21/6/16: Some Painful Stats on Males 'Nonemployment'

Courtesy of @TheStalwart, a nice chart comparing levels of non-employment for prime-age males across a range of countries.

Couple of things jump at a glance:

1. Ireland is firmly within the Souther European states group;
2. Irish change between 1990 and 2014 is one of the smallest on record, suggesting absence from employment is a long-running problem for Ireland.
3. In 1990, Ireland ranked at the top in the sample of countries in terms of the proportion of prime-age males not in employment (note, these exclude those in education and training). In 2014 it was fourth ranked, owing to a massive swing to the upside in the emasure in Greece, Spain and Italy.
4. Countries normally associated with stable and healthy labour markets (e.g. Israel and Finland) are running high proportions of prime-age makes not in employment
5. Notice Iceland's position (presumably no 1990 data is available) ranked 6th lowest percentage of prime-age males not in employment.

Quite interesting.

17/4/16: Start Ups, Manufacturing Jobs and Structural Changes in the U.S. Economy

In the forthcoming issue of the Cayman Financial Review I am focusing on the topic of the declining labour productivity in the advanced economies - a worrying trend that has been established since just prior to the onset of the Global Financial Crisis. Another trend, not highlighted by me previously in any detail, but related to the productivity slowdown is the ongoing secular relocation of employment from manufacturing to services. However, the plight of this shift in the U.S. workforce has been centre stage in the U.S. Presidential debates recently (see http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/).

An interesting recent paper on the topic, titled “The Role of Start-Ups in Structural Transformation” by Robert C. Dent, Fatih Karahan, Benjamin Pugsley, and Ayşegül Şahin (Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, no. 762, January 2016) sheds some light on the ongoing employment shift.

Per authors, “The U.S. economy has been going through a striking structural transformation—the secular reallocation of employment across sectors—over the past several decades. Most notably, the employment share of manufacturing has declined substantially, matched by an increase in the share of services. Despite a large literature studying the causes and consequences of structural transformation, little is known about the dynamics of reallocation of labor from one sector to the other.”

“There are several margins through which a sector could grow and shrink relative to the rest of the economy”:

1. “…Differences in growth and survival rates of firms across sectors could cause sectoral reallocation of employment”
2. “…differences in sectors' firm age distribution could affect reallocation since firm age is an important determinant of growth or survival behavior” 
3. “…the allocation of employment at the entry stage which we refer to as the entry margin could contribute to the gradual shift of employment from one sector to the other.”
4. “…because the speed at which differences in entry patterns are reflected in employment shares depends on the aggregate entry rate, changes in the latter could affect the extent of structural transformation.”

Factors (1) and (2) above are referenced as “life cycle margins”.

The study “dynamically decomposed the joint evolution of employment across firm age and sector”, focusing on three sectors: manufacturing, retail trade, and services.

Based on data from the Longitudinal Business Database (LBD) and Business Dynamic Statistics (BDS), the authors found that “…at least 50 percent of employment reallocation since 1987 has occurred along the entry margin.” In other words, most of changes in manufacturing jobs ratio to total jobs ratio in the U.S. economy can be accounted for by new firms creation being concentrated outside manufacturing sectors.

Furthermore, “85 percent of the decline in manufacturing employment share is predictable from the average life cycle dynamics and the early 1980s distribution of startup employment across sectors. Further changes over time in the distribution of startup employment away from manufacturing, while having a relatively small effect on manufacturing where entry is less important, explain almost one-third of the increase in the services employment share.”

Again, changed nature of entrepreneurship, as well as in the survival rate of new firms created in the services sector, act as the main determinants of the jobs re-allocation across sectors.

Interestingly, the authors found “…little role for the year-to-year variation in incumbent behavior conditional on firm age in explaining long-term sectoral reallocation.” So legacy firms have little impact on decline in manufacturing sector jobs share, which is not consistent with the commonly advanced thesis that outsourcing of American jobs abroad is the main cause of losses of manufacturing sector jobs share in the economy.

Lastly, the study found that “…a 30-year decline in overall entry (which we refer to as the \startup deficit) has a small but growing effect of dampening sectoral reallocation through the entry margin.”

These are pretty striking results.

The idea that the U.S. manufacturing (in terms of the sector importance in the economy and employment) is either in a decline or on a rebound is not as straight forward as some political debates in the U.S. suggest.

Reality is: in order to reverse or at least arrest the decades-long decline of manufacturing jobs fortunes in America, the U.S. needs to boost dramatically capex in the sector, as well as shift the sector toward greater reliance on human capital-complementary technologies. It is a process that combines automation with more design- and specialist/on-specification manufacturing-centric trends, a process that is likely to see accelerated decline in lower skills manufacturing jobs before establishing (hopefully) a rising trend for highly skilled manufacturing jobs.

24/1/16: Unobserved Ability and Entrepreneurship

Yesterday, I posted some links relating to non-Cognitive Skills, contextualising these into the Gig-Economy related issues. Here is another interesting study relating to human capital and linking unobserved (and hard to measure) ability to entrepreneurship.

From the policymakers' and indeed investors and other market participants perspective, the question of why do some individuals become entrepreneurs is a salient one.

Identifying the causal relationships between external conditions, systems and policy environments, as well as behavioural and other drivers of entrepreneurship is of great value for setting policies and systems for enhancing the rate of entrepreneurship creation in the economy. A recent paper, titled "Unobserved Ability and Entrepreneurship" by Deepak Hegde and Justin Tumlinson (Ifo Institute at the University of Munich, April 20, 2015) attempts to answer to key questions surrounding the formation of entrepreneurship, namely:

1. Why do individuals become entrepreneurs? and
2. When do they succeed? 

The authors "develop a model in which individuals use pedigree (e.g., educational qualifications) as a signal to convince employers of their unobserved ability. However, this signal is imperfect…" So far - logical: upon attaining a level of education, and controlling for quality of that education (complexity of degree programme, subject matter, quality of awarding institution, duration of studies, attainment of grades etc), a graduate acquire more than a sum of knowledge and skills attached to the degree. They also acquire a signal that can be communicated to their potential employer that conveys they lateen (hidden) abilities; attitude toward work, aptitude, ability to work in teams, ability to work on complex systems of tasks etc.

Problem is - the signal is noisy. For example, a graduate with 4.0 GPA from a second tier university can have better potential abilities than a graduate with 3.7 GPA from a first tier ranked university. But that information may not be clearly evident to the potential employer. As the result, there can be a large mismatch between what an applicant thinks their ability is and what their CV signals to the potential employer.

In the paper, theoretical model delivers a clear cut outcome (emphasis mine): "…individuals who correctly believe their ability is greater than their pedigree conveys to employers, choose entrepreneurship. Since ability, not pedigree, matters for productivity, entrepreneurs earn more than employees of the same pedigree."

The authors use US and UK data to test their model prediction (again, emphasis is mine): "Our empirical analysis of two separate nationally representative longitudinal samples of individuals residing in the US and the UK supports the model’s predictions that

• (A) Entrepreneurs have higher ability than employees of the same pedigree, 
• (B) Employees have better pedigree than entrepreneurs of the same ability, and 
• (C) Entrepreneurs earn more, on average, than employees of the same pedigree, and their earnings display higher variance."

Point C clearly indicates that entrepreneurs earn positive risk premium for effectively (correctly, on average) betting on their ability over their pedigree. In other words, the take chance in themselves and, on average, win. The real question, however, is why exactly do their earnings exhibit higher variance - is it due to distributional effects across the entrepreneurs by their ability, or is it due to risk-adjusted returns being similar, or is it due to exogenous shocks to entrepreneurs incomes (e.g. tax system-induced or contractually-structured)?

