Where did the unemployed go? Back in the early 90s, during the last recession, unemployment was over 3 million. Was this huge army absorbed into the labour market as productive workers, or were they simply reclassified and removed from the unemployment numbers?
Each year, we get a partial answer to this question. The Labour Force survey calculates the number of households where there is no working adult present. The last survey, which was completed in June, shows that almost 16 percent of households are workless. That number has fallen slightly since new Labour were elected. Back in 1997, the comparable figure was 18 percent.
So should we congratulate new Labour on this modest improvement? Sadly, no; the percentage of workless households might have fallen, but the actual number has barely changed.
Back in 1997, there were about 3.2 million workless households; today the number is only 185,000 lower. At the same time, the total number of households increased by almost 2 million, mostly due to rising migration. It is a statistical inevitability of the percentage number of workless households falls.
The Labour Force survey produces another frightening statistic. There are 1.8 million children living in a household where nobody works, and presumably lives on some form of state benefit. That is approximately 1 child in every 6.
So, despite all the rhetoric, unemployment is alive and well and hiding in the Labour Force Survey. Instead of calling them unemployed, they have been reclassified under the more benign sounding category of workless.
8 comments:
Discouraged workseekers perhaps?
If you add in public sector employment what is the total percentage of workshy layabouts?
Nick
Nick,
I dare not produce the combined number. It would only discourage you. You might even get so disheartened that you stop working altogether.
Alice
I think it is clear the Labour Party are not only the biggest bunch of liars in UK history, they are also totally incompetent and uncaring (having done next to nothing for the people they claimed to be wanting to help). We do know, however, that Lavbour ministers have supped well over the last 11 years, and so have private consultants, the elite, and upper middle class people. Sadly, all paid for with debt, which is coming unstuck. Wonderful!
I once did a back of envelope calculation which suggested about almost 50% of the UK population were dependent on the taxpayer for their livelihood.
This does not of course show that all, or even the majority of that 50% are not performing some useful function.
Powerman,
True. Someone has to turn all that oxygen into CO2 or else the forests would die. Beyond that, I haven't figured out a use for the public sector staffers.
If their skills had value someone would be prepared to pay for it, rather than relying on someone to rob the taxpayer in order to provide it for "free."
Nick
Powerman: "This does not of course show that all, or even the majority of that 50% are not performing some useful function."
Could what they do, be done equally well in the private sector?
If so, then doing that function in the Public sector is a drain on the economy.
I'm fairly libertarian myself actually, but I wouldn't claim that lots of frontline medical staff, police officers etc.. are not performing a useful function for society.
It's quite possible that some of this stuff could be provided better by the private sector, and I'm also happy to acknowledge that that figure of close to 50% covers an awful lot of layabouts, massive inefficiencies imposed by paperwork, spurious health and safety regulation, pointless bureaucrats, spin doctors etc..
Powerman,
I didn't take your earlier comment to be approval of public sector, I just used it as a bouncing off point.
Nick
Post a Comment