UK jobs figures bring good news, but also a worry

 
JobCentrePlus Figures suggest the private sector is absorbing job losses in the public sector

Is it time to worry about rising employment? You might wonder how on earth I would ask such a question.

Today's figures show the number of people in work rose by 80,000 over the three months to April, alongside a significant fall in the broader measure of unemployment and a smaller rise in the claimant count.

Surely, the creation of jobs is a win-win, for the people who get them and for the economy?

The answer to that question is yes: it is certainly better for more people to be in work than before.

But there is something puzzling - and potentially troubling - about the employment growth we've seen in the past year or so.

Let me explain.

One thing we supposedly knew about this recovery was that companies came into it with a lot of spare capacity and low rates of productivity, because in the recession employment did not fall nearly as fast as output.

Another thing we supposedly knew about this recovery was that it has been relatively weak: if the official statistics are right, our national output has only risen by 2% since the last three months of 2009.

And yet, somehow that 2% rise in GDP has now required a 1.2% - or 358,000 - rise in employment over the same period.

The figures are even more striking when you consider just the private sector. Private employment has actually risen by 562,000 since the final quarter of 2009 - an increase of 2.5%.

So job growth in the part of the economy that is supposed to be driving the recovery has actually outpaced the growth in GDP.

Read back any of the past few sentences and they sound like fantastic news; worthy of a ministerial press release, even. And in many ways, they are good news.

Certainly, the figures suggest that even in a weak recovery, the private sector has had no trouble absorbing a significant fall in the number of public sector jobs, which has actually outpaced the official forecast, with a fall of 143,000 in public sector employment since last spring.

But, if you take the employment and GDP figures at face value, Britain's companies have barely made up the productivity they lost in the recession, and are far from the path they would have been on if the pre-crisis trend had continued.

Ultimately, productivity is what drives our future growth.

I know, I've written about this before, but it's a crucial question - highlighted by the Bank of England, among others, in their latest Inflation Report (see chart 3.4, page 26).

The more we see employment rising, this year, in a supposedly flat economy, the deeper the puzzle becomes.

There are two possibilities - or maybe three.

One is that the GDP figures are simply wrong: employers are hiring this much because output is actually rising faster than the official figures suggest. That is what you might call the good news solution to the conundrum.

The second possibility is that not only the level of UK productivity, but its potential growth rate was permanently damaged by the financial crisis - or maybe, the crisis revealed that we had been kidding ourselves for a long time about the rate at which the economy could safely grow.

As I suggested yesterday, that would be bad news - not just for the economy, but also for the government, because it would mean the public finances are in an even worse state than we thought.

And the third possibility? The third possibility would be a combination of these: the GDP figures are a bit better than we thought (as the Bank of England has long believed), but we are also seeing a prolonged hit to our productivity, not just from the crisis, but as a result of subsequent re-balancing of the economy.

To over-simplify, this explanation says the growth we're getting now will have to be different from the growth we had before, requiring different kinds of skills and companies, many of them starting from scratch.

So some of the capacity we lost in the recession - in the financial sector, perhaps - we may never need again, and some of the companies hiring workers now did not even exist before the crash.

They are not the same companies who are holding onto workers, some of whom will ultimately have to let those employees go.

If this last explanation is the right one, we may eventually get back to the same rate of productivity growth we had before, even if we never get back to the same path we were on before the fall.

But it's going to take several years - even if everything goes right.

In the meantime, the encouraging news on the employment front might be telling us something rather discouraging about the rate at which we can grow.

 
Stephanie Flanders, Economics editor Article written by Stephanie Flanders Stephanie Flanders Former economics editor

So it's goodbye from me

After 11 years at the BBC, I'm leaving for a new role in the City.

Read full article

More on This Story

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 150.

    Just a thought but could it be that this is a perfect opportunity for companies to employ staff with comparatively less pay, benefits and job security?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 149.

    The jobs being produced are lower paying jobs, for less hours. There might be more people in employment, but they aren't getting half the quality of living they did before. It's good if you are at the top, because you can get twice the staff for the same pay so more money straight into profits, but if you aren't then it is back to 1970s living standards at best.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 148.

    Stephanie misses the fact that cuts in work force reflect demand, ie come after demand drops, making productivity figures bad...........yes then when a recovery starts, employee numbers grow, using inefficient new employees, so productivity figures look bad again, only numpty New Labour economists like Sphericles cannot see this as they have no business experience! Like some journalists I expect..

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 147.

    I think this analysis is just a theoretical observation as it shows a lack of understanding of what really occured in businesses!
    In the real world , not journalism, take automotive sector, order books slashed late as marketing were too bullish, then supply chain inventory slashed, meanwhile manufacturers' suppliers had to second guess how much to cut and at what levels business would continue!

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 146.

    143. G_G
    1.
    Why is our increased workforce unable to compete as effectively as Germany's?
    Because the wealth Germans/business owners/political classes don't kick their workforce in the head?

    2.
    Is there a boom in SMEs, each forced to operate at low profit levels?
    SME's are dropping like flies in sealed bottles! Unlike Germany where SMEs thrive

 

Comments 5 of 150

 

Features

  • A painting of the White House on fire by Tom FreemanFinders keepers

    The odd objects looted by the British from Washington in 1814


  • Chris and Regina Catrambone with their daughter Maria LuisaSOS

    The millionaires who rescue people at sea


  • Plane7 days quiz

    What unusual offence got a Frenchman thrown off a plane?


  • Children testing a bridge at a model-making summer school in Crawley, West SussexSeeding science Watch

    The retired professor who turned village children into engineers


  • Krouwa Erick, the doctor in Sipilou town at the border of Ivory Coast and Guinea - 27 August 2014Bad trip

    The Ebola journey no-one in Ivory Coast wants to take


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.