These are key questions we do not yet address in research sufficiently enough to allow us to understand better what the Gig-Economy and entrepreneurship in modern day setting imply in terms of aggregate consumption, investment, household investment and decision making by entire household in terms of labour supply, educational choices (for parents and children), etc.

As some might say... it's complicated...

20/6/15: STEM to Bull: Time to Rethink Irish Tech Propaganda?

So we are being told there are brilliant opportunities available in employment in Sciences, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics (STEM) fields in Ireland and that the demand for workers in these sectors is outstripping anything anything else.

As always, reality is a bit more complex than the wholesale sloganeering suggests.

Here is the latest data for annual average earnings by activity:

As you can see from the above, STEM-related occupations are not exactly homogeneous... Take Human Health, where there is very severe rationing of medical degrees and education opportunities coinciding with falling earnings. And look at non-STEM sectors, like Finance, where there are growing earnings.

Next, take pharma sector - a core STEM sector where, allegedly, there are plentiful employment opportunities in Ireland. Per Enterprise Ireland: "Employment in the sector has grown from 5,200 in 1988 to 25,300 in 2010" (http://www.een-ireland.ie/eei/assets/documents/uploaded/general/Pharmaceuticals%20Fact%20sheet.pdf). Which sounds impressive.

But, here is the definitive CSO data (latest we have is 2013):

Between 2006 and 2013, employment in the sector (primarily containing pharma sub-sector) has dropped, not risen, going from 29,010 in 2006 to 23,948 in 2013. And do note: Enterprise Ireland document linked above attributes all jobs in the Checmical & Pharmaceutical sector in 2010 to Pharma sub-sector. Which, of course, is clearly not the case.

Do we really want to treat STEM as a 'panacea' for incoming new students and for the economy? Or should we stop propagandising individual sets of skills and support students best matching their ability and interest to educational offers? After all, call me old-fashioned, but a good writer is infinitely more productive (and socially valuable) than a bad engineer or a discouraged coder.

25/2/15: QNHS Q4 2014: Employment Growth by Sectors & Activity

In the first two posts covering the QNHS results for Q4 2014, I discussed

• Labour Force Participation Rate (poor news showing decline in the already historically low participation) and Unemployment Rate (goods news with unemployment - absent seasonal adjustment falling to 9.9% and the rate of decline in unemployment on quarterly basis accelerating): http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/02/25215-qnhs-q4-2014-labour-force.html
• The size of labour force (which is worrying and static at and around crisis trough) and broader measures of unemployment (at high enough levels to arrant concern, but declining rapidly, although inclusive of the state training programmes participants and emigration figures the declines are shallower than across the officially reported numbers), here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/02/25215-qnhs-q4-2014-broader-measures-of.html

Now, let's take a look at employment.

Total employment across all sectors stood at 1,938,900 in Q4 2014, up 1.52% y/y - a rate of increase that is slightly faster than 1.45% rise y/y recorded in Q3 2014. In level terms, employment rose 29,100 in 12 months through the end of 2014. Taking annual average, employment over 2014 rose 1.74% compared to 2013 average level of employment.

Despite this, Q2 2014 employment was still down 2.88% on crisis period peak employment although it is 6.24% above the crisis period trough. Relative to 2008 average, current employment levels are down 8.9%.

In simple term, to sum this result up, things are improving, but they are far from normal or where they should be.

Stripping out agriculture and public sector, private sector non-agricultural employment stood at 1,335,400 in Q4 2014, up 2.6% y/y, beating 1.32% rise in the same over 12 months through Q3 2014. In level terms, employment in non-agricultural private sectors rose 33,900, beating the headline total employment figures - a major good news.

Nonetheless, compared to 2008 average, private sector non-agricultural employment remains down 13.19%, while public sector (including sectors dominated by public employment) employment is up 4.8%.

As chart above shows, total employment is doing well, rising to the levels that are above the pre-crisis average and close to the difference between Q3 and Q4 2009. However, private non-agricultural employment is lagging, current at the levels well below pre-crisis average and between Q4 2009 - Q1 2010 levels.

Public and state-controlled sectors employment rose to 487,600 in Q4 2014, up 1.24% y/y (slower growth than in Q3 2014 when it expanded by 2.33% y/y), adding 6,100 jobs. Full year 2014 average employment levels here are 1.13% higher than full 2013 average. Q4 reading marks the highest level of non-private non-agricultural employment for the entire crisis period and is 4.8% above the 2008 average.

Meanwhile, agricultural employment shrunk 9.33% y/y in Q4 2014, having posted a decline of 0.81% y/y in Q3 2014. Loss of employment in the sector in 12 months through the end of Q4 2014 was 10,900, which was most likely partially responsible for gains of 13,100 in construction jobs. Still, over 12 months of 2014, agricultural employment levels were averaging 2.08% above the same for 2013.

Chart above shows basically flat employment in the state and state-controlled sectors, which, when contrasted with official public sector employment figures suggests shift of some public sector jobs from state to private contracting.

High value-added sectors also added jobs in Q4 2014, with 14,000 new jobs additions y/y a rate of employment growth of 2.03% y/y, virtually identical to 2.02% growth recorded in Q3 2014. As with state-controlled sectors employment, employment in high value-added sectors posted peak reading in Q4 2014 for the entire crisis period and stood 6.56% above 2008 average.

Table below provides summary of changes in employment across all sectors reported:

To summarise, we have healthy employment growth of 29,100 over 12 months of 2014 and the rate of growth has accelerated between Q3 and Q4. However, some sectors did post declines y/y in Q4 2014 and some posted weak performance to the upside. Good news is: private non-agricultural employment is rising faster than total employment and the rate of employment growth here accelerated in Q4 2014. High value-added sectors employment is also rising, at a rate faster than the overall employment is increasing.

16/7/2014: What Exactly does JobBridge Public Sector Record Tells Us?

We are all familiar with the JobBridge scheme run by the Irish State:

• Young people are 'incentivised' into 'apprenticeships' where they are paid social benefits plus EUR50/week by the State to work on 'enhancing their skills'. 
• In many cases (majority?) there are no real skills training components to the scheme and instead people are used as cheap labour.
• In theory, upon completion of the scheme they are prioritised into hiring, since (in theory again) they have acquired new skills (of importance to their employer) and have established a proven track record of work.

So there can be two reasons why a JobBridge participation may result in not employing the intern:

1. Intern proves herself/himself to be unsuited for the job (bad skills or bad aptitude etc); or
2. JobBridge internship was set up not to lead to employment (in other words, from the start it was used as a vehicle for obtaining cheap temporary help).

Now, take this fact: 

"The Department of Social Protection has confirmed that 261 interns have worked at departments since the back-to-work scheme began, of whom 233 finished their internships. None were offered permanent jobs because there is a moratorium on recruitment in the public sector, which only allows staff to be hired in exceptional circumstances." 

So, let's ask: 

• Was the reason that all 233 interns were not good enough for the job (remember, the article cites some instances where hiring was done, for the positions interns held, but not of interns themselves)? How can this be true if we have 'the best educated workforce in the world'? And if JobBridge is a 'competitive hiring scheme' where there is pre-screening of the candidates for suitability going on? or
• May be JobBridge was set up - in the case of these 233 internships - to extract cheap labour? Surely the Government would not do such a dubious (ethically) thing as deceive young unemployed into a promise of a reasonable chance of gaining a job at the end, while knowing that "there is a moratorium on recruitment in the public sector, which only allows staff to be hired in exceptional circumstances"? Surely not!

