions, but these are specialized jobs that require months, if not years, of training. Similarly, the shift to online shopping has meant a surge in demand for truck drivers, but the job entails adopting a lifestyle that may not appeal to many—it’s a perfect example that illustrates the gap that can exist between open positions and the kind of jobs that job seekers want. Geography, obviously, is another issue: The open positions may not be where job seekers are located. Once again, it’s more complex than a simple trade-off between wages and leisure.
Finessing the automated hiring process
Employers, especially larger organizations, are increasingly relying on technology to help them recruit the best talent. This makes sense, given that an average job listing typically attracts around 250 applications; however, there’s growing concern that automated hiring processes might actually be an obstacle to effective hiring.
A study by Harvard Business School warned that commonly used automated resumé-scanning software could be rejecting millions of perfectly viable candidates as a result of using overly simplistic screening criteria. Criticisms have also been leveled at the adoption of asynchronous video interviews, where applicants’ responses to a predetermined set of questions are recorded through an automated process—candidates found these experiences impersonal, confusing, and exhausting. These negative experiences can be demotivating and discourage job seekers from continuing with their search. The potential problems with technology-assisted hiring don’t stop there: The New York City Council recently passed a bill to crack down on AI-assisted hiring due to rising concerns about hidden biases within these programs. The issue isn’t necessarily new, but with rising adoption, greater scrutiny is needed.
5 The evolution of gig workers
It’s difficult to quantify the number of gig workers there are in the United States due to the flexible and often nonpermanent nature of gig work. That said, the latest data available from the U.S. Federal Reserve corroborates key studies, suggesting that at least one in four adults spends a few hours a month engaging in gig work and, among them, nearly one in ten is a full-time gig worker.
The pandemic highlighted the vulnerability of this sizable part of the economy, which is mostly made up of workers from a lower-income group. The inherent irony here is that while the many gig workers who deliver food items to consumers and important supplies to hospitals during lockdowns were recognized as essential frontline workers, they remain the most likely to be let go when demand ebbs—an experience endured by many of their peers who worked in the services sector. Much of this relates to an ongoing debate about how these workers should be categorized: Are they independent contractors or employees?
Pressure to protect gig workers’ right to be classified as employees—and therefore gain access to benefits such as healthcare, sick pay, and better wages—is rising at the local, state, and federal levels. This pits policymakers against many app-based disruptors (and, in some cases, voters) that have since become industry titans.
It’s likely that California’s experience with Proposition 22 will be replicated this year across the country given the stakes involved. Gig work-centered firms are keen to demonstrate to investors that they have a viable business model, while policymakers are expected to ensure that workers are treated fairly and paid in an equitable manner. How this unfolds could have a material impact on the financial markets and the U.S. economy going forward.
Pressure to protect gig workers’ right to be classified as employees is rising at the local, state, and federal levels.
The evolving gig economy poses a different kind of challenge to economists. Despite its growing importance to the overall economy, traditional employment measures aren’t fully capturing the value of gig work. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston published an interesting paper in 2016 suggesting that both the U.S. employment rate and participation rate in 2015 would have been higher if all informal workers were classified as being employed. Arguably, the implications on key economic data such as productivity and GDP growth could also be significant. Perhaps the gig economy can best be characterized as one of the biggest known unknowns in terms of metrics that can be used to gauge economic growth.
Seeing the bigger picture
As tempting as it might be to frame recent developments in the labor market as a result of COVID-19, it’s important to remember that much of it predates the pandemic. The bulk of what we’re witnessing is structural in nature and, for the most part, has been decades in the making. Crucially, society’s attitude toward work is changing.
It’s a shift that goes far beyond how and where we perform our work; it also goes beyond our traditional thinking about where and how workers choose to work. This change is taking place amid our growing reliance on technology to do work that was previously performed by humans, including the very act of recruiting. It’s a potent mix that we believe will have an important impact on productivity and growth, which is becoming harder to measure because the tools that we’re using may be nearing expiry.
At this point, it’s become even more important for us to adopt a critical mindset and to continue questioning established conventions—it’s the only way we can get closer to understanding change and seeing the bigger picture.
A widespread health crisis such as a global pandemic could cause substantial market volatility, exchange-trading suspensions and closures, and affect portfolio performance. For example, the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has resulted in significant disruptions to global business activity. The impact of a health crisis and other epidemics and pandemics that may arise in the future could affect the global economy in ways that cannot necessarily be foreseen at the present time. A health crisis may exacerbate other preexisting political, social, and economic risks. Any such impact could adversely affect the portfolio’s performance, resulting in losses to your investment.
