Unemployment Rate is at..

jimmypitt

13.7% today. If the 150,000 or so did not emigrate over the last 12 months would it be fair to say the real employment rate is about 20%?? If everyone had stayed for example? I know its a ridiculius question but just wanted to check am i right in the maths front?

Cheers.

RichardAnd

13.7 refers only to those on the dole. The real figure is up in the air as it can be made to up or down depending on what you choose to count.

hinault

2008 Q1 : 2,135,100 were employed in Ireland.
2008 Q4 : 2,052,000 were employed in Ireland

2009 Q1 : 1,965,600 were employed in Ireland
2009 Q4 : 1,887,700 were employed in Ireland

2010 Q1 : 1,857,600 were employed in Ireland
2010 Q2 : 1,859,100 were employed in Ireland

c montgomery

I hate the way unemployment figures are based on the total population of the country.
450,000 are unemployed, 1, 895,100 are working. The rest of the population are retired/in school/ infants etc...

Thats and unemployment rate of 19.2% or about 1 in 5 people who want a job cant get one.

Mr Benevolent

c montgomery wrote: »

I hate the way unemployment figures are based on the total population of the country.
450,000 are unemployed, 1, 895,100 are working. The rest of the population are retired/in school/ infants etc...

Thats and unemployment rate of 19.2% or about 1 in 5 people who want a job cant get one.

It's not based on total population. However the figures are variable depending on your definition of 'unemployed'.

dynamick

The number of unemployed in Ireland is confusing because there are two main sets of data produced by the CSO relating to employment: the Quarterly National Household Survey and the monthly live register.

The monthly live register is not meant to measure unemployment as it includes an array of people claiming various employment benefits such as people working up to 3 days per week. Also the data is seasonally adjusted.

There are 449,600 on the 'live register'. The QNHS says 293,600 are unemployed which is the official figure.

Big difference.

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/current/lreg.pdf
http://www.cso.ie/statistics/empandunempilo.htm

population

An enormous amount of people that have become recently unemployed are coming out of the building industry. A percentage of these people would have been self employed and are therefore not entitled to receive anything but the most menial welfare payments. Anybody I know in this position is not signing on because it is essentially pointless. Therefore I believe the figure to be much higher than what is being reported.

Mister men

The figures are decieving i think everybody knows that. If it was'nt for emigration it would be close to 600,000k. The real worry is the actual employment figures. They are dropping very fast indeed.

dynamick

population wrote: »

An enormous amount of people that have become recently unemployed are coming out of the building industry. A percentage of these people would have been self employed and are therefore not entitled to receive anything but the most menial welfare payments. Anybody I know in this position is not signing on because it is essentially pointless. Therefore I believe the figure to be much higher than what is being reported.

Self employed are entitled to Jobseekers allowance but not Jobseekers Benefit.
Details of how to claim are here:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/unemployed-people/self-employed-and-unemployment

The rates are here:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/unemployed-people/jobseekers-allowance

The max rate is 196/week but this is means-tested.

Mister men wrote: »

The figures are decieving i think everybody knows that. If it was'nt for emigration it would be close to 600,000k.

The population has been rising every year in Ireland since 1991. It is projected to increase this year again.

Immigrants to Ireland have exceeded emigrants every year between 1996 and 2008.
For 2009 and projected 2010, emigration will exceed immigration by a total of 42,000 people which is not significant relative to unemployment. So I disagree that the unemployment figures have been greatly damped by emigration or population change.

Mister men wrote: »

The real worry is the actual employment figures. They are dropping very fast indeed.

I hate to nitpick but in the latest quarter, more people were employed than the previous quarter. http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/current/qnhs.pdf

Things are not that bad. 1.859 million jobs is a strong number.

pwd

dynamick wrote: »

I hate to nitpick but in the latest quarter, more people were employed than the previous quarter. http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/current/qnhs.pdf

Things are not that bad. 1.859 million jobs is a strong number.

Look at that again dynamick

employed = +1,500
unemployed = +18,600

Presumably from people graduating from college during that quarter.

dynamick

hiya pwd

you have a small mistake there:

it should say:
employed = +1,500
unemployed = +18,600

It is possible for the number employed and the number unemployed to rise at the same time which is also confusing. Also you are right that seasonal factors such as the academic year alter the numbers but even the seasonally adjusted number in the same report shows only a small drop in employment for the quarter relative to the fall off in employment straight after the crash.

gurramok

dynamick wrote: »

The population has been rising every year in Ireland since 1991. It is projected to increase this year again.

