What is 'normal' unemployment?

jimmypitt

During the boom we had full employment - anyone who wanted a job could get one.

I just wanted to know was is 'normal' unemployment if you follow? 2%?6%?

Not sure i have made myself very clear here!

danman

There are those on this forum that believe, that the full employment during the boom was a bad thing. The boom was all bad, built on bad foundations, etc....

They now complain about our present unemployment situation.

I'll await the replies to this thread with interest.

jimmypitt

I am just looking at other countries Australia 5.3% and Canada 8.0%. I am just wondering is that basically what could be classed as normal? Or is that pretty bad too?

I've only being alive to experience either the crazy boom or the crazy recession!

ei.sdraob

danman wrote: »

There are those on this forum that believe, that the full employment during the boom was a bad thing. The boom was all bad, built on bad foundations, etc....

They now complain about our present unemployment situation.

I'll await the replies to this thread with interest.

having a quarter of your economy being tied up in construction and employing a large portion of the male workforce who are now mostly unemployed is a bad thing, do you disagree?

next you be telling us that the fundamentals were sound and we are in for a soft landing :rolleyes:

RichardAnd

I would say there is no such thing as a normal level of employment. 100% (which we never had) definitely is not normal but other than that, I don't know.

Sleepy

From what I remember of Leaving Cert economics we were taught that approximately 5% of the workforce unemployed is about 'normal' due to those moving between jobs, seasonal workers and scumbags who've no intentions of ever doing a days work in their lives.

Welease

It also depends on your definition of unemployment...

dan_d

I would imagine that like most other things in life it could be analysed under a normalisation curve...which would probably tell you somewhere between 5% - (roughly) 10% is the norm, and it would in all likelihood change slightly each year, depending on various different economic and social variances.

100% employment is not the norm, no more than 100% literacy is. Prob between 92% and 95 % would be normal/quite good.

daithicarr

I think our unemployment level was about 4% national, but there were large regional differences

danman

ei.sdraob wrote: »

having a quarter of your economy being tied up in construction and employing a large portion of the male workforce who are now mostly unemployed is a bad thing, do you disagree?

next you be telling us that the fundamentals were sound and we are in for a soft landing :rolleyes:

Do you know what?
I don't actually care. As long as I have a job, I don't care how shaky the foundation it's built on is.

I can honestly say, the majority of the population feels the same.
It might not be the most politically correct thing to say, but it's how I feel.
All we want is to provide for our families.

cleremy jarkson

I think what you're referring to is the structural unemployment rate...like when theres a long term situation of not enough circulating money for everybody to be employed in a job. Apparently even after our economy picks up, we'll have an unemployment rate of about 8 % for the forseeable future.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0324/breaking34.html

"It looks like there will be a high level of unskilled workers permanently on the dole queues even when the Irish economy eventually returns to positive growth," he said.

"Even when the economy returns to 'normal' we think the permanent jobless rate won't drop below 7 per cent to 8 per cent, Mr McQuaid added. "

Back in he 80's it never dropped below double digits, despite massive outward migration, so there was a severe structural unemployment problem back then..just not enough circulating punts to keep everybody in a job.

thebman

danman wrote: »

Do you know what?
I don't actually care. As long as I have a job, I don't care how shaky the foundation it's built on is.

I can honestly say, the majority of the population feels the same.
It might not be the most politically correct thing to say, but it's how I feel.
All we want is to provide for our families.

Hate to be the one to break it to you but if its built on a shake foundation, odds are you better save because you won't be providing for your family for long if the economy is unstable and your government refuse to try to correct the instability.

Liam Byrne

danman wrote: »

There are those on this forum that believe, that the full employment during the boom was a bad thing. The boom was all bad, built on bad foundations, etc....

Considering that the full employment included totally incompetent, unethical and greedy people in positions of (business and political) power, then yes - full employment was a bad thing.

There's certainly no way of contradicting that it was built on bad foundations....

Gus99

I think I saw a figure of 4.5% previously - something like 2% "can't work", 2% "won't work", 0.5% "between jobs" ..

daithicarr

yeah there will always be some who cant work, for various reasons, but the wont work were just lazy and getting away with it, they are also the ones i have seen in the social welfare office getting all stroppy cause the ques too long andpushing past with their buggys etc . they seem to feel that they are entitled to being served first because they been doing it longer

Flamed Diving

It's purely a theoretical concept, and it is apparently a min of 4%. But like all theories, outliers can be found to break this rule.

deadhead13

Gus99 wrote: »

I think I saw a figure of 4.5% previously

Which is more or less what the unemployment rate was here 2005-07...