Investing involves risks, including the potential loss of principal. Financial markets are volatile and can fluctuate significantly in response to company, industry, political, regulatory, market, or economic developments. These risks are magnified for investments made in emerging markets. Currency risk is the risk that fluctuations in exchange rates may adversely affect the value of a portfolio’s investments.
The information provided does not take into account the suitability, investment objectives, financial situation, or particular needs of any specific person. You should consider the suitability of any type of investment for your circumstances and, if necessary, seek professional advice.
This material is intended for the exclusive use of recipients in jurisdictions who are allowed to receive the material under their applicable law. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and are subject to change without notice. Our investment teams may hold different views and make different investment decisions. These opinions may not necessarily reflect the views of Manulife Investment Management or its affiliates. The information and/or analysis contained in this material has been compiled or arrived at from sources believed to be reliable, but Manulife Investment Management does not make any representation as to their accuracy, correctness, usefulness, or completeness and does not accept liability for any loss arising from the use of the information and/or analysis contained. The information in this material may contain projections or other forward-looking statements regarding future events, targets, management discipline, or other expectations, and is only current as of the date indicated. The information in this document, including statements concerning financial market trends, are based on current market conditions, which will fluctuate and may be superseded by subsequent market events or for other reasons. Manulife Investment Management disclaims any responsibility to update such information.
Neither Manulife Investment Management or its affiliates, nor any of their directors, officers or employees shall assume any liability or responsibility for any direct or indirect loss or damage or any other consequence of any person acting or not acting in reliance on the information contained here. All overviews and commentary are intended to be general in nature and for current interest. While helpful, these overviews are no substitute for professional tax, investment or legal advice. Clients should seek professional advice for their particular situation. Neither Manulife, Manulife Investment Management, nor any of their affiliates or representatives is providing tax, investment or legal advice. This material was prepared solely for informational purposes, does not constitute a recommendation, professional advice, an offer or an invitation by or on behalf of Manulife Investment Management to any person to buy or sell any security or adopt any investment strategy, and is no indication of trading intent in any fund or account managed by Manulife Investment Management. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee returns or eliminate risk in any market environment. Diversification or asset allocation does not guarantee a profit or protect against the risk of loss in any market. Unless otherwise specified, all data is sourced from Manulife Investment Management. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Manulife Investment Management
Manulife Investment Management is the global wealth and asset management segment of Manulife Financial Corporation. We draw on more than a century of financial stewardship to partner with clients across our institutional, retail, and retirement businesses globally. Our specialist approach to money management includes the highly differentiated strategies of our fixed-income, specialized equity, multi-asset solutions, and private markets teams—along with access to specialized, unaffiliated asset managers from around the world through our multimanager model.
This material has not been reviewed by, is not registered with any securities or other regulatory authority, and may, where appropriate, be distributed by the following Manulife entities in their respective jurisdictions. Additional information about Manulife Investment Management may be found at manulifeim.com/institutional.
Australia: Manulife Investment Management Timberland and Agriculture (Australasia) Pty Ltd, Manulife Investment Management (Hong Kong) Limited. Canada: Manulife Investment Management Limited, Manulife Investment Management Distributors Inc., Manulife Investment Management (North America) Limited, Manulife Investment Management Private Markets (Canada) Corp. China: Manulife Overseas Investment Fund Management (Shanghai) Limited Company. European Economic Area Manulife Investment Management (Ireland) Ltd. which is authorised and regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland Hong Kong: Manulife Investment Management (Hong Kong) Limited. Indonesia: PT Manulife Aset Manajemen Indonesia. Japan: Manulife Investment Management (Japan) Limited. Malaysia: Manulife Investment Management (M) Berhad 200801033087 (834424-U) Philippines: Manulife Investment Management and Trust Corporation. Singapore: Manulife Investment Management (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Company Registration No. 200709952G) South Korea: Manulife Investment Management (Hong Kong) Limited. Switzerland: Manulife IM (Switzerland) LLC. Taiwan: Manulife Investment Management (Taiwan) Co. Ltd. United Kingdom: Manulife Investment Management (Europe) Ltd. which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority United States: John Hancock Investment Management LLC, Manulife Investment Management (US) LLC, Manulife Investment Management Private Markets (US) LLC and Manulife Investment Management Timberland and Agriculture Inc. Vietnam: Manulife Investment Fund Management (Vietnam) Company Limited.
Manulife, Manulife Investment Management, Stylized M Design, and Manulife Investment Management & Stylized M Design are trademarks of The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company and are used by it, and by its affiliates under license.