economics 16/12/2009: Unemployment and Jobs Destruction in Ireland

QNHS data is out for Q3 2009 and guess what... well, nothing new, really. Official unemployment rate is now 12.4% - just 10bps away from the Live Register-based Q3 average estimate of 12.5%. The cheerleaders are shouting 'A slowdown in the rate of growth in unemployment! Happy times ahead!'

But the real world data shows much darker picture. The biggest problem with unemployment is how you define it. If a person would like to have a job but is so discouraged by the labor market that he or she decide to stop looking for one, then they are not in the labor force and thus are not unemployed. Similarly, if a person had a job and upon losing it moves out of the country is search of better prospects elsewhere, then they are no longer unemployed. And if a person, disheartened by the prospect of long-term unemployment simply stops answering CSO phone calls, then she is also not unemployed.

But in the real world, all of these people are unemployed. All of these people's lives are lost in the economy even if they are not measured by the CSO.

This is not to criticise the ways in which CSO collects data. That is not the point. The point is that we need to understand just how many jobs were lost and not regained during the current crisis. And this we can glimpse from the QNHS data.

In Q3 2009 total employment fell 40,200 on Q2 2009. In 12 months to the end of Q3 2009, Irish economy shed net of 183,400 jobs - the rate of loss of 8.8% or the highest rate of jobs destruction on the record. In the course of this recession, we have now lost some 236,300 jobs.

Let's do the maths. The above losses imply:

• €13, 450 million in lost economic activity in Ireland
• €1,500 million in lost income tax to the Exchequer (using lower rate and no income levies)
• €3,750 million in lost consumption
• €675 million in lost VAT receipts, and so on

Notice that all of these jobs came out of the private sector and a number of contractors to the public sector and thus these losses cannot be offset even partially through reduced Exchequer wage bills.

And the problem of falling labor force is a sticky one. The overall participation rate has contracted from 64.2% in Q3 2008 to 62.5% in Q3 2009.

Much of the fall in the labor force is being driven by:

• long term unemployment pushing people into permanent welfare traps;
• exits from the workforce by students who are at a risk of completing new education and not finding new jobs afterward (for 15-19 yo participation rate has fallen to 22.7% from 30.8% a year ago, while for 20-24 yo group it stands at 72.9% as opposed to 77.4% a year ago), and
• emigration.
  

Last year, some 45,000 non-Irish nationals left the country, as in left their gainful productive employment in this state and moved on to be productive elsewhere. That's not so good for our economy. Many worked in the construction and domestic services sector and had skills beyond their jobs. Ireland is losing on their productive potential. But many worked in traded services and here the losses are even greater. The future of Irish economy is in traded services first and foremost - that is the elusive 'knowledge' economy we've been pursuing (even though our policymakers have no idea that this what it is). This economy requires more people with cultural, linguistic and skills sets that are distinct from our average 'national' skill-set. Ireland is losing now on our future productive capacity as well as on the immediate one.

And so on the net, CSO data shows that while unemployment climbed by roughly 120,000 over the last 12 months, the actual fall in employment was 185,000 or 65,000 greater. It is the net loss of jobs figure that is more telling of the realities of Irish unemployment than the headline unemployment rate.

Finally, courtesy of Ulster Bank - a table showing that unlike in earlier QNHS releases, Q3 saw industry displacing construction sector as the main source of jobs destruction:
This is another batch of bad news for anyone who, like our Minister for Finance, believes that things are past their worst. In addition, notice that wholesale & retail trade is about to take over construction as the second greatest contributor to unemployment. Wait until Christmas sales are over for that...

Economics 04/11/2009: Live Register - don't touch that champagne yet...

While the Live Register figures (out today) have shown some significant moderation trend for some months now, the latest data remains gloomy. There is a misplaced emphasis on reading the headline statistics too much and ignoring the underlying movements of displaced workers.

The conclusion advanced by many analysts is that October figure shows a seasonally adjusted decline in the LR of 3,000 - the largest drop in LR since the 3,900 decline in April 2005 and the first decline since March 2007. Good news.

The headline numbers of people in receipt of unemployment benefits now stands at 422,500 or 62% above the same period a year ago. This calls for a revision of the expect year-end number to below 500,000. Many analysts jumped in with a conclusion that this will mean the exchequer can breath easier now, because each 10,000 fewer people on LR means the savings of Euro100mln to the Exchequer. Hmmmm... I don't think so.

The savings above reflect the assumption that those off LR are moving into jobs. What if they move into the welfare? Ok, 10,000 people off the LR means savings of Euro 100mln from lower unemployment benefits. If you move to supplementary welfare benefits, the cost of these is identical to job seeker allowance (Euro 204.30 per week), but you will also qualify for more assistance. A temporarily unemployed person might be able to pay out of savings for housing and job searching costs and might be staying outside state-financed training and education programmes. A long-term unemployed person will not, implying a massive cost run up for the state. A 10,000 cost basis for an unemployed LR-listed person quickly turns into a 20-40,000 cost tag for a long-term unemployed.

Now, LR data does not give us a breakdown of tenure in unemployment or other characteristics, but what we do know from today's data is that:

1. Males dominated the reductions in LR numbers with a fall of 2,300 amongst males and just 700 amongst the females. Let me ask you this question - if males increases in LR were driven by construction sector collapse, have any of you seen so many new cranes working in Dublin or elsewhere in the country to warrant 2,300 of these construction workers getting jobs all of a sudden? Neither did I. So most likely, these males are simply exceeding the time limit on unemployment benefits and are now eligible for much more substantial aid available under the general social welfare rates and allowances.
2. Timing of males unemployment increases suggests that we are now seeing reductions in male unemployment coincident with roughly 9-12 months lag from entry point. What does this tell us? Indirectly, this might mean that those who became now long-term unemployed by official definition are simply opting to sign onto welfare rolls and exit the labour force.
3. We are in the beginning of a new academic year. Is it possible that a number of those previously unemployed now became full-time students again? It is. While this is great news, as it means that they will stand a chance of enhancing their education, it is not the good news regarding unemployment in this country.
4. Emigration is another likely factor driving some of the declines in unemployment. Back in September data, details on Irish v Non-Irish nationals on LR showed that the rate of unemployment increases amongst non-nationals was contracting faster than for the Irish nationals. Detailed figures on this matter for October will come out on Friday, so stay tuned.
5. Lastly, the main bit of information relevant to this analysis. Out of 3,000 fewer LR signees, 2,900 came from under 25-year old group. Only 100 of the reductions came from the over 25 years old group. Incidentally, this suggests that LR reductions due to emigration are most likely impacting primarily Irish nationals leaving the state, rather than Accession states’ nationals going back to their countries of origin.

This speaks loudly in support of my assertion that the following forces (in decreasing magnitude of their contribution to falling unemployment) are at play:

• Labour force exits into welfare benefits;
• Net outward emigration of the young.

In my view, both reasons offer nothing to cheer about.