Unemployment total falls by 9.3% in Q1

maninasia

Well 50% would mean that some type of graduates have difficulty finding employment and some do not. As I said it was a ballpark figure as it's hard to get the exact %s and it depends on your definition of employment and the effect of emigration on said figures. When you emigrate you become a non person, you are missing from the statistics, it's all very convenient.

According to this chart youth unemployment is 30% in Ireland. That's after the introduction of various internship schemes, training schemes, education schemes etc and very large numbers of youth emigrating. Take from that what you will.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-464_en.htm?locale=en

Some people like to parrot the politicians, the politicians should get their pensions cancelled (how many pensions does Noonan have three?), the number of TDs cut back by half and the Senate abolished and see if their stay in Ireland is 'optional'.

http://www.thejournal.ie/noonan-young-emigrants-not-driven-away-by-unemployment-331911-Jan2012/

But Noonan said that unemployment was not driving emigration: “It’s not being driven by unemployment at home, it’s being driven by a desire to see another part of the world and live there.”

If it's being driven by a desire to see the world why did it spike and continue with record high numbers following Ireland financial crisis and lack of job opportunities. Spoofer.

djpbarry

maninasia wrote: »

These are the statistics that matter so you don't distract people from the point that 'small countries cannot provide full employment'.

Please point out where I said that.

maninasia wrote: »

Labor force - by occupation:

agriculture: 0.1%

I’ll be off to Singapore to further my farming career then, eh?

maninasia wrote: »

When you emigrate you become a non person, you are missing from the statistics, it's all very convenient.

Surely you become a statistic in the country you migrate to?

Godge

maninasia wrote: »

Well 50% would mean that some type of graduates have difficulty finding employment and some do not. As I said it was a ballpark figure as it's hard to get the exact %s and it depends on your definition of employment and the effect of emigration on said figures. When you emigrate you become a non person, you are missing from the statistics, it's all very convenient.

According to this chart youth unemployment is 30% in Ireland. That's after the introduction of various internship schemes, training schemes, education schemes etc and very large numbers of youth emigrating. Take from that what you will.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-464_en.htm?locale=en

Some people like to parrot the politicians, the politicians should get their pensions cancelled (how many pensions does Noonan have three?), the number of TDs cut back by half and the Senate abolished and see if their stay in Ireland is 'optional'.

http://www.thejournal.ie/noonan-young-emigrants-not-driven-away-by-unemployment-331911-Jan2012/



If it's being driven by a desire to see the world why did it spike and continue with record high numbers following Ireland financial crisis and lack of job opportunities. Spoofer.

http://www.hea.ie/sites/default/files/what_do_graduates_do_class_of_2008.pdf

I cannot find a study later than 2008 but if you look at the figures on page 14, at no stage was employment of graduates, whether in Ireland or abroad above 60% in the period 1987 to 2008, so the unemployment rate of graduates never dropped below 40%. By 2008, the unemployment rate was already 50%. If it is 50% now, it hasn't got any worse since the recession began.

ardmacha

According to this chart youth unemployment is 30% in Ireland. That's after the introduction of various internship schemes, training schemes, education schemes etc and very large numbers of youth emigrating. Take from that what you will.

A large proportion of youths are in education/training. Those who do not enter such education do have some difficulties to be sure.
The unemployment ratio, that proportion of people in the age group seeking work without work, is only half of the usually cited youth unemployment rate.

Emigration is a combination of a wish to see the world/build career etc and an increased proportion of people leaving who have problems getting work in Ireland. To say it is only one or the other isn't helpful.

maninasia

You cannot say it is one or the other, but you can say it is more LIKELY that is forced emigration due to lack of jobs/career opportunities than a choice to see the world per se.
You can see how the massive uptick of emigration correlates strongly with the financial crisis and surveys of emigrants bear out the fact that they mostly leave due to lack of job opportunities.

maninasia

I’ll be off to Singapore to further my farming career then, eh?

It would help if you didn't try to change the parameters of the discussion at every turn. I don't even get what you are saying here. You are saying that Singapore doesn't have farms? True enough, and yet they do have agricultural institutes and other farm related careers. I would guess that VERY few Singaporeans would want to go into agriculture don't you think? Even in Ireland agriculture only employs 5% of people and that's with a tradition of farming and ample agricultural land.

Singapore has proven the lie to above theory that 'small countries cannot provide full employment'. Fact.

I quoted you already on Page 6 but you asked me to point out where you said so I will show your quote again.

