Economics 10/02/2010: Can Labour Party lead?

Does a coalition involving any party in partnership with Labour makes sense?

Unfortunately, despite Labour Party having in its ranks some very talented and economically literate senior politicians (Joan Burton and Ruairi Quinn come to mind), there is a legacy of the LP being largely captured by the Trade Unionist movement. In times of economic expansion, this risks the party pre-committing itself to the policy platforms that:

• expand public sector beyond economically efficient levels;
• make the above expansions permanent in nature (i.e. irreversible); and
• commit the state to correcting any potential funding shortfalls out of tax revenue increases.

In this context, it is irrelevant whether or not the Labour Party can or cannot commit to a credible path of public sector productivity reforms. It is simply a party that will find it impossible to impose fiscal discipline on its own constituency.

For example, consider the current situation with public sector wages and non-wage earnings clearly being out of line with private sector and with the reality of economic crisis on the ground. Two past policy dimensions, each one sufficient enough to rule out Labour's ability to impose fiscal discipline on the state, that come to mind:

1. Labour consistently supported increases in the lower tier wages, thus advocating a compression of wage distribution from the left tail. In current environment, Labour could cut upper tier public sector wages, further compressing the distribution, this time from the right tail. But it cannot commit to shifting the entire distribution left. And this means that any savings achieved will be poultry and will not go far enough to address the existent wages gap between public and private workers to the left of the median wage.
2. Labour also persistently advocated minimum wage increases. A cut in a minimum wage, therefore, is not an option for Labour. But absent cuts in minimum wages, what policy can promote jobs creation at the bottom of the skills distribution? A cut in the cost of employing workers - aka a cut in employer PRSI - is also out of question for Labour. Training and state subsidised employment simply cannot deliver sustained jobs for this category of unemployed.

The legacy of traditionalist approach to class politics is tainting Labour party platforms today. Their current proposals for dealing with unemployment virtually invariably require the State to find new funding to expand existent programmes, such as investment in education and training, a jobs fund in the Budget and a new National Development Plan. Funny thing is, Labour party seems that propping up the same programmes that failed to deliver jobs in the times of the boom (aka all mentioned above) will somehow, once expanded, deliver jobs in a recession.

There is also a strange belief, on behalf of Labour party that extending a place in a university to everyone who applies (see here), regardless of their merit or ability, is a jobs-supporting policy as well. In following this, Labour commits two cardinal errors:

• It implicitly beliefs that getting a college degree improves ones ability to gain employment; and
• It explicitly assumes that providing tertiary education for all is necessarily net-additive economic and social activity.

In other words, Labour party fails to recognise that education can yield diminishing social and economic returns and it fails to recognise that the rate at which social and economic returns diminish is unrelated to the quality of graduates.

So there you have it - despite having some very good people in its ranks, Labour party is simply not a credible contender for economic crisis management.

Economics 02/02/2010: Minimum Wage Blues

For those of you who missed my last Sunday Times article, here is an unedited version.

Last week, this newspaper reported about the successful Competition Authority probe into a price fixing cartel involving a number of car dealers. Of course, price fixing is illegal in Ireland. Illegal, that is, unless the perpetrator of it is the State. For proof, look no further than the price of unskilled labour – the minimum wage rate.

The end result of this law – a product of collusion between the Government and the Unions – is two-fold.

First, like any other collusive arrangement, the minimum wage leads to a long-term deterioration in the employment creation in the economy. Economists commonly link this to the deterioration in our overall competitiveness.

Second, minimum wage distorts incentives and choices of employers and employees. Over time, investment in skills, knowledge and aptitude fall for minimum wage recipients and lower-skilled, marginally more expensive employees, while businesses are incentivized to substitute their hours of work with physical capital. The age-old fear of machines displacing people is, thus, a logical denouement of the minimum wage.


The fact that the minimum wage laws reduce overall country competitiveness in the sectors heavily reliant on unskilled and low-skilled labour is undeniable. Ireland no longer registers meaningful contributions to its economy from mobile low-wage sectors. Only those lower skills activities that are captive by their nature – such as local protection services – remain here. However, the effects of the minimum wage on workers themselves are far less understood.

There is plenty of evidence that minimum wages lead to reduced employment of the lower-skilled and younger workers. Less known is the fact that minimum wage distorts education decisions of the young. Recent research from the Michigan State University shows that states that raised their minimum wage experienced increased unemployment amongst the low-skill teenagers who had previously dropped out of school. Higher-skill teenagers were more likely to get jobs, increasing their early exits from education. In other words, those who were best suited for early employment could not get a job, while those who were best suited for continued education were incentivised to drop out.

In the long run, minimum wage also shifts resources within various sectors of economic activity. Data for Ireland clearly shows that since introduction of the minimum wage here, traditionally labour-intensive sectors have seen their labour share of productivity decline, while capital share of value added has expanded. In some, labour productivity actually fell in absolute terms. These are the sectors, including hotel and restaurant services, construction, traditional manufacturing sectors, retail services and real estate activities and other, where minimum wage covers a larger overall proportion of the workforce. In contrast, other labour-intensive sectors, where wage structure was not dependent on minimum wage constraints, such as modern manufacturing, financial and professional services and wholesale and logistics services, have registered an above-average increase in overall share of value added attributable to skills and labour inputs. This trend, present in the data since introduction of the minimum wage, was not there prior to 2000.

And Ireland is hardly unique here. A study from the University of California recently showed that employers have reduced employment of the less skilled and increased employment of higher skilled workers with an emphasis on formal job training credentials in the wake of increases in minimum wage rates. For anyone concerned with the plight of the disadvantaged youths, these findings should ring the alarm bells.

Often, proponents of minimum wage laws argue that some studies have found little effect of the minimum wages on aggregate level unemployment. The problem, of course, is that such arguments neglect the issue of movement of people in and out of the labour force. While minimum wage hikes lead to higher average wages paid to those in employment, workers who lose their jobs often drop out of the labour force. As such, their numbers simply disappear off the unemployment count.

