Why aren’t more people unemployed?

The economy seems to be flatlining, but more people are working. How could that happen?

2 March 2013

9:00 AM

2 March 2013

9:00 AM

An unfamiliar noise floats over the town; an insistent, one-note metallic drone. Tracked to its source, it turns out to come from a sawmill in a hidden wooded valley a quarter of a mile from my house. Abandoned for the past year, the mill has suddenly come back to life. It is emitting great plumes of steam as well as a multi-decibel industrial racket. And men are working there — I can see only two or three, but still they constitute another little piece of the great employment puzzle.

An uptick in demand for sawn timber matches reports of increased levels of activity in the construction and housebuilding sector. Sure enough, quarter of a mile in another direction, a development of stone-built terraced houses that was an abandoned wasteland for three years until last autumn, amid rumours of several changes of ownership, has also come back to life. The houses are up to first-floor level; several trades are busy on site. Yet just the other side of the churchyard stands a boarded-up pub. A little further on are at least four shops that have closed since Christmas. And I’ve rarely seen a customer in the shiny new ‘Curry in a Hurry’ takeaway, though its aromas are warmly enticing.

As I often do in my Any Other Business column, I’m describing my home town of Helmsley in north Yorkshire. But I could be describing any English provincial town or suburb. The state of the national economy is encapsulated in statistics boiled down from tax and benefits data and business surveys, but observation of everyday activity where you live is just as good a guide. Right now, we can all observe a faltering, partial recovery after an extended downturn in which scarcity of credit has left businesses unwilling to invest, below-inflation wage rises have left consumers unwilling to spend, and confidence is traumatised everywhere.

And perhaps only local observation can explain a confusing conjunction of vital statistics. Since 2008, we have had ten quarters of growth and ten of shrinkage; last year, when most of us thought recovery was imminent, we had no net growth at all despite a euphoric post-Olympic blip. And yet there were 580,000 more people in employment by December than a year earlier, taking the total UK workforce to a record 29.7 million. That’s roughly 24 million in the private sector, which added 627,000 jobs in the year to September; the public sector shed 128,000 and has now shrunk all the way back to its 2002 numbers, before Gordon Brown went mad.

So we have an economy that is rebalancing itself favourably between tax generators and tax spenders while creating 2,000 jobs per working day — yet seems incapable of dragging itself out of the mire. Indeed, the only way to reconcile these conflicting data sets is to accept the most depressing interpretation of them: that we have suffered a catastrophic fall in productivity just at a time when the history of past recessions tells us it should have been rising.

Both output per worker and output per hour worked are more than 12 per cent below their pre-recession trend — and we can’t blame the public sector, because its productivity (though harder to measure than that of factories) has if anything slightly improved. No, it’s the private sector that has suffered a bout of what foreigners used to call the English disease: instead of working harder and using our capital more efficiently to battle our way out of the double-turned-triple dip, we seem to have been coasting along. A 12 per cent slump in output is the equivalent of an extra five-minute fag break outside the fire exit for every employee, every hour. With Asian competitors barely allowing workers a five-minute lunch break in a 12-hour day, what on earth are we playing at?


The entire academy of Britain’s eminent economists has failed to answer that question so far. But no one mistakes me for a member of that august body, so let me — with the assistance of a chapter called ‘The Productivity Puzzles’ from the ‘Green Budget’ of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, among other sources — have a go anyway.

First, are the statistics accurate? ‘Measuring GDP is not an exact science and initial estimates are subject to subsequent revisions as more extensive data becomes available,’ says the IFS. Most famously, Norman Lamont was ridiculed in October 1991 for saying ‘the green shoots of economic spring are appearing once again’ at what was then and for some time afterwards thought to be the middle of a recession — but turned out, after several revisions, to have been the very month in which output stopped declining and the climb back to growth began. So it’s possible that the Office for National Statistics’s dismal ‘preliminary estimate’ for the last quarter, a 0.3 per cent drop in GDP, will be revised upwards, as things become clearer.

As for workforce and unemployment stats, they ought to be pretty reliable. But what if a tide of unregistered, cash-paid migrant workers in the boom years made output per worker look better than it really was because the true size of the workforce was understated — thus distorting the apparent impact of the recession? And how many of us keep an accurate record of the actual hours we work, or tell the ONS about them?