I’m not denying it’s a factor, but lack of opportunity is always going to be an issue in a country the size of Ireland – there’s only so much you can do there. I’m not knocking it – there are some terrific jobs in Ireland that you won’t find elsewhere. But generally speaking, regardless of the prevailing economic climate, options are going to be limited in a country with only 4.5 million people.

Options don't seem to be too limited in Singapore, weird that?

maninasia

Godge wrote: »

http://www.hea.ie/sites/default/files/what_do_graduates_do_class_of_2008.pdf

I cannot find a study later than 2008 but if you look at the figures on page 14, at no stage was employment of graduates, whether in Ireland or abroad above 60% in the period 1987 to 2008, so the unemployment rate of graduates never dropped below 40%. By 2008, the unemployment rate was already 50%. If it is 50% now, it hasn't got any worse since the recession began.

That's obviously because tens of thousands of them are leaving every year.

Godge

maninasia wrote: »

That's obviously because tens of thousands of them are leaving every year.

What a ridiculous reply.

Your point is that there is a crisis with graduate unemployment of 50%.

I show that graduate unemployment has always been at least 40% and you come back with that?

maninasia

My point is obvious, the youth unemployment and graduate unemployment figures should be worse that they are, it's emigration which is removing large numbers of the people who would be listed as unemployed.

What's hard to understand about that? 41% of the 300,000 people who left over the last 4 years are 15-24 years old. That's 120,000 people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22689189
A recent survey by the National Youth Council of Ireland (NYCI) found that little more than half of 18 to 24-year-olds had considered emigrating.

The vast majority of people who had thought about leaving Ireland said it was either because they did not have a job or they wanted to look for better employment opportunities.

djpbarry

maninasia wrote: »

It would help if you didn't try to change the parameters of the discussion at every turn. I don't even get what you are saying here. You are saying that Singapore doesn't have farms?

I’m using farming as an example of a career that is unlikely to be terribly fruitful in Singapore. I can think of several others.

maninasia wrote: »

Singapore has proven the lie to above theory that 'small countries cannot provide full employment'. Fact.

I quoted you already on Page 6 but you asked me to point out where you said so I will show your quote again.

I don’t even mention full employment in that quote? You’re conflating “opportunity” with “employment”.

maninasia wrote: »

Options don't seem to be too limited in Singapore, weird that?

They look pretty limited to me. The economy is dominated by the financial services sector. There are a whole host of job types that don’t exist in any great number (or even at all).

maninasia wrote: »

My point is obvious, the youth unemployment and graduate unemployment figures should be worse that they are, it's emigration which is removing large numbers of the people who would be listed as unemployed.

We really have no idea how many emigrants would have been unemployed had they remained in Ireland.

maninasia

We have a good idea how many would be unemployed in a lot of sectors because there are simply no jobs in those sectors...almost anything to do with public service employment or construction or most trades for a start.

If they weren't working before they left you can definitely nail them down as being very unlikely to have been employed now.

Whatever way you want to spin it, all the surveys of emigrants indicate the majority left for employment reasons AND their rate of emigration strongly correlate with the financial crisis.

maninasia

They look pretty limited to me. The economy is dominated by the financial services sector. There are a whole host of job types that don’t exist in any great number (or even at all).

You keep showing your ignorance, Singapore actually has quite a diverse economy, which is one of the secrets of it's impressive success with regards employment rates and incomes.

They have a very diversified economy in terms of logistics, shipping, oil refining, pharma, biomedical manufacturing and services, regional operations hubs, academic institutes, electronics manufacturing, legal services, finance and most recently have been very successful in promoting tourism and gambling. Of course you would know that if you paid attention to what I wrote earlier.

2% unemployment. Small country. 4.5 million people.

djpbarry

maninasia wrote: »

You keep showing your ignorance, Singapore actually has quite a diverse economy, which is one of the secrets of it's impressive success with regards employment rates and incomes.

I'm well aware of Singapore's efforts to reinvent itself.

But if it's so wonderful, why do so many people leave?

Godge

maninasia wrote: »

My point is obvious, the youth unemployment and graduate unemployment figures should be worse that they are, it's emigration which is removing large numbers of the people who would be listed as unemployed.

What's hard to understand about that? 41% of the 300,000 people who left over the last 4 years are 15-24 years old. That's 120,000 people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22689189
A recent survey by the National Youth Council of Ireland (NYCI) found that little more than half of 18 to 24-year-olds had considered emigrating.