So which one is true, then (because there is no other, 'third' truth possible)? Our education system produces bad crops of candidates unsuited for employment in our excellence-focused public sector? Or our State Training Programmes are run with ex ante expectation of not hiring people completing them?

15/5/2014: Jobs & Employment: Lot Done, More to Do, Still

The is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article from April 27.



As cooperative organisations go, Paris-based OECD is one of the more effective ones. Its regular assessments of member states economic policies and performance drill into various sectors and often flash light into the darker corners of policy formation and implementation that are often untouched by the likes of the IMF, the central banks and the EU Commission.

Good example is the OECD’s third annual review of Ireland's Action Plan for Jobs, published this week.

The review starts by highlighting the positive achievements to-date set against the Action Plan targets and the realities of the unemployment crisis we face.

After hitting the bottom of the Great Recession, Irish labour markets have recorded a rebound in 2013. As the result of the robust jobs creation in the economy, Irish employment levels rose by around 60,000 in 12 months through Q4 2013. New jobs additions were broadly based across various sectors and predominantly concentrated in full-time employment segment. All of which is the good news.

Being a diplomatic, politically correct body, the OECD does not question the aggregate numbers of new jobs recorded. As this column noted on numerous occasions before, the 60,000 figure includes a large number of jobs in agriculture – a number that generates more questions than answers. But from the point of view of the OECD and indeed the Irish Governments 2012 Action Plan for Jobs, quality is a distant goal, while quantity is the primary objective. By this metric, as OECD notes, Ireland is now well on track to deliver on the interim target of 100,000 new jobs by 2016.

Still, accolades aside, Irish non-agricultural employment is lingering at 39 percent of total population – implying a dependency ratio that is comparable with that seen in the late 1990s. Official unemployment counts are around 253,000 and factoring in those in State training programmes the number rises to over 330,000. 16 percent of our total Potential Labour Force is currently not in employment. A things get even scarier when we add all people searching for jobs, underemployed, unemployed that have been discouraged from looking for work, those in State training programmes and the net emigration of working age adults. By this metric, the broadest joblessness rate in the country stands at around 32 percent.

Unlike the Government, faced with the above numbers, the OECD recognises that the Action Plan target of 100,000 new jobs by 2016 is a reflection of our public culture of low aspirations. "While Irish policymakers can take some satisfaction in the economy’s return to growth and recent robust job growth, significant challenges lie ahead if the country is to rapidly bring down the unemployment rate," said report authors. Anodyne a statement for you and me this screams a serious warning to the Government in OECD’s language.

There are legitimate concerns and uncertainties about the pace of the labour market recovery. At peak of employment in Q3 2007, there were 2.17 million people working in our economy. At the bottom of the Great Recession, in Q1 2012 that number fell to 1.825 million. In Q4 2013 the number employed was 1.91 million or 76,000 above the trough, but almost 260,000 below the peak. Meanwhile, Irish working age population has grown by some 93,700 despite large net outflows due to emigration. In other words, jobs creation to date has not been enough to fully compensate for demographic changes in working age population.

Beyond headline unemployment numbers, Ireland is facing a huge crisis of long-term joblessness, the crisis that was recently covered in depth by this column. With it, there is a significant risk that improved jobs creation in the future is not going to provide employment for those out of work for more than a year.

While reversing emigration and accommodating for growing population will require much higher rate of new employment growth than we currently deliver, the Government’s Medium Term Economic Strategy published this year is aiming to bring employment levels to 2.1 million in by 2020. This means thirteen years after the on-set of the crisis our employment is expected to still fall short of the pre-crisis peak.


Which begs a question: who will be the unemployed of tomorrow?

OECD is rather serious on this subject. "Tackling unemployment and ensuring that high cyclical unemployment does not become structural and persistent are important challenges. A relentless focus on activating those most vulnerable to alienation from the labour market will be even more important than aggregate job creation targets in this regard."

In other words, according to the OECD, long-term unemployed, youth out of jobs and out of education, as well as those with low skills and of advanced working age are at a risk of becoming structurally (re: permanently) unemployed, even if the Government targets under all existent strategies are met.

Much of this stems from the sectoral breakdown of jobs being created and types of jobs that are growing in demand in modern workplace.

For example, the OECD praises the Government for focusing Action Plan "on private sector-led, export-oriented job creation by getting framework conditions right and continually upgrading the business environment". But export-led growth is not going to do much for our high levels of long-term unemployment. Jobs creation in exporting sectors is directly linked to modern skills sets and high quality of human capital. Long-term unemployment is linked to lower skills and/or past skills in specific sectors, such as construction. To make a dent in an army of long-term jobless we need domestic growth. To make this growth sustainable, we need productivity enhancements in domestic sectors and SMEs that require employment of higher skills in these sectors. There is a basic contradiction inherent in these two drivers of recovery: skills in supply within the pool of long-term unemployed are not matched to skills in demand within the modernising economy.

Something has to be done to address this dichotomy.

Under various policy reforms enacted during the crisis, Ireland witnessed introduction of significant changes to the benefits system, employment programmes, as well as reduced levels and duration of unemployment insurance cover. In addition, the Government used restructuring of training programmes to introduce a new concept of one-stop support centres, Intreo, which are being rolled out across the country. All of this is in line with previous OECD and Troika recommendations and much of it is needed.

But, as OECD notes, six years into the crisis, more remains to be done.

The OECD identifies Government's flagship activation programme, JobBridge as "large and expensive" and insufficiently targeted to help the most disadvantaged groups. In other words, JobBridge has became a synonym for unpaid apprenticeship for recent graduates instead of being a stepping stone from unemployment to a job requiring moderate re-skilling. OECD also highlights the risk of State training programmes effectively delaying job searches by the unemployed or reducing their job search efforts.

Beyond the above, the OECD points to the risk that the longer-term and lower-skilled unemployed may fall outside the resources and remit cover of the new agencies - the SOLAS and the Intreo.

With all reforms to-date, the OECD highlights the lack of willingness on behalf of the Government to rationalise some of the labour market programmes, even where there is clear and available evidence of their low effectiveness.

One example is the long-established Community Employment Programme (CEP), which accounts for a full one third of all spending on activation programmes. Data available to the Government strongly shows that CEP is not cost-effective and has a spotted track record in terms of securing the participants return to regular employment. Instead of the CEP, the Irish state should focus resources on developing a modern apprenticeship programme that can replace existent ineffective schemes. This focus on market skills-based training available under the apprenticeship system, supported by the OECD report, is in line with policy suggestions presented in this column in the recent past and with the Entrepreneurship Forum report published last year.


The OECD report also provides a detailed analysis of the institutional reforms that are needed to deliver sustainable jobs creation in Ireland in line with the Government agenda. There is a need to mobilise employers to engage with the Government programmes to develop employment and skills systems that can address future demands in the real economy. Instead of craft-focused and manual professions-oriented training, Ireland needs more MNCs and SMEs-driven skills acquisition and upgrading programmes.

The OECD also stresses the need for stimulating productivity growth by developing more skills-intensive domestic sectors. Unlike the Irish authorities, the OECD is painfully aware that aggregate productivity growth, jobs creation and skills development must be anchored to indigenous sectors and enterprise, including the SMEs, and not be relegated to the domain of the SMEs and exports-oriented producers alone.


In all of this, the report highlights a major bottleneck in the Irish human capital development systems – dire lack of training and up-skilling programmes available to SMEs and early stage companies that are capable of supplying skills that are in actual demand in the markets and that can simultaneously drive forward productivity growth and innovation in Irish enterprises.