Hardly a right-wing liberal, Paul Samuelson, winner of the 1970 Nobel prize in economics had the following to say about the proposals to raise minimum wage: "What good does it do a …youth to know that an employer must pay him $2 an hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?"

This is a non-trivial observation, because it reveals one of the most damaging effects of the minimum wage laws in the modern economy. Nobel Prize winner Professor Gary S. Becker, suggested back in the 1970s that minimum wage acts as a dis-incentive for firms to invest in training of its lower-skilled employees. A recent pan-European study confirmed this to be the case across the EU, including Ireland.

The result of this is the creation of a two-tier economy, whereby those with no general and firm-specific skills remain at the very bottom of the economic hierarchy, while those with above-average skills are moving further and further up the skills chain. The companies, over time, respond to this separation by either choosing to invest more into machinery and technologies that can displace lower-skilled workers or by focusing their production processes on accumulating high quality staff.

This process drives the polarization of the overall Irish economy into what is known as ‘Modern’ and ‘Traditional’ sectors. It also drives deeper divisions amongst the lower-skilled and poorer workers by redistributing income within the lower earning segments of population. Some lower skilled get higher wages, others get permanent unemployment. In the US, a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research has shown that the 1997 hike in the federally mandated minimum wage has resulted in a 4.5 percent increase in the number of poor families.

But minimum wages do more damages than that. Generationally, it is the younger workers who tend to possess lower skills and have trouble signaling to the potential employers their latent abilities and aptitude. They also face higher unemployment rates, both at the times of growth and recession. For them, minimum wage laws create insurmountable barriers to escaping the twin trap of unskilled unemployment.

On the one hand, high minimum wage will increase the risk to the employer from hiring a wrong person, thus reducing the incentives to take on younger workers with unproven skills or performance records. On the other hand, the same workers need to gain access to positions which provide extensive on-the-job training in order to progress within the company. Even more importantly for the lower-skilled workers’ future, they need job environment that supports acquisition of generic skills and aptitude that can be transferred to other employers. Both of these investments are severely constrained by the presence of the minimum wage laws. The severity of this constraint is proportional to the gap between the minimum wage level and the average productivity of the workers seeking entry-level employment.

In other words, given the choice between hiring a young unskilled person for €8.65 per hour and a worker with more experience for the same rate, employers will always choose the latter. In times of robust growth, this might matter little, as other employment opportunities are abundant. Today, the picture is different.

Based on a comprehensive survey of minimum wage studies in the US, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage tends to reduce employment of young workers by 1-2 percent during the times of abundant jobs creation. It is safe to assume that the rate is double in the times of tight labour markets.

Between 2006 and mid 2007, Irish minimum wage rose from €7.65 to €8.65 per hour, implying an associated decrease in employment of the younger workers of 1.3-2.6%, or up to 4,800 individuals amongst those under 25 years of age. Translated into the period of rising unemployment, the elevated rates of minimum wages in Ireland today are likely to be responsible for keeping up to 10,000 younger workers outside gainful employment.


In the end the problem with the minimum wage laws is that they always attempt to influence the supply and demand, just as any price fixing cartel would intend to do. The truth is, in such cases, invariably, the laws of supply and demand win – to the detriment of the most vulnerable and the youngest in our society. For their sake, it is time to rethink our minimum wage laws, before a new permanent class of young, unemployed and unemployable becomes a reality of Ireland’s post-crisis economy.


Box-out:

This week, Standard & Poor's has finally thrown in the towel and cut the ratings of the Irish banks’ bonds. While the news that our banking system stability overall is ranked alongside that of Slovakia and Korea galvanized business news desks attention, two interesting parts of the S&P analysis largely escaped the media. S&P explicitly provides the proof that the Banks Guarantee and Nama jointly underwrite a bailout of the Irish banks’ bondholders. Absent the two measures, AIB bonds would be rated BB/Negative/C+, while Bank of Ireland bonds would be at BB+/Negative/BB-. If not for taxpayers’ cash, bonds of our three largest banks sold to the public would require a health warning, stronger than the one posted on a packet of cigarettes. Only IL&P would stay above the waterline with BBB-/Negative/B absent state intervention. This, of course, would only be achievable assuming that the company’s life insurance business will continue to underwrite its banking branch – an idea that should be alien to anyone with an ounce of sense. In a separate comment, S&P also directly linked the poor prognosis for Irish banking sector to our sick economy. Of course this contrasts Government optimism around Nama. Remember – Nama promises to restore credit flows via ‘repairing’ banks balance sheets. S&P says that the balance sheets will remain sick after Nama as there is no real support for credit quality improvements coming from our weak economy. You decide whom you believe – Government’s contrived ‘supply will restore demand’ argument or S&P’s view that ‘weak demand will drag down supply’.

Economics 29/01/2010: News from the Knowledge Economy Front

Newsflash from Ireland's Knowledge Economy Front - our troops, led by heroic fighter for Knowledge, Batt O' "Modern Science" Keeffe, are now engaged in an orderly strategic retreat into the Darker Ages. Casualties are so far minimal - 228 scientific journals that Batt could not read.

As was reported by me earlier (here), Ireland's knowledge economics have suffered a fresh wound on our Government's hasty retreat from the world of the 21st century research back to the depth of the 19th century paper-based studies. Here's the latest dispatch:

"You will be aware that the current round of IReL funding came to an end in December 2009. The IUA Librarians' Group is engaged in positive discussions with the HEA and others to secure funding for IReL for 2010 onwards but it is likely that this will be at significantly reduced levels. Due to increasing publisher costs and other factors it is necessary for some IReL resources to be cancelled even if IReL funding were to be maintained at pre-2010 levels. Arising from this, and in the first of what will probably be a number of cancellation processes, the resources listed below will shortly become unavailable through IReL. To download the full list of journals and other resources, please click here."

I would encourage you going to the link and checking out the premier academic titles that will no longer be available on-time, on-demand via electronic libraries.

As one senior research academic commented on this: "What sort of insane gibbering passes for our education and research policy?"

