Unemployment: why it really is good news
New Labour Force Survey figures out today have given the government some reasons to be cheerful, on the face of it.
Unemployment is down and employment is at a record high, even as the economy continues to flatline in terms of growth.
This is a strange situation which is perplexing economists and has led some readers to question the veracity of the new job figures.
Readers have contacted us on Twitter asking us to look at whether the government is in fact cooking the books.
The analysis
Today’s figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) are a mixed bag, but the overall picture is positive.
There were 29.73 million over-16s in work between October and December 2012. That’s 154,000 more people than in the previous quarter and the highest total since records began in 1971.
At the same time, unemployment, measured both by the Labour Force Survey and by the alternative measure of claimant count (the number of people claiming Jobseekers Allowance), has fallen.
It’s not all good news. Youth unemployment is up slightly and edging towards 1 million. And there has been a real-terms cut in pay. Wages have been growing more slowly than inflation since 2008.
But these points are not what is concerning some of our Twitter followers. They want to know whether the government is reclassifying people who are on various welfare-to-work initiatives as employed, when they are not really working.
Another accusation is that the Department of Work and Pensions is stopping benefits payments to large numbers of people who break the rules for jobseekers, and those people are also excluded from the jobless figures.
And there are questions on the quality of the new jobs that are showing up in the statistics. How much of the increase in employment is due to rises in part-time work and self-employment?
The Work Programme
A common accusation is that jobseekers who have been put on unpaid work experience schemes through the Work Programme, like the infamous students stacking shelves at Poundland, don’t show up in the jobless figures.
There’s some evidence for that in the ONS stats. People classified as taking part in “government-supported training and employment programmes” are counted as employed.
Long-term, the numbers have gone up dramatically. There were 163,000 people in this category in the last quarter, a 73 per cent increase (69,000 people) on the same quarter in 2011.
But the latest number is now actually down slightly on the previous quarter: 163,000 is 3,000 less than July to September 2012.
So the inclusion of people on government training schemes in the employment figures is something worth keeping an eye on – but the latest figures don’t suggest the government are relying on it to massage current unemployment rate.
Benefits sanctions
It would appear that claimants are being sanctioned – having part or all of their benefits stopped – in greater numbers under this government, as DWP answers to Freedom of Information requests have shown.
But as for the accusation that people who are under sanction don’t show up in the claimant count measure of unemployment, DWP tells us that is simply untrue.
In any event, these people would still be counted as unemployed in the Labour Force Survey figures.
Part-timers
Again, the long-term and short-term trends are different.
In 2008 there was a massive drop in part-time employment and a rise in the number of people working part-time. And we haven’t bounced back yet.
The latest figures for full-time employment are still 378,000 lower than in the first quarter of the recession.
But things have improved recently. In the last quarter there were 190,000 more people working part-time and 394,000 full-time workers.
Self-employment
The number of self-employed people has increased by 25,000 to reach 4.2m. Again, as a long-term shift in the balance of the economy, this is potentially cause for concern.
But Ian Brinkley, director the leading Work Foundation think-tank, told us to be wary of assuming that the trend is necessarily indicative of a weak economy.
Some of the rise can be attributed to traditional ‘distress’ self-employment, where workers in industries like construction are forced to go self-employed due to lack of jobs, he said.
But the last few decades have also seen an increase in blue-collar professionals choosing to go self-employed for reasons other than job market pressure.
This is borne out by today’s figures, which show that the biggest rise is among “professional occupations” and self-employment among “skilled trades” has fallen slightly.
The verdict
Some scepticism is justified when looking at employment figures, if only because successive governments have shown themselves willing and able to massage them shamelessly in the past.
In the 1980s, the Conservatives were widely accused of shifting unemployed people on to sickness benefits to keep the real jobless total artificially low.
And the last Labour government used to move young people off benefits just before they counted as long-term unemployed, keeping tens of thousands of teens out of the jobless statistics. DWP has now stopped that practice.
But while there is some room for duplicity in the current system, certainly around the employment status of people put on to Work Programme training schemes, there’s no evidence that massive numbers of workless people have been excluded from today’s numbers.
Mr Brinkley, a former chief economist at the TUC, told us: “ONS figures are compiled according to international standards. You can’t really accuse the government of cooking the books. These things can’t add up to enough to seriously distort these numbers.”
If the stats are reliable, that means we are faced with a conundrum: employment is on the up but wages are falling in real terms and overall output is flat.
The Work Foundation thinks the basic answer is that Labour has never been cheaper, and it’s cheaper for firms to hire staff than it is to invest in capital projects, thanks to the high costs of borrowing.
So it makes more sense for a car manufacturer to keep production up by taking on more hands than by investing in a new line of robots.
Mr Brinkley stressed that we are in uncharted territory here, but similarly buoyant employment figures in other recession-hit countries like Germany suggest the flexibility of job markets is helping us stave off mass unemployment.
