Skip to main content

Unemploymment down but what lies behind the numbers?

Making sense of the unemployment figures reminds me of the song about the Grand Old Duke of York: "And when they were up, they were up. And when they were down, they were down. And when they were only half way up, they were neither up nor down!"

David Cameron at PMQs today made a great deal of the statistics showing the number of people in work has increased.  Indeed, according the the Office for National Statistics (ONS),  the number of people in work increased slightly in the last quarter to 29.6 million. The increase in number of people employed compared to a year earlier is now an impressive 499,000. Unemployment is down 0.2% compared to a year ago, or 128,000.  Now it doesn't take a mathematical wizard to realise that unemployment will fall as a percentage of the workforce if you make the workforce 'bigger'. A key issue is whether the new jobs are real. More than  20% of the increased employment was accounted for by an increased number of young people on government work and training schemes. They are not 'real' jobs.

Between September 2011 and September 2012, the number of people employed in the public sector fell by 324,000 and the number of people employed in the private sector increased by 823,000. Some of this transfer from public to private is not due to new jobs but to a reclassification of the public sector. Excluding this reclassification the number employed in the public sector fell by 128,000; the number in the private sector increased by 627.000. Some of this is good news. It is odd then that this doesn't appear to be filtering down with a feel good factor for the government.

There are possibly two reasons for this lack of feel good. The first is one of scale. It remains the case that the levels of unemployment at 7.8% remain stubbornly  high by the standards of recent times. Before the banking crisis unemployment was less than 5.5%. The other problem is that it is unlikely that jobs being created in the private sector are located in just the right areas for those losing jobs in the public sector to move into.  So there is probably a discordance between those feeling the ravages of cuts and those finding work. There is evidence to suggest that at least 1/3 of the new jobs have been created in and around London as part of the Olympics bounce, whilst in many other regions, such as Yorkshire and the Midlands, unemployment has been rising and stays above 8, 9 or even 10%.  But the third reason for lack of feel good is falling incomes and rising prices of food, energy and transport.

Record numbers are working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs with 8 million people working fewer than 25 hours a week. This means that as the real cost of living rises with increased prices of food and energy, family income is falling.  Real monthly incomes are on average £22 lower than a year ago.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,