Slightly paraphrasing Fianna Fail’s GE2002 posters: in the case of Government delivery on jobs and unemployment, “A lot done. Even more to do.”

Note: PLS1 indicator is unemployed persons plus discouraged workers as a percentage of the Labour Force plus discouraged workers.  

PLS3 indicator is unemployed persons plus Potential Additional Labour Force plus others who want a job, who are not available and not seeking for reasons other than being in education or training 



Box-out:

Since the early days of the EU, one of the most compelling arguments in support of the common European currency was the alleged need for eliminating the volatility in the exchange rates. It remains the same today. High uncertainty in the currency markets, the argument goes, acts to depress international trade and distorts incentives to transact across borders. Alas, theory aside, the modern history puts into doubt the validity of this argument. During the 1990s, prior to the creation of the euro, Irish current account surpluses averaged 1.9 percent of GDP just as the economy was going through a period of rapid accumulation of capital - a process that tends to put pressure on current account balance. Still, in the decade before the euro introduction, Ireland's external balance ranked fifth in the European Economic Area. During the first decade of the euro, owing to the massive credit bubble, Irish current account balance collapsed to an annual average of -2.3 percent of GDP. Since hitting the bottom of the crisis, our performance rebound saw current account swinging to an average annual surplus of 7 percent. Alas, this reversal of fortunes ranks us only 7th in the EEA. In fact, since 2000 through today, non-euro area economies of Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland have consistently outperformed Ireland in terms of current account surpluses. Cumulatively Swiss economy generated external balances of 135 percent of GDP between 2001 and 2013, Swedish economy 88 percent and Danish economy 51 percent of GDP. Irish cumulated current account balance over that period is a deficit of 9 percent of GDP. Let's put the matters into perspective: between 1990 and 1999 Irish economy generated a total surplus of USD12.5 billion. Since the introduction of the euro, our cumulated current account deficit stands at USD23.5 billion. At current blistering rates of current account surpluses, it will take us another five years to achieve a current account balance across the entire period of 30 years. Meanwhile, deprived of the alleged benefits of currency stabilisation, Denmark accumulated curret account surpluses of USD149 billion between 2001 and the end of 2013, Sweden USD378 billion and Switzerland USD645 billion. The euro might be a good idea for a political union or for PR and advertising agencies spinning its alleged benefits to European voters, but it has not been all too kind to our own trade balances.






10/4/2014: The curse of Long-Term Joblessness

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times column from March 30, 2014


The unemployment crisis has not passed unnoticed in many households. Ours’ is no exception. Back in 2008, for a brief period of time, both of us found ourselves out of jobs. Thankfully, the spell was very short-lived. Then, in 2011, over a couple of months, I was dusting out my CV for unplanned updates. Just a few days ago, I learned that this year I will not be teaching two of the courses I have taught over the recent years. It's part-time unemployment, again, and this time it is down not to the economic crisis, but to the senile EU 'labour protection' laws.

Yet, spared long-term unemployment spells and able to pick up freelance and contract work, our family is a lucky one. In contrast, many in Ireland today find themselves in an entirely different camp.

Per latest statistics, in February 2014, 180,496 individuals were officially in receipt of Live Register supports for longer than 1 year. Inclusive of those long-term unemployed who were engaged in state-run 'activation programmes' there were around 265,500 people who were seeking employment and not finding one for over a year.

Countless more, discouraged by the zero prospect of securing a new job and not eligible or no longer eligible (having run out of benefits and not qualifying for full social welfare due to total family income) for Live Register supports have dropped out of the workforce and/or emigrated. They simply vanished from the official statistics counts. By latest counts, their numbers can range around 250,000; half of these coming from emigrants who left the country between April 2010 and April 2013.


The numbers above starkly contrast with the boisterous claims by the Government that the economy has created some 61,000 new jobs in 2013. Looking deeper into the new jobs claim, there has been a tangible rise in full-time employment of roughly 27,000 in 2013. Which is still a good news, just not good enough to make a serious dent in the long-term unemployment figures.

Officially, year on year, long-term unemployment fell by 20,900 in Q4 2013. Accounting for those in activation programmes, it was down by around 18,200. Live Register numbers are showing even shallower declines. In 12 months through February 2014, total number of unemployment supports recipients fell 30,807. But factoring in the effect of state training programmes, the decline was only 7,364 amongst those on live register for longer than 1 year. Even more worrisome, since Q1 2011 when the current Government took office, through the first two months of 2014, numbers of the long-term recipients of Live Register support are up by 31,352.

Whichever way you look at the figures, the conclusion is brutally obvious: the problem of long-term unemployment is actually getting worse just as the Government and the media are talking about rapid jobs creation. More ominously, with every month passing, those stuck in long-term joblessness lose skills, aptitude and sustain rising psychological stress.

All of this adds up to what economists identify across a number of studies as a long-term or nearly permanent loss of economic and social wellbeing for workers directly impacted by the long-term unemployment.

However, long-term unemployment also impacts many more individuals than the unemployed themselves.

The lifetime declines in career paths and incomes traceable to the long-term unemployment are also found across the groups related to those without the jobs either via family or via job market connections. Researchers in the US, UK, Germany and Denmark have shown that long-term unemployment for one member of the family leads to a reduction in the lifetime income and pensions cover for the entire household. Studies have also linked long-term unemployment of parents to poorer outcomes in education and jobs market performance for their children.

The adverse effects of long-term unemployment also occur much earlier in the out-of-work spell than our statistics allow for. Whilst we consider the unemployment spells of over 1 year to be the benchmark for long-term unemployment, studies from the US and UK show that the adverse effects kick in as early as six months after the job termination. The US-based Urban Institute found that being out of work for a period in excess of six months is "associated with lower well-being among the long-term unemployed, their families, and their communities. Each week out of work means more lost income. The long-term unemployed also tend to earn less once they find new jobs. They tend to be in poorer health and have children with worse academic performance than similar workers who avoided unemployment. Communities with a higher share of long-term unemployed workers also tend to have higher rates of crime and violence."

This is a far cry from the Irish Government rhetoric on the issue of long term unemployment that paints the picture of relatively isolated, largely personal effects of the problem. Empirical evidence from a number of European countries, as well as the US and Australia shows that these effects are directly attributable to the unemployment spells themselves, rather than being driven by the same causative factors that may contribute to a person becoming unemployed.

Such evidence directly disputes the validity of the Irish Government policies that rely almost entirely on so-called 'activation programmes'. Activation programmes put in place in Ireland during this crisis primarily aim at providing disincentives for the unemployed to stay outside the labour market. Such programmes can be effective in the case where there is significant voluntary unemployment. Instead, in the environment with shortages of jobs and big mismatches between skills and jobs, policy emphasis should be on providing long-term supports to acquire necessary skills and empower unemployed to gradually transition into new professions, enterprises and self-employment.

In part, our state training programmes are falling short of closing the skills gaps that do exist in the labour markets. ICT and ICT support services training, as well as international financial services and professional services skills – including those in sales, marketing, back office operations - are barely covered by the existent programmes.

And where they are present, their quality is wanting. For a good reason: much of our training at best involves instructors who are part-time employed in the sectors of claimed expertise and are too often on the pre-retirement side of their careers, having already fallen behind the curve in terms of what is needed in the markets. In worst cases, training is supplied by those who have no proven track record in the market. Structuring of courses and programmes is done by public sector employees who have little immediate understanding of what is being demanded. We should rely less on the use of training 'specialists' and more on industry-based apprenticeships.