As I was informed by the sources close to the DofEducation - as a compensation for unnecessarily complicated scientific titles lost, the Government will supply our Universities with the latest edition of Gaelic translation of the EU Treaties - after all, our Brussels-based Irish language translators are:

• costing us some 5 times the amount it would take to restore our library services back to the 21st century standard, and
• have no readers for their output anywhere on the planet Earth...
  

Economics 08/01/2010: Live Register

Here we go, folks – as predicted, right on the minute. Live Register is up again to new historic highs. Seasonally adjusted number of new unemployment claimants rose 3,300 in December, just as the country was ‘enjoying’ what the media and the politicians were heralding as a ‘buoyant’ Christmas sales season. Now, recall the ‘moderation’ and ‘improvements’ (per our Government claims) in the past, namely – October 2009, when the Live Register declined 3,000 for the first time since March 2007. December increase has more than offset that, and it comes on 900 new claimants added back in November.

New Live Register record is now at 426,700 – 1,200 above September 2009 previous record of 425,500. Unemployment is now at 12.5% (up from 12.4% a month ago), with lower participation rate and emigration – two factors driving people out of the labour force and thus out of unemployment count (as if those who have no jobs and are not looking for one are any better off than those who are officially unemployed) are the only thing that keeps the unemployment rate hitting 13% now. The estimated unemployment rate has thus risen from 8.5% a year ago to 12.5% today – a 4 percentage points rise in 12 months.

The trend suggests that we are likely to reach 13.3-13.7% unemployment this year, with the median probability forecast of 13.5%.

The monthly increase in the seasonally adjusted series consisted of an increase of 2,900 males and 500 females – suggesting that the latest jobs losses are not coming out of retail and services sectors. 800 additions came from under 25 year olds, suggesting once again that the core employment sectors and age categories are being hit this time around – just as in the latest QNHS results for Q3 2009 which showed that industrial / manufacturing jobs are now leading other sectors in terms of jobs losses. 2,700 seasonally adjusted jobs losses were in over 25-years of age categories.

One added point. We tend to look at the seasonally adjusted series, which tell us more about comparative dynamics of the time series. But in level terms, seasonally unadjusted Live Register now stands at 423,595, up a massive 10,090 in one month or 133,577 in 12 months since the end of December 2008 (+46.1%). This compares with an increase of 119,642 (+70.2%) in 2008. Of course, 46.1% sounds like a better deal than 70.2% - which in parlance of our stockbrokers, banks and Government analysts usually means a ‘moderation in the rate of increase’ or ‘bottoming out’ of the trend. Alas, the numbers are much more grave than the percentage change terms imply. In absolute terms, measured in average weekly increases recorded in the month, December was the seventh worst month in 2009 (+2,523 average weekly increase).

Finally, the CSO release also provides an insight as to just how tricky computations of unemployment are. CSO highlights two programmes whereby taxpayers pay unemployed individuals to either continue their work or to engage in other activities. These individuals, still in receipt of state aid are then removed from the unemployment roster. The two programmes that yield this type of treatment are Short-Term Enterprise Allowance scheme (since May 2009 paying workers out of the JB system to engage in self-employment) and work Placement Programme (since August 2009 engaging workers in 6-months long from the social welfare rosters to undertake unspecified ‘employment’). CSO states the numbers of such ‘employed’ individuals who are not otherwise accounted for on the Live Register to be at 3,785 at the end of September 2009, the latest date for which the figures are available. Given that this number increased by roughly 2,500 since October 2008, it is safe to assume that average monthly additions to the programmes stand at around 200. This, in turn implies that some 4,600 people are currently ‘employed’ with the use of these state funds that are not included in the Live Register, bringing the real number of claimants in Ireland to over 430,000 in seasonally adjusted terms.

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 16/10/2009: FAS - rotten outcomes on top of rotten culture?

Here is an interesting illustration of how ineffective was (and is) FAS is addressing the issue of long-term unemployment.
Of course, the tricky thing is: if FAS premise to up-skill and up-tool workers to match the future needs of our labour force holds any water, then we should expect FAS to be able to have a positive effect on reducing long-term unemployment. Of course, as the graph above shows, they never managed to do this, with long-term unemployment remaining at persistently high levels relative to overall unemployment through 2007. Only an onset of rapidly rising new unemployment since the inception of labour market crisis in Q1 2008 has changed long-term unemployment share in total joblessness. As newly unemployed multiplied in numbers, the overall weight of long-term unemployment in total unemployment temporarily has fallen.

So there you go - reforming FAS must take radical forms!

Oh, and on personal note of response to Denis O'Brien's comment today about 99% of economists who did not predict this crisis and 1% who predicted it long before it happened:

Per Irish Economy blog: "RTE reports the following comments from billionaire businessman Denis O’Brien while speaking at a Dublin Chamber of Commerce: Mr O’Brien also said the country’s third level sector supported 250 academic economists whom he accused of ‘writing blogs, twittering and taking out ads to stop NAMA’. He said they generally made a nuisance of themselves - which would be fine if 99% of them had not failed to predict the economic meltdown facing the country. He said the other 1% predicted doom all the time. ‘I have a sense that all these economists need to come and work for real businesses to really understand how the economy works and see the actual stress and strain of running a business… only then will they have something to contribute,’ he said.

Point 1 for Mr O'Brien: I work for real businesses - both in this country and abroad. In fact, I also run my own business.

Point 2 for Mr O'Brien: last week I lectured Mon-Friday each day for 6 hours in TCD, Wed-Fri for additional 2 hours in UCD, and on Saturday - for 3 hours at TCD again. In between, apart from Twittering and blogging, I also wrote several press articles, worked on two research papers and had a number of business meetings. I also worked on a long-term private sector research project and advised my clients in the US.

Point 3 for Mr O'Brien: in 2004-2007 I warned repeatedly that Ireland is facing a crisis in public spending, housing markets and private sectors debt. I did so from various platforms, including his own Newstalk106 and TodayFM. In 2008 I was at the fore front of private sector economists who were pointing at the depth of developing crisis. I also made a point of always offering a potential solution to every problem I was able to identify. Not that I called everything right in my life, but Mr O'Brien's statement is a bit rich.

