Good economic news thread

Geuze

A graph of our employment rate for those aged 20-64, year 2015

Phoebas

Geuze wrote: »

Note that although the UNR is falling, yes, the employment rate is still below other countries. We are at best mid-table in the EU.

The trend is good.


And we've already achieved out EU2020 target for this number.

Zubeneschamali

Phoebas wrote: »

More good news on the unemployment front - we are now down to 6.2% - the lowest in 9 years.

Also worth noting that the only time it has ever been lower was the period from April 99 to Jul 08, and it falling faster now than it was in 99.

If it follows the same pattern (my guess) it will dip to 4%, and then hover about between 4 and 5% until the next recession.

Brexit in 2 years could trigger one.

keane2097

What is UNR?

Quintis

keane2097 wrote: »

What is UNR?

UnR - Unemployment rate

Sam Russell

As the UnR is low, now is the time to change the rules for JSA. Whatever changes need to be made will affect few of those who seek work, but would inconvenience those who: 1. have no intention of working, and 2. those who are working but still collecting JSA.

I am not saying what could be done, but the time to fix this type of benefit is when the number claiming is at the lowest and jobs are plentiful. Retraining is probably the first call.

blanch152

Sam Russell wrote: »

As the UnR is low, now is the time to change the rules for JSA. Whatever changes need to be made will affect few of those who seek work, but would inconvenience those who: 1. have no intention of working, and 2. those who are working but still collecting JSA.

I am not saying what could be done, but the time to fix this type of benefit is when the number claiming is at the lowest and jobs are plentiful. Retraining is probably the first call.

The problem with the participation rate is down more to disability benefit and single parent payment rather than JSA.

We need to find ways of matching suitable jobs to people on disability benefit. Many of those on disability benefit have disabilities that make them unsuitable for the job they used to have but not for every other job out there.

Similarly, there are many on the one-parent-payment who could work if there was suitable childcare or part-time work.

Charles Babbage

It does feel a bit like 1998 or so. Brexit may well cause some problems, but better to have a bump in the road when you are just hitting full employment than one when things are less buoyant.

serfboard

Geuze wrote: »

Note that although the UNR is falling, yes, the employment rate is still below other countries. We are at best mid-table in the EU.

This is for those adults aged 20-64

Geuze wrote: »

A graph of our employment rate for those aged 20-64, year 2015

Both of these use figures from 2015 - our unemployment rate has declined a full 2% from then.

serfboard

Sam Russell wrote: »

those who are working but still collecting JSA.

I'm not sure if you're talking about those defrauding the welfare system or not, but there are also people who are legitimately working and getting welfare payments as well. It's disgraceful that large companies are getting taxpayer subsidies (in the form of supplementary welfare payments like the Family Income Supplement) in order that they can keep paying their workers sh1tty wages.

"Corporate welfare" is how Joan Burton referred to it, but never did anything about it (like improve the minimum wage) while in government.

It came up on Morning Ireland this morning in a discussion with Stephen Kinsella about Tax Receipts, where it seems that even though employment is up, income tax receipts are not, leading to the conclusion that a lot of jobs are being created that are outside the tax bracket i.e. in the low-wage sector.

We then act all surprised when it emerges that up to 70 people end up sharing one house, because they can't afford anything else.

Villa05

Can anyone explain how USC receipts are below target when unemployment is falling?

Quintis

Villa05 wrote: »

Can anyone explain how USC receipts are below target when unemployment is falling?

I believe the CSO are investigating atm, but a drop in unemployment should correlate with a rise is tax receipts. The expectant VAT increase is there which is odd as-well

Sam Russell

serfboard wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're talking about those defrauding the welfare system or not, but there are also people who are legitimately working and getting welfare payments as well. It's disgraceful that large companies are getting taxpayer subsidies (in the form of supplementary welfare payments like the Family Income Supplement) in order that they can keep paying their workers sh1tty wages.

"Corporate welfare" is how Joan Burton referred to it, but never did anything about it (like improve the minimum wage) while in government.

It came up on Morning Ireland this morning in a discussion with Stephen Kinsella about Tax Receipts, where it seems that even though employment is up, income tax receipts are not, leading to the conclusion that a lot of jobs are being created that are outside the tax bracket i.e. in the low-wage sector.

We then act all surprised when it emerges that up to 70 people end up sharing one house, because they can't afford anything else.

I am talking about fraud. I would like to see the minimum wage increase to about €11 or €12 per hour so people on minimum wage can actually live on it. As regards income supplement, it is a disgrace that some soldiers in the Army qualify for FIS, so it is not just corporations gaming the system.

One thing that other countries do is to tail off the rights to JSA after a few years so being out of the workforce for say five years disqualifies one for JSA. Obviously, there has to be a safety net of some kind, but if there is full employment, then by definition, everyone can get a job of some kind. Maybe a qualified commercial pilot would not consider a job as a bus driver, but if that is all that is available, it is a job.

blanch152

serfboard wrote: »

"Corporate welfare" is how Joan Burton referred to it, but never did anything about it (like improve the minimum wage) while in government.