Immigrants to Ireland have exceeded emigrants every year between 1996 and 2008.
For 2009 and projected 2010, emigration will exceed immigration by a total of 42,000 people which is not significant relative to unemployment. So I disagree that the unemployment figures have been greatly damped by emigration or population change.

The population rise has been down to a high birth rate especially since mid 2008. The adult population is decreasing.
Who is emigrating then as you say the unemployment figures have not been greatly damped by emigration, the kids?

dynamick wrote: »

Things are not that bad. 1.859 million jobs is a strong number.

It 'jumped' by 1,500 in one quarter after consecutive drops and we need strong fulltime employment growth in decent jobs. We'll wait for the next release for Q3 to see what's going on regarding employment numbers for Sept.

southsiderosie

dynamick wrote: »

I hate to nitpick but in the latest quarter, more people were employed than the previous quarter. http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/current/qnhs.pdf

Things are not that bad. 1.859 million jobs is a strong number.

What are you talking about? Not that bad? The previous year, that figure was at 1.922 million. Are we reading the same report?

- The employment rate for persons aged 15-64 has fallen on an annual basis in each quarter since Q4 2007 and is now back at a level comparable with that seen in the second quarter of 1998.

So basically all of the employment gains of the last decade have been totally lost. Yes, great statistics.

-Employment fell on an annual basis in 10 of the 14 economic sectors.

-The latest available figures for all EU-27 member states, which are for the first quarter of 2010, show that between the first quarters of 2009 and 2010 Ireland’s employment level fell by 5.7% while its labour force declined by 2.7%. This compares with a decline in employment of 1.3% in the EU-27 countries while the size of the EU-27 labour force increased by 0.2% in the year to Q1 2010. .

Given the rumblings about public sector cuts, employment is likely to fall further.

hinault

Mister men wrote: »

The figures are decieving i think everybody knows that. If it was'nt for emigration it would be close to 600,000k. The real worry is the actual employment figures. They are dropping very fast indeed.

This is the number which this government needs to concentrate on.
Policies need to be put in place to protect existing jobs.

The main bulk of tax generated in this economy comes from employment
(PAYE).

Instead of looking at the unemployment numbers, we need to look at the employment numbers.

dan_d

True. There's a lack of understanding of how to read statistics going on in there.

Although have said that I agree to an extent with the OP. I don't think the percentage is 20%, but it's not as low as 13.7%.

dynamick

gurramok wrote: »

The population rise has been down to a high birth rate especially since mid 2008. The adult population is decreasing.
Who is emigrating then as you say the unemployment figures have not been greatly damped by emigration, the kids?

36,000 of 65,000 estimated emigrants for 2010 are males aged 15-44. Yes these are young men emigrating to find work. My point is that the claim that unemployment would be 600,000 without emigration is mathematically impossible. Also we have to remember that emigration figures are gross and that we had 57,000 immigrants last year.

gurramok wrote: »

It 'jumped' by 1,500 in one quarter after consecutive drops and we need strong fulltime employment growth in decent jobs. We'll wait for the next release for Q3 to see what's going on regarding employment numbers for Sept.

Yes I agree it is just one quarter

I don't think the trend looks that bad.

southsiderosie wrote: »

What are you talking about? Not that bad? The previous year, that figure was at 1.922 million. Are we reading the same report?So basically all of the employment gains of the last decade have been totally lost.

No, the employment gains of the past decade have not been lost. There are 8.5% more people employed now - 145,000 more people with jobs than ten years ago. We are back at 2004 levels of employment. The jobs created during the peak of the boom were unsustainable bubble jobs based on a speculative construction boom and a credit fuelled overconsumption binge.

gurramok

dynamick wrote: »

36,000 of 65,000 estimated emigrants for 2010 are males aged 15-44. Yes these are young men emigrating to find work. My point is that the claim that unemployment would be 600,000 without emigration is mathematically impossible. Also we have to remember that emigration figures are gross and that we had 57,000 immigrants last year.

I think the poster should have included back to education, FAS schemes and 'unqualified for welfare recipients' to reach that number.

Where did you get 36,000 of 65,000 estimated emigrants for 2010 are males aged 15-44?
What I see from your link is Table 5 where 1,200 of the 65,000 emigrants are under 15 years of age leaving 64,000 as emigrant adults. Likewise 3,600 of 30,000 immigrants were under 15.

dynamick wrote: »

Yes I agree it is just one quarter

I don't think the trend looks that bad.

It is bad for income tax and consumption tax returns.

dynamick

gurramok wrote: »

I think the poster should have included back to education, FAS schemes and 'unqualified for welfare recipients' to reach that number.