Point 4 for Mr O'Brien: it is precisely

• because we are seeing real businesses being squeezed by the banks in anticipation of Nama,
  
• because we are seeing people sliding into perpetual dependency on the dole,
  
• because we are seeing the depth of the crisis,
• because we are seeing the taxpayers of this country being destroyed by wrong policies,
• because we are seeing people losing their entire retirement savings to the same ideas and policies that now back Nama,

that we are warning about the risks that Nama and other Government policies have.

Mr O'Brien might not see it this way - and it is his right to disagree - but throwing about silly statements in an attempt to ingratiate oneself with those in power is a strange position for a successful entrepreneur and businessman like Mr O'Brien.

Economics 30/09/2009: Unemployment crisis continues

Per CSO release today: “The seasonally adjusted Live Register total increased from 428,800 in August to 429,400 in September, an increase of 600. In the year to September 2009, there was an unadjusted increase of 183,422 (+76.4%). This compares with an unadjusted increase of 192,672 (+77.9%) in the year to August 2009.”

Are things improving? Declines in LR appear to point to two major factors at play here:

• Main sources of layoffs are flattening out, including construction and retail services. This is a sign of stabilization, but it is not a sign of impending improvement, as likelihood of these sectors aggressively rehiring staff is slim in the foreseeable future;
• Large movements from the LR are also a function of more people dropping out of the labour force and signing up for welfare benefits, while ceasing job searches.
  

“The average net weekly increase in the seasonally adjusted series in September was 150, which compares with a figure of 1,350 in the previous month. The standardised unemployment rate in September was 12.6%” - flat on August.

“In the month, the estimated number of casual and part-time workers on the LR was 38,268 males and 32,590 females.” In August, the same figures were 37,749 males and 32,354 females. And so on: table illustrates
How do you explain this? A friend of mine used to be a broker, now drives a taxi. Per official stats, he is doing fine. Per his own state of mind, he is doing the necessary thing to survive. This is the difference between voluntary under-employment and self-employment and its forced version. CSO’s latest figures show the latter.

So per some commentators out there, “the unemployment rate, which didn’t rise this month – the first time that has happened since December ‘07” and this is an improvement. For me, this is like telling someone who’s house just burnt down that all’s fine – there won’t be another fire for a while.

I am still sticking with 14-15% forecast for 2009 peak unemployment, though it might be looking like a bit downside from 14% is possible. Who know – Christmas season (aka desperation levels in retail sector) will tell.

Now, to that other pesky issue – labour force participation. One issue of growing importance is youth unemployment. This is contracting per LR figures. But this contraction is likely masking two factors at play:

1. there is significant seasonality - much of youth employment is part time and linked to higher activities in summer months (hotels, recreational etc sectors), plus
2. there is a number of those who are simply dropping out of the labour force (either those who would have joined, but are not joining now that the jobs evaporated, or those who have been out of work for over a year and stopped searching, or those who have gone back to school or who continued in school transitioning to a new programme).
   

Per QNHS released earlier this month: "Almost all of the decline in the size of the labour market is attributable to a decline in participation of almost 36,000.” Now, remember, that was for Q2 2009 – pre summer months. “This is shown by a fall in the participation rate from 63.7% in Q2 2008 to 62.5% in Q2 2009.” To me, this indirectly confirms that drop-outs from the labour force are most likely to be our younger workers. In QNHS see Table 9: labour force participation rates have fallen by age group as follows for April-June 2007 to April-June 2009:

• 15-19 age group from 29.1% to 22.1% (7 percentage points down)
• 20-24 age group from 77.0% to 73.6% (3.4 percentage points down – less than half of decline in younger category)
• 25-34 age group from 85.5% to 84.7% (0.8 percentage points down)
• Economy-wide from 64.0 to 62.5% (1.5% percentage down)
  

So youths are dropping out of labour force at a rate nearly 5 times those of the average decline.

Hmm… things are improving, rapidly. Dom Perignon 1988 uncorking time, yet?

Economics 22/09/2009: Emigration raging

Per CSO release today, Ireland is now back in the age of net outward migration, or in that ugly 1980s term – emigration. “The number of emigrants from the State in the year to April 2009 is estimated to have increased by over 40% from 45,300 to 65,100, while the number of immigrants continued to decline over the same period, from 83,800 to 57,300. These combined changes have resulted in a return to net outward migration for Ireland (-7,800) for the first time since 1995.”

But, per one net positive outcome of recession, “the number of births reached a new high of 74,500 (not seen since 1896) while the number of deaths was 29,400, resulting in strong natural growth for the year to April 2009 of 45,100.” Of course, as unemployment and higher taxes take a bite out of workforce participation rate and employment (see below) – with women withdrawing into maternity leave as a temporary cover against possible lay offs and as a result of falling returns to second income earners in the family – we are on a path of more children to be borne in Q32009-Q2 2010, after which the rate should start falling slightly.

“The combined effect of the natural increase and migration resulted in a population increase of 37,300 (+0.8%) bringing the population estimate to 4.46 million in April 2009.

“Of the 65,100 people who emigrated in the year to April 2009, EU12 nationals [Eastern Europe] were by far the largest group accounting for 30,100, with Irish nationals being the second largest at 18,400.” Now, CSO won’t tell us the comparative quality of those emigrants, but standard theory and logic suggest that there is a strong selection bias amongst those who leave the country. The emigrants are most likely those who can obtain better employment abroad and/or who can earn higher wages working abroad than the Irish social welfare entitlements provide. In other words, we are losing higher quality people than those who stay behind and sign onto the Live Register in similar circumstances (e.g unemployment spell within family).
Another interesting feature of data is shown in the Table below. Note that only two categories of migrants were either increasing or steady between 2008 and April 2009. Irish nationals returning from abroad (most likely having lost their jobs elsewhere) and EU15 nationals (steady inflow into MNCs employment).
Per US and Rest of World figures - undoubtedly idiotic migration and naturalization restrictions that operate in this country and are actually being tightened by our authorities this year (Green Card regime tightening) are not helping...