Many practices today substitute applied teaching in a quasi-educational programme with class-based instructions and formal qualification attainment for an hands-on, on-site engagement with actual employers. Evidence collected in Denmark during the 1990s showed that classroom-based training programmes significantly increase individual unemployment rates instead of decreasing them. The reason for this is that attainment of formal or highly specialised qualifications tends to increase individual expectations of wages offers post-programme completion, reducing the range of jobs for which they apply. This evidence in part informed the German reforms of the early 2000s that focused on on-the-job apprenticeship-based skills development. Beyond that, class-based training lacks incentives for self-advancement, such as performance bonuses and commissions.

Self-employment acts as a major springboard to new business formation and can lead to acquisition of skills necessary for full-time employment in the future. Currently, there is little training and support available for people who are considering self-employment. There are, however, strong disincentives to undertake self-employment inherent in our tax systems, access to benefits, and in reduced burden of legal compliance. One possible cross-link between self-employment training and larger enterprises' demand for contractors is not explored in the current training programmes. There are no available shared services platforms that can help self-employed and budding entrepreneurs reduce costs in the areas of accounting, legal and marketing.


Unless we are willing to sustain the indefinitely some 100,000-120,000 in long-term unemployment, we need to rethink of the entire approach to skills development, acquisition and deployment in this country.

Some recent proposals in this area include calls from the private sector employers groups to drop minimum wage. This can help, but in the current environment of constrained jobs supply, it will mean more hardship for families, in return for potentially only marginal gains in employment. Incentivising self-employment and contracting work, by reducing tax penalties will probably have a larger impact. Encouraging, supporting and incentivising real internships and apprenticeships - based on equal pay, commensurable with experience and productivity - will benefit primarily younger workers and workers with proximate skills to those currently in demand. Backing such programmes with deferred tax credits for employers, accessible after, say 3 years of employing new workers, will be a big positive.

In addition we need to review our current system of job-search assistance. For starters, this should be provided by professional placement and search firms, not by State agencies.

Finally, we need to review our current definition of the long-term unemployed to cover all those who are out of the job for longer than 6 months, as well as those who moved into unemployment fro, being self-employed.


This week, former White House economist Alan Krueger identified US long-term unemployment in the US as the "most serious problem" the economy faces right now. He is right. Yet, in the US, long-term unemployed represent roughly one third of all those receiving unemployment assistance. In Ireland, the number currently stands at almost two thirds. The crisis has not gone away. Neither should the drive for reforms.

Box-out: 

With the opening of the first Bitcoin ATMs in Dublin and with growing number of companies taking payments in the world's most popular crypto currency, the crypto-currency became a flavour of the week for financial press in Ireland.

The most hotly debated financial instrument in the markets, it is generating mountains of comments, rumors, as well as serious academic, industry and policy papers. Is it a currency? A commodity, like gold - limited in supply, unlimited in demand? Or a Ponzi scheme?

Few agree as to the true nature of Bitcoin. Bank of Finland denied Bitcoin a status of money, defining it as a commodity of sorts. Norway followed the suit, while Denmark is still deliberating. Sweden classified Bitcoin as 'another asset' proximate to art and antiques, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service - as property.The European Banking Authority is clearly not a fan, having ruled that "when using virtual currency for commercial transactions, consumers are not protected by any refund rights under EU law." In contrast, German authorities recognise Bitcoin as 'a unit of account' as do the French.

Financially, Bitcoin is neither a commodity nor a currency. Bitcoin does not share in any of the main features of commodities. You can't take a physical delivery under an insured contract. You cannot use it to hedge any other asset classes, such as stocks or other currencies. And it is not a currency because it has no issuer who guarantees its value. Nor can it feasibly serve as a unit of accounting and store of value, given extreme levels of price volatility.

Thus, one of the more accurate ways is to think of Bitcoin as a very exciting, interesting (from speculative, academic and practitioner point of view) financial instrument. For now, it shares some properties common to the dot.com stocks of around 1996-1998 and Dutch tulips ca 1620-1630, the periods before the full mania hit, but already showing the signs of some excessive investor confidence. So plant your seed with care.

18/2/2014: Wages and Employment: Irish labour market plight

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times column from February 9, 2014.


In recent months, Irish Government has gone into an overdrive, producing various reports, scorecards and papers on the Irish economy. Much of this activity is a welcome sign that various Departments are starting at last to engage with the world beyond the halls of civil service and political establishment.

The most recent report card on the Irish economy, courtesy of the Department of Finance, presents an interesting read. The document provides an insight into Official Ireland's view of the future, with forecasts covering 2015-2018 medium-term priorities for the Government, including: managing public finances, focusing on jobs, and restructuring the financial system.

To those of us inhabiting the real economy, removed from the MNCs and Government finances, of key importance here are the objectives of "reviving domestic demand" and "increasing employment". The Department’s overarching framework for achieving economic growth in the economy rests on the assumption that over 2014-2016, both total domestic demand (sum of public and private consumption of goods and services and investment) and exports will be positive contributors to growth. In fact, domestic demand is forecast to add, on average, 1.2 percentage points to economic growth annually, accounting for more than half of the GDP expansion in 2014 and 2015 and over 40 percent of growth in 2016.

The Department of Finance vision of the future is a positive one, especially for the financially battered Irish households. Alas, it also reflects some potential contradictions – a sign of the overall dilemma inherent in our economy’s structure. For all the talk about recovery and regaining of our economic independence, Ireland is still facing years of dealing with the debt crisis as well as sustained fiscal austerity. Growing out of this predicament can only be achieved by pushing up exports. But this, in turn, requires moderation in production costs and, thus, suppression of domestic demand. As the 1990s showed, you can’t have both, growth in exports and growth in the domestic economy, until we erase the debt overhang.


By definition, increases in domestic demand can only come from either public or households' consumption and investment uplifts or both.

Growth in Government spending on both current and capital goods and services is not on the cards. In 2014 and 2015 Irish fiscal tightening will continue to reduce domestic demand. In particular, fiscal consolidation, as planned, will take 1.8 percent of GDP in 2014 and 1.1 percent of GDP in 2015. Thereafter, we are still set to face the so-called 'preventative arm' of the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). Under the 2011 Six-Pack legislation amending the SGP, a number of fiscal rules will apply to Ireland, including the requirement to continue reducing structural imbalances by at least 0.5 of GDP per annum, plus the debt break mechanism designed to draw debt to GDP ratio down toward 60 percent benchmark over time.

Which means the households are expected to fund the fiscal adjustments in 2014-2015, and fiscal maintenance in 2016 and beyond. All while delevaraging own debts and paying for the banks deleveraging their loan books, without dipping into deposits which will have to remain high to sustain core banking sector performance metrics.

Meanwhile, the Department of Finance forecasts that Ireland's unit labour costs adjustments over 2008-2015 will total 21 percent, relative to the Eurozone average. This projection, turn, underwrites the forecast growth in our exports.

Just how the households of Ireland can be expected to deliver on all of this is anyone's guess. An even bigger guess is required to explain as to how all of the above financial pressures on Irish households can be dealt with while increasing private investment and consumption, e.g. growing domestic demand.


The answer to the above questions rests with the outlook for the labour markets and wages.

