Negative Labor Market Trends Accelerated in the 2000s

Thursday, April 07, 2016
startup deficit

Today’s post is the second in a two-part series examining long-term trends in the U.S. labor market.

Tuesday’s post covered how some negative labor market trends started long before the Great Recession. This post examines how they accelerated after 2000.

Juan Sanchez, a research officer and economist with the St. Louis Fed, and Marianna Kudlyak, an economist with the Richmond Fed, examined trends such as declining job reallocation,1 the job ladder collapse,2 job polarization3 and the startup deficit.4 They noted that these trends started at the beginning of the 1980s and accelerated after 2000, which coincides with the decline in aggregate labor force participation. They wrote: “In fact, male labor force participation has been declining for decades. Women’s labor force participation rose until 2000, after which it started to fall.”

Trends in Startups

Specifically related to the startup deficit, Sanchez and Kudlyak noted that the startups most closely associated with employment growth had been growing prior to 2000 but declined afterward. They cited research showing both good and bad news about startup trends:5

  • The good news is that there has been a shift in the retail sector since the 1980s from small “Mom and Pop” startups (which provide fewer jobs) to branches of large, stable national chains (which provide more jobs).
  • The bad news is that high-tech startups, critical for innovation and productivity growth, were rising before 2000 but have been sharply declining ever since.

Regarding startups, Sanchez and Kudlyak said that more research was needed to understand whether the results on the startup deficit reflect changes in the dynamics of employment growth relative to other explanations. They also said research was needed to determine if the deficit was due to technology shifts giving larger incumbent firms an advantage relative to entrants or if it was due to distortions affecting the efficient allocation of workers to firms (such as regulations affecting worker mobility and increasing the costs of starting a business).


Sanchez and Kudlyak concluded that determining whether labor market developments are the result of cyclical phenomena or long-term trends could be helpful for policy. These negative trends might lower labor productivity and, in turn, wages and labor force participation. They wrote: “Are these trends likely to be reversed with more expansionary monetary policy? To answer that, we need to understand the underlying forces behind the decline in business dynamism: Maybe it’s an optimal response to new technological shocks, or maybe the decline is due to some bad regulatory changes.”

Notes and References

1 Job creation plus job destruction.

2 In this case, they focused on the aspect of the ladder that large employers poach workers from smaller employers during advanced stages of a recovery.

3 Middle-skill occupations are disappearing, while low- and high-skill occupations are growing.

4 The dramatic decline in the creation of firms.

5 Decker, Ryan; Haltiwanger, John; Jarmin, Ron; and Miranda, Javier. "The Role of Entrepreneurship in U.S. Job Creation and Economic Dynamism." The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2014, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 3-24.

Additional Resources

Posted In Labor  |  Tagged juan sanchezlaborunemployment ratelabor force participation ratejob reallocationjob ladderstartup deficit
Commenting Policy: We encourage comments and discussions on our posts, even those that disagree with conclusions, if they are done in a respectful and courteous manner. All comments posted to our blog go through a moderator, so they won't appear immediately after being submitted. We reserve the right to remove or not publish inappropriate comments. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that are:
  • Vulgar, obscene, profane or otherwise disrespectful or discourteous
  • For commercial use, including spam
  • Threatening, harassing or constituting personal attacks
  • Violating copyright or otherwise infringing on third-party rights
  • Off-topic or significantly political
The St. Louis Fed will only respond to comments if we are clarifying a point. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters, so please edit your thinking before posting. While you will retain all of your ownership rights in any comment you submit, posting comments means you grant the St. Louis Fed the royalty-free right, in perpetuity, to use, reproduce, distribute, alter and/or display them, and the St. Louis Fed will be free to use any ideas, concepts, artwork, inventions, developments, suggestions or techniques embodied in your comments for any purpose whatsoever, with or without attribution, and without compensation to you. You will also waive all moral rights you may have in any comment you submit.
comments powered by Disqus

The St. Louis Fed uses Disqus software for the comment functionality on this blog. You can read the Disqus privacy policy. Disqus uses cookies and third party cookies. To learn more about these cookies and how to disable them, please see this article.

Subscribe to
On the Economy

Get notified when new content is available on our On the Economy blog.

Email Alerts  |  RSS

About the Blog

The St. Louis Fed On the Economy blog features relevant commentary, analysis, research and data from our economists and other St. Louis Fed experts.

Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or of the Federal Reserve System.

Contact Us

For media-related questions, email For all other blog-related questions or comments, email