Economics 07/08/2009: Live Register - unemployment's deeper roots

Before we begin on Live Register - I would recommend an excellent post by Myles on Irish automotive sales - read it here.

So Live Register is in, prompting some cheerful commentary as per slowdown in the rate of increases in unemployment. Ahem... not that I noticed.

To be honest - there are some signs of a slowdown in the rate things deteriorate, true, but these are:

1. Hardly well-underpinned and can be easily reversed (see Female trends below); and
2. Are pure mathematical (non-fundamentals-driven) in nature, as things must be asymptotically converging to some longer-term equilibrium at some point in time.

So here are the details:

First CSO statement: "The seasonally adjusted Live Register total increased from 412,900 in June to 423,400 in July, an increase of 10,500. In the year to July 2009, there was an unadjusted increase of 197,495 (+82.9%). This compares with an unadjusted increase of 197,781 (+89.6%) in the year to June 2009. [So so far we are still in worse dynamics than in 2008 - pretty bad, wouldn't you agree?]

• The monthly increase in the seasonally adjusted series consisted of an increase of 5,100 males and an increase of 5,500 females. [Females now outnumber males - a sign that more dual unemployed families are being hatched under the nurturing light of our Government policies, and that better quality jobs are now being destroyed at a faster rate];
• The average net weekly increase in the seasonally adjusted series in July was 2,100, which compares with a figure of 3,000 in the previous month. [Sounds better, until you recognise that last months basis was 4 week, this month's basis is 5 weeks];
• The standardised unemployment rate in July was 12.2%. This compares with 10.2% in the first quarter of 2009, the latest seasonally adjusted unemployment rate from the Quarterly National Household Survey. [But it also shows that the rate of increase - by 0.3 percentage points per month - has been steady since May];
• In the month, the estimated number of casual and part-time workers on the Live Register was 37,415 males and 32,138 females [Which means nothing - nada - because many, if not a majority, of these workers are now facing hidden forms of unemployment, aka working, but not being paid on time!]
  

Now, few charts:
Note slight acceleration in females (more on this in a sec) and basically imperceptible changes in the slopes? So much for the 'green shoots'.The real disgrace is in the unemployment rate - back to April 1995 now. Less than 14 months of economic destruction and 12 years of new jobs creation erased. Surely, Bertie would say that the doomers-and-gloomers should now hang themselves.Weekly changes in the LR plotted above. Again, one note of caution - the averaging was done on 4 weeks basis in June and 5 weeks basis in July. If it was done on 4-weeks basis, the weekly average in July would be 4,286, still below 5,530 in June. Then again, July is a much slower month in general for any sort of business strategy change, let alone for mass layoffs. Let's wait till October/November... Again, note females - the average weekly change also declined, but at a much shallower rate, pointing to the pressures on female employment rising relative to males.Now, to monthly rate of growth (chart above). The rate at which females are signing is up in monthly terms. This is the evidence of really bad news to come. Recall that layoffs happen sectorally and sequentially (meaning last in = first out). Females' job tenure is shorter than males' over economy, so if new sectors come on-line for mass layoffs, and these sectors are not dominated by males (like construction in the past), we should see an uptick in female unemployment rising faster first, followed by males in the same sectors. While there is no certainty as to whether this is what's happening, that blue line trending up in the chart above is a reason for concern and suspicion that a new wave of unemployment increases might be gaining mass.
Last chart is showing monthly figures deviations from the 3-mo Moving Average in total LR. This was converging toward the long run trend between January 2009 and May 2009 (the blue graph heading toward zero), but it now diverged again in June and July. Last time we crossed the long run trend line was in September 2008, which marked a smaller peaking cycle of April-August 2008. Duration of the last cycle was just 4 months. The current cycle is into 10th month and now apparently diverging further once again.

Other cycles were equally short-lived (2 months in 2007, 4 months in early 2008).

All of this makes me very conservative to call and 'improvement' - the series, in my view, are suggesting:

• At least 60% chance of serious deterioration in September-November 2009; and
• A very significant sign of long-term unemployment rising through the roof.
  

Economics 20/07/2009: Education Plan

For those who missed my Sunday Times article last, here is the unedited version. For more on education premium in Ireland see my Long Run Economics blog here.


Remember the wave of protests hitting the streets over the withdrawal of the automatic entitlement to the senior citizens’ health cards – a benefit worth some €2,500 per annum for a well-to-do family of two? As the Government studies this month’s report on the options for the reintroduction of third-level fees, the prospect of taking out some €5,700-7,300 from the already stretched middle classes has to be an equivalent of a nightmare in our Ministers’ heads. Unlike the elderly, these are the same families hit hard by Minister Lenihan’s tax war on Ireland Inc.

Politics aside, this level of radical pain therapy would be warranted were it to deliver improved quality of education. Alas, the plan is so fundamentally flawed that one must wonder if serious economic impact assessment of its proposals was even attempted.

The Department of Education report suggests, as a clearly preferred option, setting fixed fees of €5,715 for arts and humanities students and €7,272 for nursing and engineering. While these differentials somewhat reflect the variation in capital between the two broad categories of programmes, these are hardly sufficient to establish proper pricing of education. Neither do they recognise the differences in the costs of non-capital inputs, such as faculty salaries.

In other words, the idea of fixed, uniform pricing independent of quality or institution’s ability to attract top internationally competitive students and faculty is about as daft as charging a single price for all cars. Do this, and within years you’ll get an overpriced mediocre labour force.

Two features of the Irish market for education amplify this negative effect of fixed pricing.

The first feature is extreme over-proliferation of third level institutions. In normal circumstances, when price reflects quality differences between competitors, the markets regulate the new entries and the survival of the incumbent colleges, institutes and universities. But absent pricing mechanism and with politically motivated education expenditure allocations you get a competition driven by the race to increase numbers of degrees awarded. A race to excellence is replaced by a race to graduation and grades inflation. Do we, as a nation, want certified mediocrity for the indigenous labour force? If not, we should allow our universities to charge a market rate for their services.