.

One of the first acts of the FG/Labour government was to reverse the FF cut in the minimum wage.

Villa05

Sam Russell wrote:

I am talking about fraud. I would like to see the minimum wage increase to about €11 or €12 per hour so people on minimum wage can actually live on it. As regards income supplement, it is a disgrace that some soldiers in the Army qualify for FIS, so it is not just corporations gaming the system.

The minimum wage is not the problem. Its the cost of living that is the issue. I believe we have one of the highest minimum wages

Geuze

blanch152 wrote: »

The problem with the participation rate is down more to disability benefit and single parent payment rather than JSA.

We need to find ways of matching suitable jobs to people on disability benefit. Many of those on disability benefit have disabilities that make them unsuitable for the job they used to have but not for every other job out there.

Similarly, there are many on the one-parent-payment who could work if there was suitable childcare or part-time work.

This is a very good point.

People point to falling JSA numbers and say, look, people are willing to work.

To see the level of inactivity, you must look at JSA, OPF, and DA numbers.

Geuze

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am talking about fraud. I would like to see the minimum wage increase to about €11 or €12 per hour so people on minimum wage can actually live on it. As regards income supplement, it is a disgrace that some soldiers in the Army qualify for FIS, so it is not just corporations gaming the system.

One thing that other countries do is to tail off the rights to JSA after a few years so being out of the workforce for say five years disqualifies one for JSA. Obviously, there has to be a safety net of some kind, but if there is full employment, then by definition, everyone can get a job of some kind. Maybe a qualified commercial pilot would not consider a job as a bus driver, but if that is all that is available, it is a job.

I have to disagree on increasing the min wage.

Reduce housing / transport / health costs for all workers, and especially low-wage workers instead.

I agree with reforming JSA, and now is the time.

Geuze

serfboard wrote: »

Both of these use figures from 2015 - our unemployment rate has declined a full 2% from then.

I'll try to get 2016 employment rates from Eurostat.

I now see that the 2016 employment rate for ages 20-64 has reached 70%.

Zubeneschamali

Villa05 wrote: »

Can anyone explain how USC receipts are below target when unemployment is falling?

I haven't checked the official story yet, but some possibilities are:

1) The targets assumed an even bigger fall in unemployment

2) The new jobs pay worse than anticipated in the targets

3) Some weird calendar/schedule effect has caused a month or a quarter to be classified in a different column, or another technical issue like that.

[edit: Newspaper reports are saying the Department don't have an explanation yet, either. It does not seem to be my #1).

blanch152

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I haven't checked the official story yet, but some possibilities are:

1) The targets assumed an even bigger fall in unemployment

2) The new jobs pay worse than anticipated in the targets

3) Some weird calendar/schedule effect has caused a month or a quarter to be classified in a different column, or another technical issue like that.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/usc/

"Individuals (aged under 70) who hold a full medical card whose aggregate income for the year is €60,000 or less."

"0.5% - on the first €12,012"

"The 2.5% rate applies to all income over €12,012"

The 2.5% rate for medical card holders is half the normal 5% rate.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/starting_work_and_changing_job/training_and_looking_for_work/return_to_work.html


"If you are unemployed and you are returning to full-time or part-time work, you can keep your medical card for 3 years provided you have been getting one of the following allowances or benefits for 12 months or more:

Jobseeker's Benefit
Jobseeker's Allowance
One-Parent Family Payment
Illness Benefit
Invalidity Pension
Disability Allowance
Blind Pension or
Have been on an employment incentive scheme or educational opportunity scheme
If you take up full-time employment you will retain your medical card for 3 years from the date you start work. If you take up part-time employment the 3-year period starts from the date your income exceeds the relevant medical card guideline. There are further details about the retention of medical cards in the Health Service Executive's Medical Card/GP Visit National Assessment Guidelines (pdf)."

My conclusions:

(1) The reduction in the number of long-term unemployed is higher than the reduction in the number of unemployed

(2) As an economy comes out of recession, many of the new jobs are lower-paid at first because of excess supply

(3) Many of those returning to work after a long absence will be on lower rates of pay anyway

(4) Nearly all of the long-term unemployed will be medical card holders

Therefore, much of the rise in employment has been among the long-term unemployed returning to jobs below €60k while still keeping their medical card and will therefore pay the lower rate of USC, thus reducing revenue from USC.

Geuze

Live Register down 42,000 over the last year.

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/lr/liveregisterapril2017/

blanch152

Geuze wrote: »

Live Register down 42,000 over the last year.

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/lr/liveregisterapril2017/

Backs up my thoughts on the bigger percentage drop in long-term claimants. Furthermore, 62% of those coming off the Register were long-term claimants.

Suryavarman

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am talking about fraud. I would like to see the minimum wage increase to about €11 or €12 per hour so people on minimum wage can actually live on it.

