The Macroeconomics Of Downward Nominal Wage Rigidity: A Review Of The Issues And New Evidence For Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inflation definitely has costs, but they remain difficult to quantify for rates below 10-15 per cent. Aiming for a low rate of inflation, as Canada has done in the last 20 years, carries with it various risks, such as debt deflation, reduced flexibility of interest rates, and downwardly rigid nominal wages. In this paper, I focus on the latter problem. As James Tobin pointed out in 1972, economy-wide downward nominal wage rigidity generates a long-run negative relation between inflation and unemployment, implying that permanently low inflation can be bought only at the cost of permanently high unemployment. In contrast, the classical assumption of full wage flexibility implies that low inflation carries no permanent unemployment costs. The literature has produced compelling evidence that firm and worker resistance to nominal wage cuts is fierce, extensive and persistent in advanced economies, including Canada. But the macroeconomic significance of this phenomenon is still disputed. After presenting the details of the competing classical and Tobin views on wage flexibility or rigidity, I review the theoretical and empirical objections to the macroeconomic relevance of downward nominal wage rigidity that can be found in the literature. I then present new macroeconomic evidence on the matter based on Canadian macrodata for the 56-year period 1956-2011. This evidence suggests that the real world is more Tobin-like than classical, implying that the permanent unemployment costs of aiming for a low rate of inflation such as the current 2-per-cent target could be significant. According to the results I obtain, sticking to this target would keep the national unemployment rate between 1.0 and 2.7 percentage points in excess of the asymptotic minimum rate that would be attainable at a somewhat higher inflation rate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".