The second feature relates to the market for education. For all our talk about the knowledge economy Irish wages are driven primarily by tenure. Per latest CSO data, released last week, even at the peak of the boom in 2007, Irish workers collected low earnings premia per each additional year of investment in education compared to tenure. Chart illustrates. After-tax real annual earnings gains from moving from post-leaving cert level of education to a 3rd level non-degree education are lower than those from staying in the workforce. This is true for all types of potential students, with exception of mature female students. A picture is better for those planning to invest in a full 3rd level degree or higher, but even here the premium earned falls below the price to be charged under the proposed reform. That was before the latest decimation of jobs, wage rates and bonuses associated with the current recession.

In other words, given the labour market-enshrined system of tenure-driven rewards, education does not really pay in Ireland. Staying in the job does. This is likely to explain why on average more educated EU15 foreign nationals (excluding UK and Ireland) have earned some 9.6% less in hourly wages in 2007 than their Irish counterparts. For males, the same number was a whooping 14%. Per CSO data, not a single sector in Ireland yields an education premium in excess of the upper marginal tax rate other than our knowledge-thirsty public sector. And even there, only females earn such a premium.

This makes it even more crucial for the reform of education financing to be focused on long term objective of creating a functional market pricing of human capital – skills, schooling and aptitude. On a deeper level, such a reform should be linked with a rapid shift away from the system that rewards tenure and taxes heavily educational attainment and resultant skills. In other words, we need more after-tax wage inequality based on skills and educational attainment differentials before we can charge a real price of education. But at the level of education reform itself, we need a system of fees that differentiates between degrees of varying quality, incentivises student effort and merit.

The main mistake of the proposed fees system is that it sets singular pricing for all degrees independent of quality or the variations in the demand for specific degrees in the market place.

For example, if the country is experiencing a reduced supply of engineering and hard science personnel, as FAS and Forfas have asserted on so many occasions, surely we should witness a combination of lower fees (due to smaller demand for admissions from the potential students) and higher wages emerging. Under the latest Department of Education proposal, we will get exactly the opposite.

Similarly, if our two world-class institutions, TCD and UCD, were to offer their degrees at the exact same price as those offered by less internationally recognisable schools, this society will be underpaying for their services and overpaying for lower quality universities and schools. This is hardly a system that can be expected to yield economically and socially efficient outcomes.

Bizarrely, our education mandarins claimed in the report that allowing institutions to vary the price of admission can lead to some charging “excessively high fee rates, perhaps resting more on reputation than service”. This is economically illiterate and smacks of an outright manipulation of the market.

The second grave mistake is not to create a fully diversified and functional system of state-supported lending for tuition fees coverage and merit-based grants. Such a system, for obvious reasons, should be accessible only to the children of Irish citizens and long-term (8-10 years plus) residents. It should be coupled with a University-driven system of own merit grants open to all candidates to attract star applicants from abroad.

It should also work seamlessly with the means-tested system of supports. The much-lauded Australian option (or Option 3a in the report terminology) will simply not work for a small open economy like Ireland that is a temporary migration attractor within a much larger EU. Judging by the fact that the Department of Education expects the cost of running the scheme to be roughly equivalent to only 3-4% of the set up cost, I doubt they counted on the potential education tourism and skills drain to be of any significant magnitude.

And yet, our own Government expects some 150,000 Irish people to leave this country in the current recession alone. How many of these new emigrants will carry with them above average levels of education attainment is an open question. However, were we to have the proposed fees system in place today, the Government migration solution to the crisis could be washing away some €800-1,200mln in educational investment out of the country.

The last error of judgement by the Department of Education is to address the issue of fees separately from the overall financing of academia. Even assuming that our mandarins’ numbers stand up to scrutiny, there is no added certainty as to the future income for the academic institutions in this country. How much of the current funding will the fees replace? How will the fees revenue be distributed across various institutions? Who will be responsible for financing of uncompetitive institutions? All of these and other questions remain unasked. Which suggests that the fees reform will be nothing more than a plaster on a gapping wound that is our system of education.

Box-out: This month’s ECB Bulletin on the Euro area economy included an interesting model for estimating the sovereign bond spreads as a function of public debt to GDP ratio, public deficits, the volumes of bond financing required in the future, past yields and the measure of international financial markets’ willingness to accept investment risk. The original ECB estimation was based on the yields history for 10 Euro area countries, including Ireland. Recalibrated forward to reflect the expected changes in our fiscal position in years to come, this model predicts Irish bonds spreads over the German bund to increase by roughly 40-50% through 2013 assuming NAMA bonds are held off the public balance sheet and have no impact on the market demand for our bonds. Under less favourable conditions, with NAMA bonds entering public balance sheet and demand for Irish bonds falling to the level where the ECB becomes the sole purchaser of bond, market yields spreads can rise by some 200%. Drastic, but feasible.

Economics 01/07/2009: Live Register

Per CSO release today, standardised unemployment rate is now at 11.9% in June (as compared to 10.2% as measured in Q1 2009 by QNHS) as the seasonally adjusted Live Register increased from 402,100 in May to 413,500 in June, an increase of 11,400. In the year to June 2009, there was an unadjusted increase of 197,781 (+89.6%). This compares with an unadjusted increase of 195,115 (+96.7%) in the year to May 2009.
Unadjusted change in LR for males between May and June was +10,302, for Females +11,419 so we are now seeing female unemployment moving ahead (in rates of growth). This shift was evident in both under 25 year olds and 25+ years of age categories. The new risk to household solvency now comes from second earners starting to lose jobs at a faster pace.
When looking at weekly changes, chart below shows clearly the renewed pressure on employment. Clearly no 'green shoots' here.