People need to get back into education. During the bubble peak, people who ought to have been in college, were choosing to earn a fortune doing a low skilled construction job and then mortgage themsleves to the hilt.

Where did you get 36,000 of 65,000 estimated emigrants for 2010 are males aged 15-44?
What I see from your link is Table 5 where 1,200 of the 65,000 emigrants are under 15 years of age leaving 64,000 as emigrant adults. Likewise 3,600 of 30,000 immigrants were under 15.

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/population/current/popmig.pdf
Table 5

It is bad for income tax and consumption tax returns.

Yes and more importantly, employment is a major determinant of happiness.

gurramok

dynamick wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/population/current/popmig.pdf
Table 5

You left out the over 44's as adults are still emigrating in vast numbers compared to kids hence buzz words like rising population means feck all.

dynamick

Age division of emigrants:

Very few emigrants are over 44. Most are 15-44

Immigrants have a similar age profile.

'Rising population' is not a buzz word. The population is increasing and it has done every year since 1991. This is despite predictions of massive population fall following the return of the East European immigrants and increased worker emigration.

The economy is reverting to its mean sustainable upward trend following a painful correction. The bank crisis costs - even at worst case scenario - are a fraction of the deficit costs and the predicted total debt burden is not unmanageable when compared with other industrialised countries that have had this ratio of debt. We have Europe behind us and all-party support for macroeconomic policy until 2014.

gurramok

dynamick wrote: »

Age division of emigrants:

Very few emigrants are over 44. Most are 15-44

Immigrants have a similar age profile.

'Rising population' is not a buzz word. The population is increasing and it has done every year since 1991. This is despite predictions of massive population fall following the return of the East European immigrants and increased worker emigration.

This is still a net outflow of adults(15+). Their replacements are kids born here.

dunsandin

Historically,for ever, Ireland was P155 poor and plagued by unemployment. Then they had a temporary and short, distorted bubble where things were good. Then they reverted to type once more.
I fear that this is what will be said of us by future generations. A bit like families, one does good, then the next generation reverts to type. Blue collar to blue collar in three generations. We were bust, then we got flush, and soon were bust again. Sickening. No balance whatsoever.

dynamick

dunsandin wrote: »

Historically,for ever, Ireland was P155 poor and plagued by unemployment. Then they had a temporary and short, distorted bubble where things were good. Then they reverted to type once more.

I know it feels like this - that all the gains of the celtic tiger years have gone but a quick look at the numbers shows this is not true.

Ronan Lyons has an article that sums up 10 gains to the economy from the celtic tiger.
http://www.ronanlyons.com/2010/05/04/what-has-the-celtic-tiger-ever-done-for-us/

johnnyskeleton

population wrote: »

An enormous amount of people that have become recently unemployed are coming out of the building industry. A percentage of these people would have been self employed and are therefore not entitled to receive anything but the most menial welfare payments. Anybody I know in this position is not signing on because it is essentially pointless. Therefore I believe the figure to be much higher than what is being reported.

Of course, just as bad as unemployment is underemployment - where people (like the self employed) are working but not getting paid.

dunsandin

I know what that feels like. Tomorrow is "lets all pay Dunsandin" day, and I doubt it will be pretty.

ei.sdraob

dynamick wrote: »

I don't think the trend looks that bad.

.

Statistics :P !!!

please add another line and axis on the side for population which has grown in this time

please dont use dirty tricks employed by FF, we are not fools here, the number of people in this country has grown, if employment doesnt not keep up with this rate of population growth ...

dynamick

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the number of people in this country has grown, if employment doesnt not keep up with this rate of population growth ...

While the population has increased, the labour force has reduced. This is the result of more people entering education, retiring, emigrating. The rising population of children will bring huge benefits to the economy and to society generally.



I am not denying that employment is falling nor that unemployment has risen up to now; I'm just showing that the numbers haven't fallen off a cliff and that we have more people employed now than we did 6 years ago.

gurramok

Kids cost money. Less adults working to support them is a crisis in itself. Only plus is that if the economy turns around in 20yrs time, they are our replacements to pay for our pensions

dynamick

dynamick wrote: »

I don't think the trend looks that bad.

The trend doesnt look so bad because your scale is sooo wrong for the purposes of this discussion. Yours using a scale which shows what was a record breaking growth period for Ireland & its worst recession as barely a bump!!

Thats how you lie/misrepresent with statistics.

dynamick wrote: »

No, the employment gains of the past decade have not been lost. There are 8.5% more people employed now - 145,000 more people with jobs than ten years ago. We are back at 2004 levels of employment. The jobs created during the peak of the boom were unsustainable bubble jobs based on a speculative construction boom and a credit fuelled overconsumption binge.