In 2013, Irish economy seen the return of growth in employment - the only significant bright spark on otherwise bleak economic horizon. Based on the latest data we have, in 12 months through September 2013, numbers in employment rose in all sectors in Ireland, with exception of Transport and storage, Administrative and support services, Public administration, and Health and social work. Non-agricultural employment rose by 33,000 and the bulk of new employment was generated in the jobs with 35 and higher average weekly paid hours. In fact, in Q3 2013 compared to Q3 2012, the number of people in employment more than 35 hours per week rose 52,500.

This means that employment growth is now beginning to support domestic demand growth.

The problem is that this support is coming off extremely low levels. Between 2008 and 2013, number of jobs with weekly work hours in excess of 35 hours has fallen 242,500. And gains in employment so far are still fragile. At current rates of growth, it will take us some 13 years to get back to the same levels of full-time employment. Of all sectors, only three are currently registering larger number of jobs than in 2007-2008 period: Accommodation and food, Information and communication, and Health.

And the latest Live Register figures released this week show that controlling for State Training Programmes participation, declines in the numbers on the Live Register remained rather static over the last 4 months.

With employment rising off low levels the other source for growth in domestic demand can be found in earnings. And, aptly, in recent months, there has been resurgence in political chatter about the need to raise wages.

In part, these calls are driven by wages dynamics during the crisis. As of the end of September 2013, average weekly earnings in Ireland were down across all sectors by EUR16.40 compared to the same period in 2012 and down EUR31.37 compared to 2008 average. However, earnings were up significantly in Information and communication: rising EUR40.28 per week on Q3 2012 and up EUR64.28 on 2008 levels. This is a sector with employment that is predominantly capturing foreign workers into new jobs. In turn, these workers have only tenuous connection to the domestic economy: they rarely invest in Ireland, do not save here and are more likely to spend money abroad than the long-term residents. In almost all sectors of the economy linked more directly to Irish resident workforce, earnings are still declining.

So employment might be growing, but wages are declining or stagnant. Which does not bode well for household incomes and, in return, for domestic demand growth story.

More importantly, earnings deflation or stagnation must continue if the Government projections for exports growth were to materialise.

The maths are further stacked up against the theory of domestic demand growth fuelled by wages rises. Given changes to taxes over recent years, a euro increase in wages from current levels for an average household will yield less than 50 cents in the gains in the disposable income. When juxtaposed against the non-discretionary spending, such as funding mortgages, this means that wages increases are not exactly an efficient path to growing domestic demand. Based on Central Bank data, average mortgage in arrears today is EUR190,372. Per CSO, average household income is around EUR61,000pa, once we adjust for unemployment. Which means that at current tax rates, a 1.5 percent increase in income (corresponding to average weekly earnings rising by EUR10.13 on their Q3 2013 levels) is not enough to offset a 0.25 percent rise in mortgage interest.

This week, we have seen the publication of the research paper showing that some 100,000 households in Ireland are unable to pay their mortgages despite having regular income from employment. That is roughly 63 percent of all mortgages in arrears.

Put simply, from economy’s point of view, it is more effective to raise and extend mortgages interest relief than attempt fuelling wages inflation. With ECB’s policy firmly geared toward lower rates, one might be excused thinking that interest rates increases are for now a distant prospect, but in 2013, house loans rates for outstanding mortgages in Ireland went up 0.1 percent compared to the same period in 2012, while rates of outstanding consumer loans were up 0.34 percent. Overall, these increases, suggest that just to keep up with the cost of funding our immense household debt overhang, households need to see wages increases of some 2.2-2.4 percent per annum. Unless you work in ICT, this is not on the books, given supply-demand imbalances in skills and jobs in this economy.

Which leaves us with only one sector where realities of supply and demand have little to do with pay and employment and where wages increases can be imposed by the state: the public sector. This is precisely where pressures to raise wages are currently emerging, driven by political, not economic considerations. With local and European elections approaching, Labour wing of the current Government is trying desperately to force the reversal of their slide in electoral approval ratings. Labour's traditional support base - the Unions - are happy to oblige, in return for concessions of value to their members.

The problem with this, however, is that in order to keep labour costs competitive on the aggregate, wages hikes in the public sector will require more wages ‘moderation’ somewhere else in the economy. Furthermore, with fiscal policy breaks still in the hands of the EU, increases in the lower skilled wages in public sector are likely to benefit incumbent employees at the expense of the newcomers. And if productivity growth in private sectors does not compensate for labour cost increases in public sector, we will be heading for new layoffs, slower jobs creation and, thus, contracting domestic demand.


Our economy is between a rock and a hard place. We are living through the slowly unfolding nightmare of the exports-led recovery – a recovery during which households’ earnings and employment growth are unlikely to reignite domestic economy any time soon. The only way this dilemma of wages vs exports can be resolved is if it is accompanied by a rapid reduction in household debt. But, of course, you won’t find that featuring anywhere in the Official Ireland glossy presentations or in Labour Party’s exhortations about the need for wages growth.

Box-out:
This week, Irish Spirits Association published the latest statistics on our whiskey sector. According to the association data, Ireland had only 4 registered distillers delivering gross value added to the economy of EUR568 million for all spirits produced. This compares against 108 distillers of whiskey alone, pumping out value added of ca EUR3,630 million in Scotland. Total exports in Ireland stood at 6.2 million cases per annum. Scotch exports were fifteen times that number. The figures highlight both a massive potential for Irish whiskey growth and a huge gap between our sector output and that of our next-door neighbours. Looking at the Scottish model, it is clear that Ireland’s decades-old policy of industrialising production in the whiskey sector has failed spectacularly. We need a new policy approach focusing on stimulating independent distilleries, catering to higher value-added premium segment of the market, and delivering rapid innovation with focus on high quality. Marketing efforts of our trade facilitation agencies are not enough.

13/2/2014: Sticky Wages, Job Effort and Jobless Recoveries

In two posts earlier I discussed some new studies relating to the problem of a jobless recovery (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/02/1222014-jobless-recoveries-post.html) and the ICT-driven displacement of workers (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/02/1222014-ict-productivity-employment-in.html). Here is another recent study dealing with labour markets outcomes in the case of a recessionary shock.

Here is another paper on employment adjustments, this time looking at cyclical shocks and wages rigidity: "HOW STICKY WAGES IN EXISTING JOBS CAN AFFECT HIRING" by Mark Bils, Yongsung Chang, Sun-Bin Kim (NBER Working Paper 19821: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19821, January 2014).

There is much evidence that wages are sticky within employment matches, so that incumbent workers face wages that do not adjust significantly fast downward in the downturns, thus creating a wage mis-match with entry of new workers. "For instance, Barattieri, Basu, and Gottschalk (2014) estimate a quarterly frequency of nominal wage change, based on the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), of less than 0.2, implying an expected duration for nominal wages greater than a year."

"On the other hand, wages earned by new hires show considerably greater  flexibility. Pissarides (2009) cites eleven studies that distinguish between wage cyclicality for workers in continuing jobs versus those in new matches, seven based on U.S. data and four on European. All these studies find that wages for workers in new matches are more pro-cyclical than for those in continuing jobs."


"Consider a negative shock to aggregate productivity. If existing jobs exhibit sticky wages, then firms will ask more of these workers. In turn this lowers the marginal value of adding labor, lowering the rate of vacancy creation and new hires. Note this impact on hiring does not reflect the price of new hires, but is instead entirely a general equilibrium phenomenon. By moving the economy along a downward sloping aggregate labor demand schedule, the increased effort of current workers reduces the demand for new hires.

The result of this mechanism of adjustment is that "wage stickiness acts to raise productivity in a recession, relative to a flexible or standard sticky wage model. Thus it helps to understand why labor productivity shows so little pro-cyclicality, especially for the past 25 plus years (e.g., Van Zandweghe, 2010)."