Economics 26/06/2009: EU growth, Planning Permissions & QNHS

Eurocoin is out again and it is time to update our forecasts for Euroarea growth. First a note - Eurocoin have revised their past numbers in line with new methodology.
Note that above I use upper range forecast for July Eurocoin of -0.52 and implied GDP growth forecast of -2.1% for Q2 2009. Lower range forecast for the indicator is -0.91 and for GDP growth of -2.5%. Thus, I see an even chance of renewed deterioration in growth conditions in the Euroarea into mid Summer.


CSO Planning Permissions data Q1 2009: planning permissions were granted for 14,177 dwelling units, compared with 18,582 units for the same period in 2008, a decrease of 23.7%. Planning Permissions were granted for 10,256 houses in Q1 2009 and 13,301 a year earlier, a decrease of 22.9%. Planning permissions were granted for 3,921 apartment units,
compared with 5,281 units for the same period in 2008, down 25.8%. One-off houses accounted for 19.3% of all new dwelling units granted planning permission in this quarter. The total number of planning permissions granted for all developments was 7,486. This compares with 11,055 in Q1 2008, a decrease of 32.3%. Total floor area planned was 3,419 thousand sq. metres in Q1 2009. Of this, 61.1% was for new dwellings, 25.4% for other new constructions and 13.4% for extensions. The total floor area planned decreased by 24.3% in comparison with the same quarter of 2008.

Illustrated:
Total annual permissions are down, Q1 permissions trending down as well, especially for dwellings.Total floor area down, but by less.
As average floor area per unit is rising along established trends - delivering value for money is tighter markets?The trend for better quality and smaller quantity is evident, which should improve performance for better builders, but pressure the profit margins. One area of concern is that the authorities are not granting higher density permissions, implying that per existent acre of site, cost of building is up, further reducing margins.
Track homes are not exactly popular, while
one-off houses are even less so. That said - square footage is also rising for one-off dwellings as, presumably, rural Ireland decided to spread out in the recession (those CAP payments are still rolling in?).
No such luck for apartments buyers, but they do have some nicer square footage to go by, as sales stagnated and developers need more goodies for money to close on new units. We can expect Ken 'The Merciless' MacDonald to start writing lengthy articles telling us that NOW IS THE TIME TO BUY one of his apartments, as RETURN OF CAPITAL APPRECIATION IS IMMINENT... Beware of the merchant...


Quarterly National Household Survey was out earlier in the week.

In Q1 2009 there were 1,965,600 persons in employment, an annual decrease of 158,500 or 7.5%. This compares with an annual decrease in employment of 3.9% in Q4 2008 and growth of 1.7% in the year to Q1 2008. There was an annual decrease of 122,200 or 10.2% in the number of men in employment, while the number of women in employment decreased by 36,300 or 3.9%.

The overall employment rate among persons aged 15-64 fell to 63.2%, down from 68.4% in Q1 2008. This brings the employment rate back to a level comparable to that recorded in Q1 1999, thus erasing all the demographic and migration benefits accruing to Ireland in the last 10 years.

Full-time employment decreased by 176,200 over the year, part-time employment increased by 17,700, with 14,700 of the increase attributable to males and 2,900 to females. Recalling that even before the current crisis Ireland was creating predominantly part-time jobs, we are now facing seriously adverse quality of employment conditions in the country.

There were 222,800 persons unemployed in Q1 2009, an increase of 113,400 (+103.7%) in the year. Male unemployment increased by 85,300 (+116.7%), with the number of unemployed females increasing by 28,200 (+77.7%). The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate increased from 8.1% to 10.2% over the quarter and from 4.9% over the year - the highest level since 1997. Seasonally adjusted, the male and female unemployment rates stood at 12.5% and 7.0% respectively. The long-term unemployment rate was 2.2% in Q1 2009 compared to a rate of 1.3% in Q1 2008.

Now, some illustrations:
Employment is folding everywhere, except for personal protection services. wait another few months and a new emergency rip-off Budget, and guarding our unpopular Government will be the boom sector...
Average hours worked down, short-term work up, contractors work down. And in more details:
Bad employment up, good employment down. But public sector is not feeling the heat:

Regionally - all the subsidies to waste, the same black spots of unemployment remain:Border, Midlands, Mid-West and South-East are all bad performers in unemployment terms in the boom days of 2007. Ditto today. A new entry - casualty of the downturn - is the West. Doubtless, there will be calls for new tax on Dublin to pay welfare rolls wages out in our Gateways to Excellence Regions... But look at participation rates:
Collapsing across the state. Note Border and Midlands - dramatic fold down in participation rates - driven by, most likely an exodus of younger workers from Dublin and other areas' construction sites... No wonder I heard Midlands referred to as our Little Poland (Lithuania, etc).

And finally - my favourite topic - demographic dividend...
Note that as of Q1 2009, unemployment rate among 15-19 yo males was 33%! We are indeed wasting our young to protect job security of our public sector middle-aged and elderly...

Economics 22/06/2009: Unemployment & Social Welfare

For those of you who missed my Sunday Times article, here is an unedited version, along with more detailed explanation of my calculations on effective earnings for welfare recipients as compared against those for people engaged in lower-skills work across Irish sectors.


In 1987, after years of gradual decay, Ireland’s economy was scarred by 17% unemployment, of which 10.5% was long-term – of duration over 1 year. What got Ireland out of this quagmire was a combination of drastic currency adjustments, contractionary fiscal policies and a doze of realism when it came to real wages and welfare benefits.

In contrast, so far in the current crisis, 18 months into exponentially rising dole queues, our Government has reduced itself to repeating a handful of old and obsolete clichés.

The first one is to evoke an assumption that our demographic dividend – the term used to describe our younger than EU average labour force – is going to carry us out of the current mess to new heights of growth in years ahead. The second one is to claim that because the onset of unemployment was a sudden one, it is, therefore, temporary in nature. ‘All’s going to be fine, folks, once America starts growing’, says our Government. Will it?