But...your point is not obvious if the statistics do not back you up.

I could say that it is obvious from the congested M50 that Ireland is overpopulated and that there must be ten million people living in Ireland but I would be wrong because the statistics would show different.

So while to you it might be obvious that the youth and graduate unemployment should be worse than they are, it might not be obvious to the rest of us without hard statistics and analysis to back it up.

Godge

maninasia wrote: »

You keep showing your ignorance, Singapore actually has quite a diverse economy, which is one of the secrets of it's impressive success with regards employment rates and incomes.

They have a very diversified economy in terms of logistics, shipping, oil refining, pharma, biomedical manufacturing and services, regional operations hubs, academic institutes, electronics manufacturing, legal services, finance and most recently have been very successful in promoting tourism and gambling. Of course you would know that if you paid attention to what I wrote earlier.

2% unemployment. Small country. 4.5 million people.

Singapore is a strange country. There is huge exploitation of immigrant domestic workers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/expat-money/9128243/Singapores-foreign-maids-to-get-day-off.html

In some ways it is akin to slavery. When the job is over, you are thrown out of the country. Saying that there is only 2% unemployment among slave-owners is not a reliable guide.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

But...your point is not obvious if the statistics do not back you up.

I could say that it is obvious from the congested M50 that Ireland is overpopulated and that there must be ten million people living in Ireland but I would be wrong because the statistics would show different.

So while to you it might be obvious that the youth and graduate unemployment should be worse than they are, it might not be obvious to the rest of us without hard statistics and analysis to back it up.

IMF:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1025365.shtml

ESRI:
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/true-number-of-jobless-would-be-27pc-without-emigration-29025138.html

Godge

noodler wrote: »

IMF:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1025365.shtml

ESRI:
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/true-number-of-jobless-would-be-27pc-without-emigration-29025138.html

Those analyses ignore increased participation in education and also ignore that emigration was happening anyway prior to the crisis.

Look at the CSO figures:

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/


The size of the Labour Force peaked at 2,278.3 before falling to 2,159.1. This was a drop of 119.2 which when added to the unemployment rate of 323.0 gives a total of 442.2 which as a percentage of 2,278.3 is 19.4%. So even on the worst interpretation of the CSO data, you can only get 19.4%. That gives the IMF figures some comfort (they were 20%) but those figures (and mine) ignore other factors (return to education being one, early retirement being another) that reduced the labour force, meaning that 19.4% is an absolute max when the real figure would be a max of 18%.

Where the ESRI got the 27% from I have no idea.


P.S. Even so, neither the IMF nor the ESRI present compelling evidence of a newly high 50% graduate unemployment rate

noodler

Godge wrote: »

Those analyses ignore increased participation in education and also ignore that emigration was happening anyway prior to the crisis.

Look at the CSO figures:

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/


The size of the Labour Force peaked at 2,278.3 before falling to 2,159.1. This was a drop of 119.2 which when added to the unemployment rate of 323.0 gives a total of 442.2 which as a percentage of 2,278.3 is 19.4%. So even on the worst interpretation of the CSO data, you can only get 19.4%. That gives the IMF figures some comfort (they were 20%) but those figures (and mine) ignore other factors (return to education being one, early retirement being another) that reduced the labour force, meaning that 19.4% is an absolute max when the real figure would be a max of 18%.

Where the ESRI got the 27% from I have no idea.


P.S. Even so, neither the IMF nor the ESRI present compelling evidence of a newly high 50% graduate unemployment rate

Your ability to dismiss reports compiled by economic experts without bothering to read/understand their underlying analysis is absolutely staggering.


You are just churning out vague opposing points now on an ad hoc basis.

tootsy70

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Could it be a factor that Social Protection are changing policy of paying welfare benefits directly to bank accounts and instead people have to turn up and collect payments at post office every week?

When are they doing this ?

maninasia

But the statistics do back it up..the surveys of emigrants reasons for going AND the huge increase in emigration of all ages back it up.

They are statistics too. They just don't get counted in the current unemployment figures.

maninasia

Godge wrote: »

Singapore is a strange country. There is huge exploitation of immigrant domestic workers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/expat-money/9128243/Singapores-foreign-maids-to-get-day-off.html

In some ways it is akin to slavery. When the job is over, you are thrown out of the country. Saying that there is only 2% unemployment among slave-owners is not a reliable guide.