The authors set up two versions of the model for such an adjustment.

First model allows firms "to require different effort levels across workers of all vintages… During a recession the efficient contract for new hires dictates low effort at a low wage, while matched workers, whose wages have not adjusted downward, work at an elevated pace."

In the scone variant of the model, authors "impose a technological constraint that workers of differing vintages must operate at a similar pace. For instance, it might not be plausible to have an assembly line that operates at different speeds for new versus older hires."

The study finds that the second model "generates considerable wage inertia and greater employment volatility." In other words, if contracts do not allow firms to impose greater effort requirement on new hires against incumbent workers, there will be more shocks to unemployment and stickier wages for incumbents. Or in other words, there will be a more jobless recovery.

The authors provide an example: "Again consider a negative shock to productivity, where the sticky wage prevents wage declines for past hires. The firm has the ability and incentive to require higher effort from its past hires, in lieu of any decline in their sticky wages. But, if new hires must work at
that same pace, this implies high effort for new hires as well. For reasonable parameter values we find that firms will choose to distort the contract for new hires, rather than give rents (high wages without high effort) to its current workers. This produces a great deal of aggregate wage stickiness. The sticky wage for past hires drives up their effort and thereby the effort of new hires. But, because high effort is required of new hires, their bargained wage, though flexible, will be higher as well. In subsequent periods this dynamic will continue. High effort for new hires drives up their wage, driving up their effort in subsequent periods, driving up effort and wages for the next cohort of new hires, and so forth. By generating (counter)cyclicality in effort, this model can make vacancies and new hires considerably more cyclical." (Or put differently, it creates more unemployment at the shock and retains more unemployment in the adjustment period.

Now onto empirical evidence: "There is only sparse direct evidence on cyclicality of worker effort. Anger (2011) studies paid and unpaid overtime hours in Germany for 1984 to 2004. She finds that unpaid overtime (extra) hours are highly countercyclical. This is in sharp contrast to cyclicality in
paid overtime hours. Quoting the paper: "Unpaid hours show behavior that is exactly the opposite of the movement of paid overtime." Lazear, Shaw, and Stanton (2012) examine data on productivity of individual workers at a large (20,000 workers) service company for the period June 2006 to May 2010, bracketing the Great Recession. At this company a computer keeps track of worker productivity. They find that effort is highly countercyclical, with an increase in the local unemployment rate of 5 percentage points associated with an increase in effort of 3.75%."

The authors use their model to "show that sticky wages for current matches exacerbates cyclicality of hiring when effort responds. In particular, for our benchmark calibration with common effort, the effort response markedly increases the relative cyclical response of unemployment to measured productivity. It does so by increasing the response of unemployment to productivity, but also by making measured productivity less cyclical than the underlying shock."

The authors then look at the data to see if their "model is consistent with wage productivity patterns across industries, especially the cyclical behavior of productivity in industries with more versus less flexible wages. We measure stickiness of wages by industry based on panels of workers from the Survey of Income and Program Participation for 1990 to 2011."

The study finds that 

• "productivity (TFP) is more procyclical in industries with more flexible wages"; and 
• "this impact is much greater for industries where labor is especially important as a factor of production. 
• "However, we do not see that wages are more procyclical for industries with flexible wages, suggesting that frequency of wage change may not capture wage flexibility particularly well."

7/8/2013: Sunday Times, July 28, 2013: Ireland's Polarised Paralysed Economy

This is an unedited version of my article in the Sunday Times from July 28, 2013.


The latest news from the economy front both in Ireland and across the Euro area have been signaling some shallow improvements in growth outlook for the second and third quarters of 2013. However, the end game of a recovery currently building up will be a greater polarization of the real economy and little net new jobs creation. As supply of skills by indigenous workers remains mismatched to the demand for skills by exporting sectors, restart of exports-led growth of the future will not trickle down to the ordinary families. Meanwhile, long-term unemployment is hitting harder our older indigenous workers, and our entrepreneurship is in a structural decline. Responding to these problems will require a radical shift in the way we enable entrepreneurship, support professional labour mobility and increase investment in education and skills.


To see this, first consider the drivers for the latest improvements in the news flows. June Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) for Manufacturing in Ireland has finally reached just a notch above 50.0, signaling expansion for the first time since February 2013. Services PMI jumped to 54.9, marking 11th consecutive month of index readings above 50. Across the Euro area, Spanish Manufacturing PMI reached above 50 in June for the first time in 27 months. Italian PMI posted a rise for the third month in a row, although it remains below the expansion mark of 50.0. Germany's July composite PMI estimate for services and manufacturing hit a 17-month high at 52.8 and French estimate came in at 48.8 - an improvement on 47.4 in June.

Even though the end to the longest recession in euro area's history might be in sight, the recovery is unlikely to be strong. Euro area economies, Ireland included, genuinely lack sustainable drivers for growth. In addition, the processes of establishing new sources for future growth - new entrepreneurship and investment cycles – have been severely delayed both by the crises and by our policy responses to these crises.

In normal recessions, higher unemployment leads to higher involuntary entrepreneurship, as laid off workers deploy their skills and expertise into the market through self-employment and as sole-traders. In Ireland, in part due to tax hikes hitting the self-employed the hardest, this did not take place. According to the Enterprise Ireland report published earlier this month, the proportion of early stage entrepreneurs here has fallen from 8.1% average over 2003-2008 period to 6.1% in 2012. Ireland now ranks 18th out of 34 OECD countries in terms of entrepreneurship, just as the Government is expending millions on PR campaigns extolling the virtues of its pro-entrepreneurial policies and culture.

Beyond shrinking entrepreneurship, Irish labour markets are continuing to show signs of long-term, structural distress. The headline figures on Irish unemployment tell the story.

At the end of June 2013, there were 516,751 recipients of Live Register supports, including those in state and community training programmes. Some of the latter are involuntary in so far as they are linked to continued receipt of unemployment benefits. In June 2011, the same number was 517,187. The Government is boisterously claiming the economy is creating 2,000 new jobs per month. The same Government has spent hundreds of millions on enterprise supports and investment schemes, published series of programmes promising new jets in tens of thousands. Amidst this PR circus, the unemployment supports counts have declined by less than 500 over two years.

Based on the Quarterly National Household Survey data, we can take a more granular look into the jobs creation dynamics in the economy.

Between Q1 2011 and Q1 2013, the latest period for which data is available, total non-agricultural employment in the country fell by 9,200. In 12 months through March 2013, Irish economy added only 4,900 non-agricultural jobs. Some 19,000 shy of what our ministers in charge of jobs creation and enterprise policies allege. Controlling for health and education jobs, private sector saw destruction of 11,600 non-agricultural jobs since Q1 2011 when the Government came to power. Even in the booming Information and Communication services, overall employment fell by 1,100 in 12 months through Q1 2013, despite robust hiring in the exporting MNCs operating in the sector.

Underneath the surface, the trend is for displacement of Irish workers by age cohorts and by skills. This means that more and more foreign workers are taking up new positions created in sectors such as ICT and IFS to replace positions lost in domestic sectors. It also implies that older Irish workers are now being consigned to the risk of perpetual unemployment.

On the first point, while there is virtually no net new jobs additions in the economy, the positions that are being created to replace those being destroyed by the crisis, are getting progressively worse in terms of their quality. In the higher value-added private sectors, such as ICT services, professional, scientific, and technical activities, financial, insurance services and the likes, employment shrunk by 6,100 in Q1 2013 compared to Q1 2011 and by 900 compared to Q1 2012. Year on year there have been some 9,300 new jobs created in the top three professional occupations when ranked by earnings. However, more than half of these were part-time jobs. These are hardly the jobs that are attracting foreign talent into Ireland, suggesting that of the full time jobs in ICT and IFSC sectors created, the vast majority are taken up by non-Irish workers.