Let’s accept that the numbers on both sides of this argument are not gospel, but are still valid indicators of trends and orders of magnitude. The productivity puzzle is not a uniquely British phenomenon, indeed, but has been observed to varying extents in Germany, France and Italy. Our next line of enquiry, then, is why so many existing jobs have not been destroyed as they might have been in previous recessions — and who is creating all the new ones?

To the first part of that question, economists cite three factors: ‘labour hoarding’, the substitution of labour for capital, and the misallocation of capital and bank finance in unproductive, ‘distressed’ or ‘zombie’ companies. All three relate to the flexible, largely non-unionised nature of the UK’s private–sector workforce. Most of us who are not bankers have settled for zero or below–inflation pay rises for the past five years, forfeiting as much as 15 per cent of our spending power. Since the crash in mid-2008, the number of people in part-time work has increased by 572,000 while the number of full-timers fell by 378,000 — although lately there is a distinct shift in the opposite direction. So people are cheaper than they used to be, relatively speaking, and willing to work fewer or more variable hours.

That makes it easier for employers to keep them on the payroll in difficult times — call that hoarding or acting humanely, according to taste. It also means that, if credit or family capital is not available to buy labour-saving robots, it’s possible to employ cheap workers to do the same tasks less efficiently — hence the ‘substitution’ point — and it’s easy to see why both factors suppress productivity.

As for the ‘zombie companies’, some pundits have claimed that as much as 10 per cent of the private–sector workforce — more than two million people — are employed by failing companies that should have gone under by now if the banks had chosen to pull the plug on them. That loose figure isn’t inconsistent with the more precise number of 197,000 ‘financially distressed’ companies identified at the end of last year.

That’s a significant slice of the economy that cannot invest for growth because it can barely meet the interest payments on its debt — not unlike some European governments, you might think. At the same time, the argument goes, more promising companies have been denied access to bank finance, so that they too are unable to invest for growth. Hence a 16 per cent fall in business investment from its pre-recession peak.

So far so good: reasons why businesses that are struggling to survive but reluctant to sack people are less efficient than ruthless, well-financed businesses in better times, and a reason why job numbers fell less sharply than expected in the early phase of this recession. But still it’s not obvious where all the new jobs are coming from now. About 100,000 last year were the result of government schemes. None were the result of hiring in the City of London, where numbers have settled at around 240,000 from a 2007 peak of 354,000. Some are in ever-expanding supermarket chains — but the addition of 7,000 jobs at Tesco last year was swiftly offset by lost jobs in high-street retail failures such as the music chain HMV.

The bigger answer seems to be that we are simply creating new jobs for ourselves, by registering as self-employed or starting new businesses. There are now 367,000 more people self-employed than before the crash, predominantly male and in older age groups, some no doubt because they can no longer otherwise find paid work. ‘It would be naive to think that [they] are all budding entrepreneurs,’ says TUC chief Frances O’Grady in her downbeat way. But many of these carpenters, plumbers, farmers, taxi drivers and freelance journalists have made a positive ‘lifestyle choice’. Indeed I made that choice myself 20 years ago, and have never regretted it for a single day.

So don’t knock self-employment, and likewise salute — as I regularly do — those with the courage to start a business that employs others besides themselves. The most familiar of all supper-table conversations these days is the one about brilliant graduate sons and daughters who can’t find a conventional first step on the career ladder. Many of them are looking at start-ups with friends instead, and that’s one factor behind the startling number of new company registrations in the past two years: around 970,000.

Some of those are reorganisations rather than real start-ups, and among the real ones many will already have failed. But whichever way you cut it, the sheer optimism of entrepreneurship against the odds accounts for hundreds of thousands of jobs and, I suspect, a layer of economic output that is unrecorded because it falls below VAT and other measurement thresholds. There’s reason to be cheerful, and on that note I shall pop out and support one of the brave little pieces of the employment puzzle — by ordering my curry in a hurry.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • anyfool

    Could it not be time to consign the ONS to history and start again with a new private company uncorrupted by Labour placemen who seem to infect every part of public sector life.
    As for productivity could the reason why tax receipts are not as high as previous, is because overinflated prices will have to fall back to a realistic position before you will see productivity gains that are real.
    The time of supposed growth during the Brown years was the result of people who could get money for nothing and correspondingly failed to care about what they paid regardless of service or quality.
    Look at the Law group who charged £14000+ for photo copying, this type of thing was prevalent during the Brown years and is still operating in some sections including the public sector.

