We’ve just published this month’s TUC Labour Market Report. In this issue we look at the latest employment and unemployment figures. The worrying fall in full-time jobs is being disguised by a rise in part-time employment – but two-thirds of the part-time jobs are going to people who would have preferred to work full-time and there has been a particularly marked increase in the number of women in involuntary part-time work. Inflation has fallen recently, but this has not relieved the pressure on real wages, which have been falling since January.
Richard Exell's Archive
-
Richard Exell
-
Richard Exell
At Prime Minister’s Questions today (watch here from about 19 minutes in) Mr Cameron repeated his claim that his government has created 600,000 net new private sector jobs. (Hat-tip: @D_Blanchflower)
As Fact Check has noted, this is a claim the Prime Minister likes to repeat, even though it has been disproved a number of times; today’s figure simply updates similar data he quoted last year. This is surprising, because a closer look at the relevant statistics reveals a story that is less flattering to the government.
-
Richard Exell
Today’s summary of the reports from the Bank of England’s agents says that private sector employment likely to be “broadly unchanged” for the next six months. We know that more public sector job losses are coming, so overall unem-ployment is very likely going to start rising again.
Each month, the Bank of England publishes a summary of the reports on business conditions from their agents in the regions and nations of the UK (more on the agents here). There are dozens of business and economic surveys these days, but this is one of just two or three that cannot be ignored because they tend to be proved right. (Or, as the Bank puts it, they often “have a high correlation with subsequently published ONS data”.)
As is often the case, today’s Agents’ Summary is a bit of a mixed bag, but some of the measures I pay particular attention to look pretty dull. One is investment intentions (planned and possible spending over the next 12 months) which are important because investment is such a key influence on the economic cycle. Today’s report shows that the agents expect investment only to grow slowly, and it looks as though the improvement earlier in the year may have been cut off:
-
Richard Exell
One of the justifications for the benefit cap in the Welfare Reform Act has always been that Housing Benefit (which is the main benefit that will be affected) is effectively subsidising landlords’ high rents. As David Freud told the Work and Pensions Committee:
We are expecting a large number of people who receive less housing benefit to be able to negotiate their rents downwards.
I’ve always been sceptical about this claim and the latest mortgage and landlord possession statistics from the Ministry of Justice suggest that this is a really bad time to rely on tenants’ ability to persuade landlords to cut their rents.
-
Richard Exell
There’s a wonderful letter in today’s Independent in support of Rupert Murdoch. Amongst other things, it says
He feeds over 54,000 families every day worldwide.
I don’t think the writer (someone who “had the pleasure to work with Rupert Murdoch during my career in Australia and London”) means that Rupe’s the Father Christmas of soup runs, zooming from one time zone to another to reach the needy. Plainly he’s referring to the News International workforce – and my first thought was that it would be more accurate to say that every day 54,000 families worldwide feed him.
But it did strike me as giving an insight into a conservative problem that people are finding hard to explain.
-
Richard Exell
Could a revived National Insurance system help win back support for the welfare state and address key economic and social changes? That is the question addressed in a forthcoming Touchstone pamphlet, Making a Contribution by Kate Bell and Declan Gaffney; Kate and Declan will be presenting their research in a seminar on Friday, with responses by Matthew Oakley of Policy Exchange and yours truly.
In a recent opinion poll, 74% of British people agreed that “the government pays out too much in benefits; welfare levels overall should be reduced.” And yet as recently as 1996, 52% said that benefit levels were “too low and cause hardship.”
What has happened?
-
Richard Exell
I’d like to follow up my post this morning with another about low growth (as opposed to actual recession.) One problem with all the emphasis on recession is it encourages the belief that the flatlining we’ve had for the last year and a half is okay, really. And if the revision of the GDP figures next month reveals that the economy actually grew slightly (a strong possibility) some people will conclude that there isn’t a problem after all.
This morning I mentioned the need for the economy to grow at about 0.8 per cent a year to keep up with population growth, otherwise per capita GDP will fall. The other issue is that we’re used to a certain rate of growth to pay for a gradually rising standard of living and to maintain employment. In the twenty years before the recession growth averaged slightly over half a per cent per quarter – even if we always avoided negative growth, sustained growth below this level will feel pretty cruddy.
-
Richard Exell
Today’s GDP figures are bad and let’s hope that the fact that we’re officially back in recession makes the government think again. (Some of us have been worrying this was going to happen for a while.) But the precise figure isn’t that important: even if we had had growth of plus 0.2 per cent it wouldn’t have made much difference to the picture of what has happened since the recession:
-
Richard Exell
In the latest labour market statistics, the number of people in employment and the employment rate both went up. Although the labour market improved this time last year but then fell away, it looks as though this is more than a blip: there’s been a slow improvement in the headline figures for about six months now.
Even so, it’s very hard to get enthusiastic about this; indeed, when you look a bit deeper, there’s some very worrying trends. The big factor was summed up in Duncan’s labour market in one chart yesterday: the overall improvement is masking a longer-term stagnation in full-time employment. In other words, we’re paying for a slow improvement in unemployment with high levels of underemployment – it isn’t just part-time employment that’s been rising, it’s also the number of people who say that they’re working part-time because they couldn’t get a full-time job:
-
Richard Exell
Yesterday the Department for Work and Pensions briefed the press about tomorrow’s unemployment figures and dished out a set of slides about “The current position in the UK labour market.” Unfortunately, these aren’t available on the DWP website, but you can see them here and I’m struck by how carefully they have to be read.
For one thing, there’s a summary that starts with the claim:
Some improvement since May 2010 – employment up 250,000
That’s a very pointed date, which sent me back to the statistics. The claim is very nearly true (the increase is 243,000), but only if you use the seasonally unadjusted data. Given that the comparison is between figures for Apr-Jun 2010 and Nov-Jan 2012, you’ll get a clearer idea of the change if you use the seasonally adjusted figures, in which case the increase is 101,000.