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/sasunemprates.htm

jimmypitt

Yeah 5% sounds about right - looks like Australia and Canada are not too bad so.

daithicarr

a 4 to 11% jump is massive, id imagine it would be higher except people are emigrating.

silverharp

ei.sdraob wrote: »

having a quarter of your economy being tied up in construction and employing a large portion of the male workforce who are now mostly unemployed is a bad thing, do you disagree?

next you be telling us that the fundamentals were sound and we are in for a soft landing :rolleyes:

What would an Irish version of a cargo cult look like?

starviewadams

daithicarr wrote: »

yeah there will always be some who cant work, for various reasons, but the wont work were just lazy and getting away with it, they are also the ones i have seen in the social welfare office getting all stroppy cause the ques too long andpushing past with their buggys etc . they seem to feel that they are entitled to being served first because they been doing it longer

Ah c'mon now,some of the social welfare's longer serving customers have methadone to collect or work to go to,of course they deserve to be seen first..

danman

Silverharp2 wrote: »

What would an Irish version of a cargo cult look like?

http://teamsuperforest.org/superforest/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/james_may_lego_house_demolish.jpg

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

From what I remember of Leaving Cert economics we were taught that approximately 5% of the workforce unemployed is about 'normal' due to those moving between jobs, seasonal workers and scumbags who've no intentions of ever doing a days work in their lives.

That is my understanding of the definitation of "full employment" as well, once you go below 3-4% you start sucking in migrant workers.

The 5% figure is a national figure, as even during times of full employment you can still have local blackspots with 10% or higher unemployment.

nesf

Somewhere between 4% and 8% would cover most countries during normal economic times. With continental countries trending towards the higher end and more British/American style countries trending towards the lower end.

The Big Red Button

Gus99 wrote: »

I think I saw a figure of 4.5% previously - something like 2% "can't work", 2% "won't work", 0.5% "between jobs" ..

What's the definition of unemployment though? If you're not available for work, or not seeking work, or not able to work, surely you're not considered to be unemployed, are you?

nesf

chatterpillar wrote: »

What's the definition of unemployment though? If you're not available for work, or not seeking work, or not able to work, surely you're not considered to be unemployed, are you?

If you draw the Dole you count as unemployed. If a woman or man left work to go look after kids instead they wouldn't count as unemployed.

In theory everyone on the Dole is available for work even though pretty much everyone knows this isn't the case for a few %.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nitochris

According to the father of the post war welfare state in Britain*:

Beveridge (1945:18) wrote:

Full employment means that unemployment is reduced to short intervals of standing by, with the certainty that very soon one will be wanted in one's old job again or will be wanted in a new job that is within one's powers.

He also argues for a relatively low figure of 3% unemployed as being full employment.

*His report provided the bedrock for the policy

ei.sdraob

speaking of employment

may i point people to this excellent article here from few days ago

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2010/04/economics-6042010-qnhs-figures-of.html

many graphs and commentary by Dr. Constantin Gurdgiev on current state of Irish employment/unemployment

deadhead13

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not really, the natural rate of unemployment also includes people between jobs (frictional unemployment) and people who do not have the necessary skills to apply for the jobs that are available (structural unemployment).

Laminations

danman wrote: »

Do you know what?
I don't actually care. As long as I have a job, I don't care how shaky the foundation it's built on is.

I can honestly say, the majority of the population feels the same.
It might not be the most politically correct thing to say, but it's how I feel.
All we want is to provide for our families.

Go build a house by a receding cliff-face if thats your understanding of the importance of stable foundations. Having a job on shaky foundations provides no security. Everything is built on those foundations, if you want to provide for your family you best get the foundations right.

danman

Laminations wrote: »

Go build a house by a receding cliff-face if thats your understanding of the importance of stable foundations. Having a job on shaky foundations provides no security. Everything is built on those foundations, if you want to provide for your family you best get the foundations right.

I'm simply reflecting the attitude of 90% of the population.
Have a look at the number of members of boards, then have a look at the number of regular posters on the politics forum.

The majority of people don't care, they just want a job.

Should we all have refused our employment oportunities during the boom on the grounds of priciple?
Should we have stayed at home untill there was a more stable economy?
Did you?