  • alphanumeric1

    The DWP (and,presumably, also the ONS) counts anyone who works 16 or more hours each week as being in full-time employment.

    Also, some? many? most? unemployed people on government-supported back-to-work programmes with firms like A4E are counted as being in employment, even though they are not.

  • Rhoda Klapp

    Is it just possible that a number of things are happening outside of the normal measurements? A lot of employers do not in fact like sacking people. They know there is a recession and they are doing their bit by not throwing people out of work while accepting a reduction in productivity. Is it not possible that productivity is not a particularly relevant measure? Wherever I have worked it never seemed as if anyone was working very hard. No criticism, just an observation. In modern commerce a good half of the people are only there to stop the other half getting anything done.

    And then there is the move to non-traditional modes of employment. Zero-hours contracts, sub-contracting to freelancers, part-time and so on.

    Then there is the IR35 crowd. The tories were supposed to reform the rules so people could work as contractors without having HMRC on their backs, but that never happened.

    And of course the grey and black economies. Is it better to have economic activity that you are not measuring taxing or to kill it? It is going on, however.

    The economy is not recovering because of lack of confidence. Confidence cannot be restored by a chancellor who doesn’t have a grip on his job. It can’t be restored by inflation that affects every essential but doesn’t come out in the official figures. It can’t be restored by taxing the rich OR removing benefits from the poor. Or vice versa, for that matter. It cannot be restored by announcing policies for after the next election which you have no chance or intention of carrying out.

  • dvhjghgbgfgg

    Could it be because we have millions of immigrants flooding in despite not having any jobs

    Sign this petition to restrict Bulgarian and Romanians from entering the UK:


    • http://www.facebook.com/yvonne.gordon.374 Yvonne Gordon

      I can’t understand why Bulgarian or Romanian people looking for work should be treated any differently to any other immigrant trying to improve their lot in the world. The media appears to have talked a lot of this up with their constant fearmongering. I have a couple of Romanian friends, both have Phd’s and are hard working individuals. The only difference between many of the immigrants arriving here is that they speak very good English in contrast to many people who have come through our education system and who are only able to speak English. Let’s face it, if all school leavers in this country were able to speak at least one other language we would be able to work just about anywhere in the world but we are stuck here because many are unable to. Don’t blame the Bulgarians and Romanians for our own shortcomings, instead take a leaf out of their books and get on with it.

  • Mynydd

    The employment figures are a farce, for example a case known to me, a bank takes on a school girl for four hours on saturday morning, one private sector job created. Again as we know from the court case, a young lady is sent to Poundland to work for zero wages but goes into the employment statistics as one private sector job created. There is a good book on the market called “How to lie with statistics” which has been well read by the present government.

    • petermorris

      The lady that helps with our cleaning (we are both disabled) has 4 jobs but still only manages just over 20 hours work per week. She gets some benefits to top her up. The vast majority of jobs being “created” are non jobs.

  • Eddie

    Everyone is working in crappy low-paid part-time jobs (sometimes 2 or 3) just to scrape enough rent to live in their overpriced slums. That’ll be it!

  • Robert Taggart

    Answer to the headline – because the figures are fiddled.
    Seriously though !… unemployment has been on average c.2 Million foe over thirty years now – so why are the political class so obsessed with bringing this figure down ? – some of us scroungers be used to it – and happy with it !

  • dsbfgrhntgrtyty

    Because immigrants come and take all the jobs and work illegally below minimum wage

    Sign this petition to restrict Bulgarian and Romanians from entering the UK:


    Almost 71,000 signed

  • racyrich

    Well, since we’re constantly told how indebted we all are, and how bad this is, I hope and expect that anyone earning enough is rapidly paying off debts rather than spending on more unnecessary luxuries.

    Secondly, if I’m anything to go by, I’ve been unemployed for 6 months, but since I’m an IT contractor who didn’t live up to his earnings I can’t register as unemployed or claim any benefits. So I just live off savings. I know several people who are similar or have recently done the same for up to a year.

  • Graham Thompson

    Why is this a cause of confusion?

    If we have lost some public sector jobs, and gained far more private sector jobs, but productivity has fallen, then the explanation is obvious.

    Public sector workers are clearly much more productive than private sector workers.