{"title":"Real Wages and Monetary Policy: A DSGE Approach","authors":"B. Perry, Kerk L. Phillips, David E. Spencer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2012630","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Economists have long investigated the cyclical behavior of real wages in order to draw inferences regarding the relative stickiness of prices and wages. Recent studies have adopted techniques intended to identify monetary shocks and examined the response of real wages and output or employment to such shocks. A finding that real wages are procyclical in response to a positive monetary policy shock, for example, is taken as evidence that prices are stickier than wages. In this paper, we show that factors other than wage and price stickiness affect the response of real wages to a monetary policy shock. Accordingly, examining the response of real wages is not enough to sort out the relative stickiness of prices and wages. We use two prominent DSGE models to help us address this issue. These models incorporate both sticky wages and prices but in different ways. The first model (Huang, Liu, and Phaneuf, American Economic Review, 2004) is relatively simple and is not intended for policy analysis. Its relative simplicity allows us to approach the issues both analytically and through simulations. The second model (Smets and Wouters, American Economic Review, 2007) is a relatively complex model of the U.S. economy with many frictions and intended to be useful for policy analysis. Because of its complexity, we must rely principally on simulation exercises. Using these models we offer robust evidence that the real wage response to monetary policy is affected in important ways by properties of the economy other than stickiness of wages and prices, such as the importance of intermediate goods in the production process and the size of key elasticities. Consequently, we cannot appropriately infer the relative stickiness of wages and prices from examining only the response of real wages to a monetary policy shock.","PeriodicalId":445951,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Forecasting & Simulation (Prices) (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Forecasting & Simulation (Prices) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2012630","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Economists have long investigated the cyclical behavior of real wages in order to draw inferences regarding the relative stickiness of prices and wages. Recent studies have adopted techniques intended to identify monetary shocks and examined the response of real wages and output or employment to such shocks. A finding that real wages are procyclical in response to a positive monetary policy shock, for example, is taken as evidence that prices are stickier than wages. In this paper, we show that factors other than wage and price stickiness affect the response of real wages to a monetary policy shock. Accordingly, examining the response of real wages is not enough to sort out the relative stickiness of prices and wages. We use two prominent DSGE models to help us address this issue. These models incorporate both sticky wages and prices but in different ways. The first model (Huang, Liu, and Phaneuf, American Economic Review, 2004) is relatively simple and is not intended for policy analysis. Its relative simplicity allows us to approach the issues both analytically and through simulations. The second model (Smets and Wouters, American Economic Review, 2007) is a relatively complex model of the U.S. economy with many frictions and intended to be useful for policy analysis. Because of its complexity, we must rely principally on simulation exercises. Using these models we offer robust evidence that the real wage response to monetary policy is affected in important ways by properties of the economy other than stickiness of wages and prices, such as the importance of intermediate goods in the production process and the size of key elasticities. Consequently, we cannot appropriately infer the relative stickiness of wages and prices from examining only the response of real wages to a monetary policy shock.
长期以来,经济学家一直在研究实际工资的周期性行为,以得出有关价格和工资相对粘性的推论。最近的研究采用了旨在确定货币冲击的技术,并检查了实际工资和产出或就业对这种冲击的反应。例如,在积极的货币政策冲击下,实际工资是顺周期的,这一发现被认为是价格比工资更具粘性的证据。在本文中,我们证明了工资和价格粘性以外的因素会影响实际工资对货币政策冲击的反应。因此,考察实际工资的反应不足以理清价格和工资的相对粘性。我们使用两个突出的DSGE模型来帮助我们解决这个问题。这些模型结合了粘性工资和价格,但方式不同。第一个模型(Huang, Liu, and Phaneuf, American Economic Review, 2004)相对简单,不用于政策分析。它的相对简单性使我们能够通过分析和模拟来处理问题。第二个模型(Smets and Wouters, American Economic Review, 2007)是一个相对复杂的美国经济模型,有许多摩擦,旨在对政策分析有用。由于其复杂性,我们必须主要依靠模拟练习。使用这些模型,我们提供了强有力的证据,证明实际工资对货币政策的反应在重要方面受到经济属性的影响,而不是工资和价格的粘性,例如中间产品在生产过程中的重要性和关键弹性的大小。因此,我们不能仅仅通过考察实际工资对货币政策冲击的反应来适当地推断工资和价格的相对粘性。