Take the ‘demographic dividend’ argument. It is true that we have a strong younger labour force. However, it is dangerous to assume that these workers are always going to remain in Ireland. In demographics, like in everything else, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

In particular, young worker’s propensity to stay in this country is a function of several variables all of which are under threat from our current policies. Young and highly skilled workers require an environment in which their careers are less constrained by the incumbents. Given that Irish regulations favour the length of tenure over actual and potential productivity as criteria for promotion, layoffs and hiring, this is an area of serious concern. While October 2008 – April 2009 rate of increase in unemployment amongst all Irish workers was 64.5%, for 25-34 year-olds it was 77.5%. To keep young workers in this country, we need to give up some of the tenure-based job security that our trade unions enshrined in labour laws.

Likewise, given a choice between living in countries with much lower income inequalities and in those where pay is linked to individual and sectoral productivity differentials – vast majority of our younger and more able workers prefer to build their careers in the New York, London or Sydney, not in Stockholm or Helsinki.

A corollary of this is that high minimum wage and social welfare rates, and rigid labour markets regulations act as a relative disincentive for highly skilled young workers to remain in Ireland. Higher minimum wage and social welfare benefits depress the premium to skills and aptitude that is collected by the young workers more than for older workers. Younger workers in Ireland already face lower tenure-linked wages, bringing their real consumption and wealth closer to those employed in low-skilled jobs and those who are not engaged in the labour force at all.

Table illustrates by taking an example of single parent in average and lower skills employment in Irish economy and comparing her against a person on social welfare. The current social welfare payments and benefits exceed lower grade workers’ earnings in all broad sectors of our economy, with the gap ranging between €1,423 per annum for production workers in industry overall to €2,006 per annum for lower grade workers in manufacturing.

See below for charts and explanations

There is an added external threat to our younger labour force. As an open economy, with wage premia for younger workers rise in increasingly geriatric Germany, Italy, Belgium and other advanced economies, Ireland will face a simple choice – let our demographic dividend slip to other locations or create a more rewarding and meritocratic home market.

On the net, it is hard to make a case that our demographic advantage over older EU15 economies will automatically yield significant economic or social dividend in the near future.


The second major issue with our labour market policies relates to the recent increases in unemployment. Irish commentators and policy makers often take a simplistic view that the current bout of unemployment was unpredictable, concentrated in the construction sector and is a temporary feature of our economic landscape. Once growth returns, the thinking goes, some 250,000-300,000 of the 402,100 currently in receipt of unemployment assistance will go back to work. Happy times are just around the corner, as our Taoiseach as been suggesting as of late.

This is not what the actual data tell us. While the early rise in unemployment was indeed attributable to the construction sector, since October 2008 a rising share of layoffs were coming from white-collar traded and domestic sectors: finance, legal, marketing, advertising and so on. And it is primarily the younger workers who are getting laid off first.

Just as with the ‘demographic dividend’ discussed above, the unemployment figures are influenced by our labour markets policies. According to the latest comparative data, Irish minim wages are the highest in the OECD when measured as a percentage of an average gross wage. Ditto when measured as a percentage of the average after-tax wage. Short of Luxembourg, we have the highest percentage of employees who earn minimum wage.

High minimum wages are generally an impediment to low skills and youth employment. Crucially, high minimum wages are a barrier to jobs creation in professions that require significant on-the-job training and long periods of skills acquisition. Their adverse impact on employment is further exacerbated by the combination of high labour taxes and low capital taxes. The latter effect is simply due to the less understood fact that lower skilled labour is an easier substitute for machinery than skilled workers. Given tax incentives for acquisition of physical capital and simultaneously staggeringly high costs of employing low skilled workers, any employer has strong incentives to reduce lower-skills workforce over time.

This, in turn, means that around 60% of the total new Live Register signatories since November 2007 (the month when the unemployment crisis really started to unfold) are candidates for becoming perpetually unemployed. In a year to April 2009, the number of those on the Live Register for 1 year or more has risen from 49,555 to 70,828 – an increase that can be broken down into a 13.3% rise in April-October 2008 and 26.2% rise in the subsequent 6 months to April 2009. Long-term unemployment is now accelerating, suggesting that by April 2010, long-term unemployment and withdrawals from labour force will affect some 250,000 Irish workers, brining our overall rate of long-term unemployment to over 11% or above that experienced in the dark hour of 1987.

At this point in time, we must face the reality of the labour markets. No amount of spending on FAS or any other up-skilling programmes will make a dent in the gruesome unemployment numbers. Only significant reforms of our labour markets and a reduction in the total cost of employment of younger and less skilled workers will create an environment in which new positions leading to significant on-the-job training can be added to this economy. Chief among these should be lowering our minimum wages, cutting excessively high welfare supports and using the savings generated to reduce employment-distorting taxes on businesses and workers.

Calculations for the Social Welfare Wage Gap:
First, let us start with assumptions on benefits.
Converting the above into the rates of earning, hourly equivalent):

Comparing the above welfare hourly earnings against the latest CSO data on hourly earnings ex-bonuses etc:
Note that above we have welfare hourly equivalent rate of €18.18 per hour exceeding all hourly earnings in lower skilled production workers and manual labour categories for all sub-sectors, except our semi-states dominated Electricity sector. In other words, on per-hourly basis, if you are a lower-skilled worker in the sectors marked with red in the above table, you are better off on welfare than on the job. And this before we adjust for taxes, which we do here:
Just as above, once we factor in the work efforts across different sectors, and net out taxes, we have social welfare recipients coming out better off than lower-skilled employees in all but one broadly defined sectors. Three sectors (marked in blue) are also under threat of being only marginally better off for an average worker (not a low-skilled one, but an average one!).

Lastly, consider recognizing the fact that welfare recipients have virtually unlimited 'vacation' time, while people with jobs have to sweat for their severely restricted R&R allowances. Table below takes this into account by adding the value of 1 month vacation time to the social welfare recipient's benefits...
Bright red now marks new categories of employees who fall below the effective after-tax earnings and benefits of our average welfare recipient.

Lastly, it is worth noting that a person on minimum wage is currently twice worse off working than sitting on a permanent dole.