If we took the 20 billion out of the economy, that is our annual deficit, you would see how it translates into false jobs. Each euro borrowed is a euro plus interest we wont have in the future. Total false economy.

and for the craic, the most up to date figures on emigration show:

Some 65,300 people emigrated in the year to April, while the number of immigrants into Ireland declined from 57,300 to 30,800 over the same time period.

These combined changes have resulted in an increase in net outward migration from 7,800 in April 2009 to 34,500 this year

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0921/breaking52.html

dynamick

Deleted User wrote: »

The trend doesnt look so bad because your scale is sooo wrong for the purposes of this discussion. Yours using a scale which shows what was a record breaking growth period for Ireland & its worst recession as barely a bump!!

That's because it was a bump relative to say the decline in house prices. Decline from peak to 2010q2 has been 13.5% so far.

I used a scale on the vertical axis of 0 to 2.5 million to show number employed and a scale on the horizontal axis of 2000-2010 (the last decade). This shows that while the number employed has fallen since the peak in 2007q3, that we are still 145,000 jobs ahead of where we were 10 years ago. I couldn't have used a simpler scale if I had tried.

I've done a longer term graph to show how employment has grown since 1988.



A lot of the growth in the graph represents greater participation of women in the workforce. But it tells a story of how Ireland has added 750,000 jobs to its workforce in 22 years - even including the last 3 years' crash.

If we took the 20 billion out of the economy, that is our annual deficit, you would see how it translates into false jobs. Each euro borrowed is a euro plus interest we wont have in the future. Total false economy.

That's the stimulus. Ain't you read your Keynes?

gurramok

dynamick wrote: »

I used a scale on the vertical axis of 0 to 2.5 million to show number employed and a scale on the horizontal axis of 2000-2010 (the last decade). This shows that while the number employed has fallen since the peak in 2007q3, that we are still 145,000 jobs ahead of where we were 10 years ago.

I've done a longer term graph to show how employment has grown since 1988.

Can you give a graph of the population 10yrs ago?

Whats your solution, encourage emigration to meet the employment level support base:rolleyes:?

scr123

Excellent thread and hope it goes on for a high number of pages. Had it in mind to start a thread on employment and unemployment with the aim of understanding what exactly unemployment is all about. CSO figures can be difficult to follow as they do not paint the picture clear enough for me. Last week a Minister stated the number of full time unemployed is 299000 and this for me was the first time the scale of the core problem was outlined. Previous I had been sceptical because the constantly trotted out 450000 included those who were working three days and those signing on for credits and various other reasons. Even this horrible 299000 announcement differs with the quarterly Report which states that the true unemployment figure is 227000. Overall I find it terribly annoying that in this age of computer technology we cannot get absolute analysis of employment and unemployment. Should be a simple matter of Social Welfare profiling each recipient of benefit and the figures collated in a central location. A questionaire carried out with 20 questions would tell us once and for all who are the unemployed, the job they lost, the region, the sector and so on.
Hopefully, this thread can continue to enlighten me

dynamick

dynamick wrote: »

That's the stimulus. Ain't you read your Keynes?

a stimulus is of little use in such an open economy the car scrappage scheme is the perfect example...all the money moves out of the country!

johnnyskeleton

scr123 wrote: »

Excellent thread and hope it goes on for a high number of pages. Had it in mind to start a thread on employment and unemployment with the aim of understanding what exactly unemployment is all about. CSO figures can be difficult to follow as they do not paint the picture clear enough for me. Last week a Minister stated the number of full time unemployed is 299000 and this for me was the first time the scale of the core problem was outlined. Previous I had been sceptical because the constantly trotted out 450000 included those who were working three days and those signing on for credits and various other reasons. Even this horrible 299000 announcement differs with the quarterly Report which states that the true unemployment figure is 227000. Overall I find it terribly annoying that in this age of computer technology we cannot get absolute analysis of employment and unemployment. Should be a simple matter of Social Welfare profiling each recipient of benefit and the figures collated in a central location. A questionaire carried out with 20 questions would tell us once and for all who are the unemployed, the job they lost, the region, the sector and so on.
Hopefully, this thread can continue to enlighten me

If you look at the last stats, they have a breakdown of the changes per region, and by population, so this information is more or less available to you already. It won't tell you that Jimmy from Tullamore lost his job as a plasterer for X firm, but it will give you the general industries, regions and demographics:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056046454&highlight=professional