By Patrick Worrall






There are 19 comments on this post
So why did 1,700 people apply to work in a Nottingham coffee shop?
They must be stupid, what with all this work around.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The country is adjusting in spite of the flatlining economy. People need to do stuff to buy food, at the most basic level, and everyone is shuffling up the conveyor belt of life. Hardly an endorsement of the government…we’ve given up on them.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Cathy/Patrick,
I can never remember who it was who said, “There are lies, damned lies, and there are statistics.”
Here’s a FactCheck challenge: confirm how many times the method of calculating and defining “unemployment” has changed since 1971, then check the first set of stats issued IMMEDIATELY AFTER each change.
Another challenge: use the 1971 calculation method on the current raw data and see what difference it makes to the ACTUAL TOTAL OUT OF WORK. I am willing to bet this would deliver a total much nearer to at least 3.5 million than 2.5 million.
Of course it is easy to rig figures and ignore actual social affects.
You think no responsible statesman would do such a thing?…….Well, check out the summary of Nicholas Ridley’s intentions toward the miners in 1978. They were summarised in The Economist edition of 27th May 1978. Needless to say the method was used to provoke the Miners Strike of 1984-85.
Nothing has changed since. So who is it “good news” for?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Let’s mention that the GDP figures include civil servants’ wages. Because the government has laid off 700,000 civil servants, their wages are not included in the GDP any longer. Yet, the GDP is flat, which means that the private sector’s production is up.
Civil servants make on average 20% more than private sector employee, and salaries are going down in the private sector. We can then understand how 700,000 civil servants could be replaced by over 1million private sector workers, and yet have a flat GDP.
In fact, the wealth of the country is probably growing at a fast pace because unproductive civil servants have been replaced by productive private sector workers. That is seen in the automobile industry figures for example: sales of new cars have increased by 10% this year.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sorry Sabine, but your statements don’t bear close examination.
You state that ‘Civil servants make on average 20% more than private sector employees’ but where is the evidence to support this? The supposed disparity in wages could be accounted for in part by the fact that many low-paid government workers have been outsourced in the last few years, but all this has done is transfer the responsibilities from one sector to another, skewing the figures with no noticeable improvement in standards. I myself am a public sector accountant, earning a rate lower than my private sector counterpart, but with a pension scheme that makes up the difference.
You then state ‘In fact, the wealth of the country is probably growing at a fast pace because unproductive civil servants have been replaced by productive private sector workers.’ The wealth of the country isn’t growing, it’s flatlining. Did you even read the article? Notwithstanding the crass assumption that private sector workers are by default more productive than public sector ones – remember, two legs good, four legs bad – it’s reasonable to assume that many of the new private sector workers are the former civil…
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The number of people in employment is not a very helpful measure (first table) as this is rising due to population growth, pension age changes etc. When the numbers on welfare to work schemes are measured against the fall in the number of people unemployed then it suggests that these schemes are responsible for a reasonably significant number of people coming off the unemployment figures. There may have been less people counted on workfare schemes in the last quarter – that is possibly one of the reasons why the fall in unemployment is also less than last periods.
Claimants who are sanctioned only remain on the Claimant Count if they continue to keep a live claim for JSA, many do not, especially those on longer sanctions. The number of people claiming sickness benefits (ESA) is rising despite the re-assessments – there is anecdotal evidence that some claimants are moving off JSA and onto ESA due to sanctions/workfare (they probably wont get ESA, but until they are assessed are off the books). Whether these people are included in the LFS measure of unemployment merely depends on whether they have answered that they have looked for work in the last four weeks – if they have…
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I am one of the newly self employed. I am 60, recently redundant, so rather then getting depressed by going fortnightly through the job centre I have opted to work as a freelancer earning approximately £150 per week. Since I have paid off my mortgage and live frugally, I can keep myself going on this, until retirement in 2016.
However neither the taxman nor the economy are getting very much from me.
How many people are in the similar position?
Maybe the employment figures are not that relevant, what is relevant is how much money we earn! We could all be employed, but if we only earn just enough to cover meagre living expenses, economy is going to decline further!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Why mention the 1971 figure and then not relate the population or people of employable age in that year. It will show that economic migrants have addded much more to the employed figure in this country than to the unemployed figure as the other thing the government likes to profess!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
As someone falling in and out of employment, I can tell you that I hardly ever claim JSA, and when I have done, I’ve often not been counted as employed. I’ve never had ‘sanctions’ used against me, so far as I know, but I’ve repeatedly been classed as not a jobseeker because I missed the signing on time repeatedly, sometimes by as little as a few minutes. Also, most people don’t wish to use JSA – it is a last resort which only comes into operation many weeks after your application. thus there are many who are unemployed for short periods or even for a long time with other means of support who do not claim JSA – yet they are unemployed.
Years ago i was unemployed for a long period, yet I only received JSA for a fraction of that time.