Ireland is a strange country, we are divided in two and for 30 years there were acts of terrorism everyday. Every twenty years we bust and huge waves of emigration occur. The old keep their jobs and pensions and the younger folk get told tough luck...wait your turn if you are lucky. The people on social welfare often get a better deal than the working taxpayer. In Ireland they don't allow abortion even when it's dangerous to the mother's health and they only recently allowed divorce. Anymore irrelevant and self serving sanctimonious holier than thou political viewpoints you want to hear?

What's your point? It's not slavery, they are called domestic maids and they are common all over the world but especially common in Asia, South America, the Middle East and Africa. How they are treated is a separate matter to employment figures or this discussion.

So your relevance to this discussion...you have none. Completely irrelevant waffle about human rights or your own political viewpoints being shoved down peoples throats. Do that in the politics forum. It's boring.

djpbarry

maninasia wrote: »

What's your point? It's not slavery, they are called domestic maids and they are common all over the world but especially common in Asia, South America, the Middle East and Africa. How they are treated is a separate matter to employment figures or this discussion.

It really isn’t. You’re holding Singapore up as an example that Ireland should aspire to, while completely overlooking the fact that Singapore has a very questionable human rights record. The two are obviously related – you can achieve a lot if you treat a chunk of your workforce like ****. Ireland, being a member of the EU, (thankfully) cannot do likewise.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

Your ability to dismiss reports compiled by economic experts without bothering to read/understand their underlying analysis is absolutely staggering.


You are just churning out vague opposing points now on an ad hoc basis.

Sorry, you are quoting extrapolations by so-called economic experts (the ESRI have had to change a number of reports over the last few years, the IMF have admitted they got things wrong in Greece) while I go back to the hard bare statistics and find some support for one of them (IMF) which I acknowledge and no support for the other (which I implicitly criticise). The only way the ESRI figures make sense is if they count retirees, people in higher education and people on disability both as part of the Labour Force and as part of the unemployed portion of the Labour Force. If that was the case, the 27% would be comparable to a norm in the good times of 20% similar to comparing 13% with 4%.

Again, sorry for not just swallowing the word of experts here. I have often told people that if you don't like an independent report on something, the easiest way to do something about it is to change the terms of reference slightly, hire someone else to do one, and wait for the result to come in. Bingo, job done, there are plenty of consultants out there who can deliver that for you.

I have little of no regard for the likes of IMF or ESRI as independent commentators because just like you or I they have ideological built-in bias. It is actually very hard to find an independent commentator without bias - Seamus Coffey is the closest as he tends to just analyse the hard figures behind reports - on Irish economic affairs.

Godge

maninasia wrote: »

Ireland is a strange country, we are divided in two and for 30 years there were acts of terrorism everyday. Every twenty years we bust and huge waves of emigration occur. The old keep their jobs and pensions and the younger folk get told tough luck...wait your turn if you are lucky. The people on social welfare often get a better deal than the working taxpayer. In Ireland they don't allow abortion even when it's dangerous to the mother's health and they only recently allowed divorce. Anymore irrelevant and self serving sanctimonious holier than thou political viewpoints you want to hear?

What's your point? It's not slavery, they are called domestic maids and they are common all over the world but especially common in Asia, South America, the Middle East and Africa. How they are treated is a separate matter to employment figures or this discussion.

So your relevance to this discussion...you have none. Completely irrelevant waffle about human rights or your own political viewpoints being shoved down peoples throats. Do that in the politics forum. It's boring.

My point is:

- no minimum wage
- little or no social support
- no worker protection
- little in the way of worker rights
- some people treated akin to slavery

Is it any wonder unemployment is so low?

maninasia

djpbarry wrote: »

It really isn’t. You’re holding Singapore up as an example that Ireland should aspire to, while completely overlooking the fact that Singapore has a very questionable human rights record. The two are obviously related – you can achieve a lot if you treat a chunk of your workforce like ****. Ireland, being a member of the EU, (thankfully) cannot do likewise.

They are not related. Lots of other countries around the world have large numbers of women and migrants in domestic 'servitude' and their unemployment rates and levels of development all vary enormously. In the case of Singapore these women come in from neighbouring countries willingly. That's the harsh reality of the poverty that they come from. This is the choice they make. They can get jobs in their home countries but the pay and conditions are worse there!

The discussion on migrant labour rights is a complete distraction...but of course you know that already.

maninasia

Godge wrote: »

My point is:

- no minimum wage
- little or no social support
- no worker protection
- little in the way of worker rights
- some people treated akin to slavery

Is it any wonder unemployment is so low?