Regarding the last point, in June 2013, compared to June 2010, by age, the only cohort of Irish workers that saw a decline in Live Register numbers are those under the age of 35. All other age cohorts saw increases in Live Register participation. Between June 2010 and June 2013, numbers of long-term unemployed and underemployed rose 20% for workers under 35 years of age, 54% for workers of 35-54 years of age, and 106% for workers older than 55. In effect, we are currently assigning older workers to spend the rest of their working-age life in unemployment.

All of the above is best summed by the quarterly data on unemployment. At the end of March 2013, 25% of Irish workforce was either unemployed, underemployed or marginally-attached to the workforce, up on 23.7% in Q1 2011. Adding to the above those in state training schemes pushes the true broad unemployment rate in Ireland to 29% in Q1 2013, up on 26% in Q1 2011.


As I asserted at the top of the article, evidence shows that there is basically no net jobs creation going on in Ireland since Q1 2011. It further shows that older and predominantly Irish workers are experiencing an ever-rising risk of perpetual unemployment. Amongst the younger cohorts of workers, the main beneficiaries of the ICT and IFSC exporting sectors boom are temporary residents from abroad. Of the jobs still being added in the economy, majority are of low quality and cannot be relied upon to sustain long-term financial viability of Irish households. Lastly, skills mismatches between indigenous workers and exporting sectors demand are offering little hope that exports-led growth of the future will trickle down to ordinary families in Ireland.

The response to the above problem will have to be a structural shift in the way we support and treat entrepreneurship, professional labour mobility and investment in education and skills.

Currently, government policies overwhelmingly disfavor self-employed, indigenous entrepreneurs, and risk-taking professionals. In return, our policies promote development of tax optimizing FDI-backed large enterprises. Thus, early stage entrepreneurs face higher direct and indirect taxes than mature corporations and PAYE employees. Risk-taking, mobile, highly skilled professionals face lower quality and higher cost safety nets than immobile, old-skills-reliant tenured employees. Both mobile employees and entrepreneurs are also facing higher risks of unemployment, greater prospects of disruptive shocks to their incomes and larger exposure to health and family shocks. Meanwhile, for would-be entrepreneurs and flexible markets employees currently in underemployment or unemployment, life-long learning systems are costly to access and, with few exceptions, are of dubious quality.

These obstacles to increasing functional mobility of workers and human capital investments in our workforce can only be dealt with via a drastic, costly and disruptive reforms of our welfare system.  In part, the Government is currently attempting to undertake some of these reforms, albeit against the rising tide of internal discontent between the coalition partners.

But the current reforms proposals are not going far enough. Specifically, we will need to separate unemployment supports from general welfare and make these supports available to self-employed and flex-employment workers at no increase in cost of provision to these workers. The test for accessing all benefits – unemployment insurance and general welfare – should include skills levels and the entire past history of employment and entrepreneurship. Thus, higher unemployment supports should be given to those who have contributed more in the past in terms of taxes paid and entrepreneurship or human capital investment efforts undertaken. Conversely, they should have lower access to welfare benefits. To afford the strengthening of the safety net at the front end of unemployment, we will have to cut back the general social welfare benefits for able-bodied adults.

Parallel to these reforms we also need to change the way we do business in the areas such as childcare and life-long-learning. The goal of such reforms should be to increase access and supports for families at risk of unemployment in the 30-35 years of age and older cohorts. One possible long-term improvement would be to incentivize on-shoring of corporate training services into Ireland by the multinationals, coupled with requirement that such services take on a set percentage of Irish workers for training purposes and apprenticeships. Another reform can see greater and more strategic engagement of multinationals with indigenous entrepreneurs and SMEs.

A deep re-think of our current policies on dealing with unemployment requires breaking down traditional siloes in public policy and management that exist between various departments. The last two years – filled with good intentions and loud policies announcements show that the strategies deployed to-date are not working.

Box-out:

The latest data from the Residential Property Price Index (RPPI) shows that Dublin property prices posted a year on year price increase of 4.15% in June and a 1.69% cumulative rise over the last six months. However encouraging this might sound, the data must be treated with caution for a number of reasons. Firstly, the main driver for the latest improvement in the RPPI was sales of Dublin apartments. These are highly volatile and are based on few transactions. Secondly, outside Dublin, the markets remain weak. Thirdly, latest mortgages data shows that while borrowing posted a cautious rise in the first half of 2013, mortgages affordability is falling. Lastly, current sales levels and valuations are not pricing in the upcoming wave of foreclosures (starting with Buy-to-Let markets around Q4 2013 and running though 2014) that will be required to deleverage banks balance sheets. The fact is: in June 2013 the All-Properties RPPI, was still down 1.5% on Q1 2012 average and is basically unchanged on December 2012-January 2013 levels. In other words, while pockets of strength might emerge in Dublin market, overall property market is currently bouncing at the bottom of the negative cycle, looking for a catalyst either up or down.

7/5/2012: Analysis of April Irish PMIs (3): Employment

In the last two posts I covered headline index readings for Manufacturing PMI and Services PMI for April 2012. In this post, I am looking at the Employment sub-indices for both sectors.

Employment index rose to 52.9 in Manufacturing from 51.2 in March. The move is against 49.5 12mo MA and 50.0 average for Q1 2012, suggesting some expansion in Manufacturing employment. The change comes coincident with a decline in the rate of growth in overall sector PMI to 50.1 from 51.5 in March.

In Services, employment index declined to 50 from 51.9 in March 2012. The index 12mo MA is at 47.9 and Q1 average was 48.1. In contrast to Manufacturing, decline in Employment growth rate came against an improvement in PMI from 52.1 in March to 52.2 in April.

Short-term changes in the series, however, are pretty volatile. Chart below shows the counter-moves in the two sectors:

and the chart below plots relationship between Employment and Exports:

The good news is, March and April 2012 mark two consecutive months when exports expansions in both sectors led to above 50 readings in employment as well. Last time that happened on a monthly basis was in April 2011 and last time it happened in two consecutive months was in October 2007.

If sustained over the next 2-3 months, the trend might shift firmly to the upside.

5/3/2012: Profit Margins in Services and Manufacturing: February PMI

In the previous three posts I covered Manufacturing PMI, Services PMI and employment sub-indices from February 2012 PMIs releases. In this post we shall take a look at profit margins in both Services and Manufacturing.

All original data is courtesy of NCB, with analysis provided by myself. Indices reported below are derived by me on the basis of proprietary models.

Chart below clearly shows the dynamics in profitability across two sectors:

• Based on movements in Services index components for input costs v output charges, profit margins index in the sector has posted slightly slower rate of deterioration in February (-14.23) against January (15.08). This marks the second consecutive month of slower declines in profit margins. Thus, 12mo MA stands at -17.0 and 3mo MA through February 2012 is at -15.9, an improvement on previous 3mo MA of -16.4.
• Profit margins conditions in Manufacturing have deteriorated in February (-22.31) compared to January 2012 (-17.67) marking the 5th consecutive month of deepening declines. Thus, 12 moMA is now at -17.2 and 3mo MA at -18.7 against previous period 3mo MA at -11.1.

So tougher conditions for profitability in both sectors and, in line with that, tougher stance on employment front.