As the Guardian reports this morning:
The true state of British unemployment is more than double its current level at 6.3 million people, if alternative measures including adults stuck in part-time work are used, according to research published on Tuesday.
The TUC, the umbrella body for UK trade unions, said the total is swelled beyond the official figure of 2.68 million if new categories such as underemployed adults are included. Britain bases its jobless data on a widely used formula that defines an adult as unemployed if they are out of work and have actively sought a new post over the past month.
However, the TUC said incorporating six measures of joblessness that are common in the US would paint the UK job market in a much bleaker light. Those include unemployed people who want work but have not actively sought it for six weeks, who number more than 2.2 million in the UK, and "underemployed" adults who are in part-time work because they cannot find full-time work, who add a further 1.3 million to the unemployment total.
Precisely so (and although I advise the TUC I had nothing to do with this work).
I predicted UK unemployment would increase to more than 4 million when this recession started. What I did not allow for was the massive fall in productivity we have seen, mush of which is reflected in part time work and the under-utilisation of people's talent.
In the Courageous State I argue that the goal of economic policy should be the achievement of people's potential because it is the fact that everyone has the ability to achieve that potential that all people are really equal.
That would mean Courageous States would be driven by principles. Of course they'd also be pragmatic sometimes — politics always is, and has to be an exercise in pragmatism. But principles matter in a Courageous State. This will be a fundamental change that will differentiate them from the neoliberal states they will replace.
Those principles are reflected in the following beliefs:
- People come first;
- People must have the opportunity to achieve their potential;
- Poverty is unacceptable;
- Sustainability is essential;
- Balance is best for human well-being;
- Government has to work well;
- Real business deserves strong support.
We are so far from that now, as the TUC show. Which is to the eternal shame of this government and those parties that make it up.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“I predicted UK unemployment would increase to more than 4 million when this recession started. What I did not allow for was the massive fall in productivity we have seen, mush of which is reflected in part time work and the under-utilisation of people’s talent.”
Oh well that is a fair argument…..The reason unemployment is lower with a fall in productivity is because all those companies have held onto their staff trying to keep them employed until the recovery. You know, showing loyalty and putting their staff before profit!
So under your rules they cannot win….
If they fire staff they are heartless capitalist Boss class who care nothing for society.
If they retain staff you complain about a massive fall in productivity and part time work.
You predicted 4 million, you were wrong, get over it and acknowledge companies have made great efforts to keep their staff!
I said I was wrong
I said I did not predict the behavioural change
I really think you need to get the chip off your shoulder
How can someone in part-time work be considered as un-employed?
The phrase was under-employed
Please get your facts right
But as a matter of fact they’re also unemployed for the time they offer to the market which is not taken
No, the phrase was “The true state of British unemployment is more than double its current level at 6.3 million people, if alternative measures including adults stuck in part-time work are used, according to research published on Tuesday.”
I agree that underemployment should possibly be included, but the Guardian fails to make that distinction in their opening paragraph.
So a journalist wrongly reported the TUC argument
Now tell me news
And maybe you’d like to get a life at the same time
Last Septemeber the TUC Congress voted almost unanimously for the TUC machine to publicise and campaign against the EU/India Free Trade Agreement, of which a fulcrum element is the concession allowing Indian companies to bring/send cheap temporary skilled labour into the EU, but mostly into the UK, without numerical limits.
Most people would think that this would have an effect on employment here.
Despite this vote the TUC bureauacracy has failed to act on this,
And this questions the legitimacy of the whole organisation.
Perhaps the several Wikileaks showing the close asociation of the head of its International Department with the corporate US govt is a clue to this failure.
Actually, I can’t think of anything useful the TUC has done in the last 30 years, beyond maintaining their own jobs and pensions.
Just HOW does the TUC know *how many* people actually want to work but are not looking for it? Of course there are some – I know a couple who do unpaid work because they have no chance of getting paid work – but no-one knows how many.
Is there any evidence for 2.2 million? That would be more than one working age non-student adult in 20. How many people do *you* know in this category?
PS I do know more than 40 adults
Like all such statistics survey data is used
And it is remarkably reliable
but perhaps as importantly, why do you persist in asking such stupid questions?
Hi Richard
I’ve wanting to ask you two interrelated questions for a while now and this piece seems a good opportunity.
1. I’m no economist but but as I understand it mass unemployment is part of the neo-liberal economic model as it reduces inflation – especially wage inflation. Do we have any idea what is the minimum level of unemployment required to make it work?
2. From 1946-1976 UK governments pursued policies that created full employment. What were these and does a modern UK government still have similar options?
Thanks
The link between unemployment and inflation was in fact a Keynesian argument – the so called Phillip’s curve – and it was wrong. It contributed to the failure of neo-Keynesianism as a result
But you’re right, it has now moved into neoliberal mantra – you’ll fund the Bano of England discussing unemployment as an economic control, for example.
Can we have full employment and low inflation? Yes. How? Via capital controls and floating exchange rates. It’s possible. But it’s a long way removed from the thinking of those who ut the trade in money above all else.
That’s the conflict we are dealing with.
There’s much more in The Courageous State
thanks Richard. TCS does look an interesting read. We’ve needed an alternative to the morally bankrupt neoliberal dogma for too long. More power to your elbow 🙂