Wrong, wrong , wrong. Singapore actually does have huge social supports for it's citizens, with subsidised housing and education and an excellent infrastructure and low corruption and crime rates.
It also offers very fair and competitive pay to migrant white collar workers who flock to it from all over the region, giving them pay and working conditions that are streets ahead of their own countries.

It is in the treatment of some blue collar workers that they fall down. But then again they are not a socialist country in the same style as Catholic holier than thou save the Africans Ireland and they don't follow the mores of a little bankrupt country in Western Europe. Everything they got they built up themselves in a very unstable and hostile region. They have their own history and cultural mores and don't need to be dictated to be you or others.

Singaporean's income on average is also very high.

maninasia

djpbarry wrote: »

It really isn’t. You’re holding Singapore up as an example that Ireland should aspire to, while completely overlooking the fact that Singapore has a very questionable human rights record. The two are obviously related – you can achieve a lot if you treat a chunk of your workforce like ****. Ireland, being a member of the EU, (thankfully) cannot do likewise.

Yeah, you have to leave your country instead, while older people and people who haven't worked all their lives are sorted out by the state. Questionable indeed. Ireland 15% unemployment with large scale emigration. It's great to be from a great country you can't actually live and work in isn't it?

Singapore 2% unemployment with low emigration and large scale immigration. Still glad to be in the wonderful EU, such a successful model for youth employment isn't it?

I didn't say Ireland needs to aspire to be Singapore, what it should aspire to is to a 2% unemployment rate and that full employment can be achieved by small countries as amply demonstrated by Singapore. This puts to bed the lie that small countries can not offer full employment to their citizens.

A large number of Singaporeans are employed by multinationals, are you saying that they don't treat their employees well? Also something like 50% of residents of Singapore are foreign born. If it's so bad why are they flocking there eh?

Get back to the point or open another thread in the politics forum. I don't give a flying fig leaf about your sudden concern from human rights in a discussion about employment, it's ridiculous and your posts should be deleted from this discussion as they are not relevant.

djpbarry

maninasia wrote: »

I didn't say Ireland needs to aspire to be Singapore, what it should aspire to is to a 2% unemployment rate and that full employment can be achieved by small countries as amply demonstrated by Singapore.

So should low-paid workers in Ireland be treated like **** in order to achieve that goal? Should Ireland introduce caning for minor crimes? Execution for possesion of narcotics, perhaps?

maninasia wrote: »

This puts to bed the lie that small countries can not offer full employment to their citizens.

A "lie" that nobody but you has posted?

maninasia

Ireland has a much worse crime problem than Singapore, it also has a serious unemployment problem, record breaking deficits, a barely functioning health system, part of an IMF bailout program which means it is being dictated to by foreign governments and large scale emigration. But please do go on.

I am intrigued to listen to your lecture about Singapore (a place I know well..and I suspect you have not even visited once) and their canings etc. In fact many countries in Asia have worse human rights records than Singapore and maintain the death penalty. They don't need to follow your social mores, their citizens CHOOSE to implement these policies (the death penalty for serious crimes is not unpopular like in Europe), nor is caning in any way importantly related to their stellar success at generating numerous and well paid working opportunities for their citizens and foreign residents.

Other countries in the region with similar harsh systems of justice such as Vietnam or Taiwan or Malaysia or Indonesia have not seen the level of economic success that Singapore has.  

The reason why Singapore's unemployment rate is so low is that they have successfully attracted massive investment in diverse areas such as logistics, financial services, pharma, medical, electronics, education, tourism and gambling. They have operated a relaxed policy on immigration especially with regards to white collar workers. They develop friendly relations with East and West. They welcome people to purchase property and support their construction industry. Their government has a relatively low tolerance of corruption. Their corporate tax rates are low and they have signed free trade agreements with many countries. When one area looks like it is running out of steam (e.g. electronics) they are smart enough to plan ahead and try to promote other areas with growth potential such as gambling and tourism.


THESE are the reasons that Singapore has been successful, and I will keep repeating them ad infinitum and as necessary to make sure people are not misled by emotional arguments designed to deflect from the core of the discussion.

nesf

maninasia wrote: »

THESE are the reasons that Singapore has been successful, and I will keep repeating them ad infinitum and as necessary to make sure people are not misled by emotional arguments designed to deflect from the core of the discussion.

Seriously, do not do this. Thanks.