On an irrelevant side-note, I really hate ‘Job-Seekers Allowance’ which puts conditions on the welfare safety net, thus making it not-actually-a-safety-net. It is deliberately humiliating and incompetently administered, hostile and unfriendly, with endless paperwork asking inane or intrusive questions in a badly phrased manner, and it forces you, not to look for work to the steady beat it demands, but to falsify records of your activity…
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Which, to continue my last comment to it’s conclusion, (to falsify records of your activity…) which makes you a liar. This is an attack on your very identity as an ‘honest person’. It is dehumanising and creates an adversarial situation between ‘jobseeker’ and DWP. What choice do you have but to lie, if you have underperformed, and honesty will mean starvation and homelessness, or beggary?
When Job Seekers Allowance was introduced, it was, of course, administered for several years with a velvet glove. But like all such laws, it laid the conditions for a more punitive system which actively discourages people from claiming JSA, and actually refuses many who wish to claim it.
This in turn encourages the ‘gaming’ of the system, which is why so many people have gone onto things like Employment Support Allowance (for the disabled, always a tricky topic since disability is usually a matter of degree).
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In relation to the point made about immigration, above, doesn’t having more people in work actually just result from a larger working population?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I have a somewhat different take which I published in Whirled View. It may be down to glass half empty rather than half full, but ONS provided me data comparing 3d Qtr 2011 to 3d 2012. Over half the net 552,000 increase was down to part time jobs w/ Part Time Independent Contractor the fastest growing segment. Medium income for Part Time was £155 a week. It may be true that the employment picture is better here than in Europe & that may be good news for those who have jobs, but it isn’t good news for an economy that is going to lose ground where the growth in jobs is taking place. Of course your figures for last quarter — if they hold up — are better than for the prior year, but it isn’t as good as the US & as you point out, does not approach 2008. If by good news you mean it could be worse, point taken. But if you mean by good news signs of a strengthening economy, I think your analysis is dead wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ha ha – I mean it could be worse!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
With respect to people who have been sanctioned, many of the do not show up on the figures for the simple reason that they end their claim when sanctioned because a) they receive no money from doing so and b) it saves them the hassle of dealing with the bullies at the JCP or their providers.
It is often claimed that this proves their claims were fraudulent and that they ‘must be working on the side’, which is a pretty cynical assumption made on bugger all actual evidence.
They will only then show up as unemployed in the survey if they maintain the motivation to regularly seek work, which is known from previous studies to be unlikely – these people tend to drop entirely out of the workforce in the long term.
The most obvious observation to make regarding all these figures is that GDP is stagnant, therefore it seems obvious that despite how many more or less people are working, the same amount of work is being done, despite a rising population. This is not then good news.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Exactly how do we measure output in service sectors? How should we calculate productivity in service industries?
In Broadcast media, one measure is the amount of ad revenues accrued. [it's an independent variable only vaguely connected to the work of C4 fact checkers] But how can we compile that ad revenue with the output of an hairdresser, restaurant, solicitor or a garage repair shop?
Moreover, we know that big retail is much more efficient than small. But, with big retail using its greater efficiency to offer lower prices, how is that higher productivity to be compliled into a national statistic?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
the books are being cooked percentage wise to population there are motre people out of work than ever there was, and the government figures dont stack up, when you take into the percentage of people working part time, these are cooked books figures and what is working tax credit all about, why do you need make up money for doing a job if the pay was right.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It is ironic indeed that as public service workers were more than replaced by private sector workers, productivity has actually gone down rather than up – hence the consternation of the mainstream economists and IDS’s sensitivity on the issue..
I wander what contribution the increased numbers of “apprenticeships” have had. Are these included in the “Government supported training and employment” numbers quoted above? or are they seperate, with this figure only applying to the Work Programme”?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It is impressing. Although many people rely on the system still, there are some who want to take control of their future. If we look around in Europe, it is evident that self-employed have much better rights in England than anywhere else. The same family benefits apply, tax rebates and things, unlike in many countries. Even though many have no other choice, the majority of people starting up a business online or offline will never look back.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
BROKEN BRITAIN UNDER TORIES – TARGET CULTURE PROVED WRONG The Police Federation for England and Wales in 2007 criticised the bureaucratic system of Targets arguing that basic Policing Policies were Target driven encouraging a culture of favourable statistics rather than actual crimes being investigated and a proper conclusion reached .The Target Culture was introduced by Thatcher and continued under both Blair and Brown .Liam Fox spoke out about it in 2008 concerning The Bristol Eye Centre and Targets having a negative affect because a Target to recruit more patients caused existing follow up patients to be neglected and some lossed their eyesight through this Policy .Targets don’t even encourage Pay by Results within private contracts outsourced by Government it only increases falsified figures .Another Commercial Policy that does not benefit Society as a whole as it is a profit driven formula used in non- commercial situations .
Like or Dislike:
0
0