Causes of unemployment

Open unemployment of the sort defined above is associated with capitalist economies. Preliterate communities treat their members as parts of an extended family and thus do not allow them to be unemployed — in the effort to preserve the group. In precapitalist societies such as European feudalism, the serfs (though clearly dominated and exploited by the lords) were never "unemployed" because they had direct access to the land (and the needed tools) and could thus work to produce crops. Just as on the American frontier during the nineteenth century, there were day laborers and subsistence farmers on poor land, whose position in society was somewhat analogous to the unemployed of today. But they were not truly unemployed, since they could find work and support themselves on the land.

Under both ancient and modern systems of slave-labor, slave-owners never let their property be unemployed for long. (If anything, they would sell the unneeded laborer.) Planned economies such as the old Soviet Union or today's Cuba typically provide occupation for everyone, using substantial overstaffing if necessary. (This is called "hidden unemployment," which is sometimes seen as a kind of underemployment, definition 3.) Workers' cooperatives — such as those producing plywood in the U.S. Pacific Northwest — do not let their members become unemployed unless the co-op itself goes bankrupt.

On the other hand, under capitalism the individual profit-seeking employer does not have to bear the complete social costs of laying off or firing workers, so they are willing to live with (or even profit from) the existence of unemployment — unless employees are able to win good severance packages or protection from the government (such as restrictions on firing and lay-offs, although some doubt if even these help since they may make employers more reluctant to take the risk of hiring someone in the first place). (That is, there is arguably a market failure due to the existence of external costs of firing or laying-off of people.) On the "supply side," workers' lack of significantly positive net worth (beyond equity in a home or a car) makes it very difficult for them to go into business for themselves to avoid unemployment. Economist Edward Wolff estimates that in 1995 in the U.S., families with adults aged 25-45 in the middle income quintile could sustain their current consumption for only 1.2 months (or live at 125% of the poverty standard for 1.8 months) based on their financial reserves. Poorer quintiles of course had more difficulty.

Since not all unemployment may be "open" and counted by government agencies, official unemployment may be very low even under capitalism. Most poorer capitalist countries lack a modern welfare state and unemployment insurance so that it is very difficult to afford being unemployed for very long: they often end up taking jobs below their skill levels. Those who might be counted as "unemployed" in the rich countries end up instead being underemployed (definition 1) and not counted.

Others argue that unemployment actually increases the more the government intervenes into the economy. For example, minimum wages raise costs of doing business and businesses respond by laying off workers. Laws restricting layoffs make businesses less likely to hire in the first place leaving many young people unemployed and unable to find work.

The results of both actions lead to less productivity and are claimed to incur a higher cost on society as a whole. The results lead to not just higher unemployment but may increase poverty. This is why the less market oriented countries of Europe often sustain substantially high unemployment rates in comparison to the United States; that is, government induced employment through policies designed to protect the worker. The welfare state then responds with various benefits that are paid for by the middle and upper class which reduces their ability to consume and is theorised to reduce the incentive to work hard and innovate. Economists like Ludwig Von Mises, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Von Hayek, and many others not only believe that the welfare of society decreases with this kind of intervention but that these economic policies are not sustainable.