And what about all the people that lose their jobs as a result? What are they supposed to live off?

eire4

Suryavarman wrote: »

And what about all the people that lose their jobs as a result? What are they supposed to live off?

That is always one of the classic lines you see with people opposed to the minimum wage actually being one a person can live on.
People on lower incomes who get more money in their pocket will spend a much higher percent of that extra money thus pouring more money into the economy then the extra money staying in the pockets of the already wealthy who have no real incentive to actually spend that same money in the economy. Those at the top to can earn a little less so all those working on minimum wage can have that wage be one that they can actually live on.

Avatar MIA

eire4 wrote: »

Suryavarman wrote: »

And what about all the people that lose their jobs as a result? What are they supposed to live off?

That is always one of the classic lines you see with people opposed to the minimum wage actually being one a person can live on.

Speaking of classical lines. What does "live on" mean?

Are there many minimum wage workers expiring?

Suryavarman

eire4 wrote: »

That is always one of the classic lines you see with people opposed to the minimum wage actually being one a person can live on.
People on lower incomes who get more money in their pocket will spend a much higher percent of that extra money thus pouring more money into the economy then the extra money staying in the pockets of the already wealthy who have no real incentive to actually spend that same money in the economy. Those at the top to can earn a little less so all those working on minimum wage can have that wage be one that they can actually live on.

"Pouring more money into the economy" possibly the most meaningless phrase ever. What do rich people do with their money? Set it on fire?

Why are you being so stingy by only increasing the minimum wage to €12 an hour? Why not €40 p/h? Why not €100 p/h? If someone isn't productive enough that they can be profitably employed at a higher wage then they aren't going to get that higher wage. It really is that simple.

You also seem to think that people earning minimum wage are poor which isn't correct. The main beneficiaries of minimum wage increases are people in middle and high income households.

Sam Russell

Suryavarman wrote: »

"Pouring more money into the economy" possibly the most meaningless phrase ever. What do rich people do with their money? Set it on fire?

Why are you being so stingy by only increasing the minimum wage to €12 an hour? Why not €40 p/h? Why not €100 p/h? If someone isn't productive enough that they can be profitably employed at a higher wage then they aren't going to get that higher wage. It really is that simple.

You also seem to think that people earning minimum wage are poor which isn't correct. The main beneficiaries of minimum wage increases are people in middle and high income households.

If you take the lowest earners in the state and set a minimum wage for them, then they could live on it instead of getting social security. The higher that wages is the less number are living on social welfare, such as Family Income Supplement.

Setting the minimum wage could be done by taking the lower percentile of earnings, such that 5% or 10% of earners get the minimum wage. I am not an economist or a tax planner, so I cannot guess what figure is appropriate, but if it was cast such that, say 6.7% percentile would set the minimum wage, then it can be planned for.

OK, say I run a news agency and employ 5 people to sell sweets and papers. If I cannot afford to employ them at minimum wage, I do not continue with my business, but guess what, I will afford it, because I will look for higher margins on papers and sweets or lower rent/rates. Now this will not happen overnight, but gradually over several years.

When minimum wage was introduced first, nothing happened - the sky did not fall in. If MW was increased, nothing will happen, the sky will still not fall in.

We now have zero hour contracts but they will go soon as well, for the same reason - they are unjust and allow exploitation.

Avatar MIA

Sam,

You just showed why a "living wage" is meaningless.

So, the person gets higher wages, but pays higher cost for goods, so there needs to be a new living wage. Rinse repeat. If it was that simple, why not put them on 20 an hour?

Phoebas

Raising the minimum wage isn't necessarily the best way to help poorer households, as many people on the minimum wage are secondary earners in better off households.

The Economist wrote:

Many low-paid folk are second earners in middle-income families (think the mum with a part-time cleaning job), whereas many of the poorest households do not work at all. The government’s existing plans to raise the minimum wage are already expected to benefit households in the seventh income decile (ie, nearer the richest) by three times as much as those in the bottom decile. Mr Corbyn’s pledge to help low earners is welcome, but there are better ways to do it than with a £10 minimum wage.

Giving tax credits to poorer households would be a better way to raise living standards of the working poor.

Sam Russell

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Sam,

You just showed why a "living wage" is meaningless.

So, the person gets higher wages, but pays higher cost for goods, so there needs to be a new living wage. Rinse repeat. If it was that simple, why not put them on 20 an hour?

The cost of living needs to be reduced and this can be achieved by reducing costs under the control of the state. Bus fares, postage rates, road tax, etc. are all under state control yet they rise and rise because they are cash cows. That is all true, but the argument about minimum wage is another aspect.

However, the lower decile of incomes need more income because they are poor. There is no getting away from that. By increasing the minimum wage these low paid will be better off. There is no reason to suppose much will change if the minimum wage increased because the cost of employing this group at higher earning cannot have a large effect on overall earning because they only represent 10% of the whole population and are paid the least. Lawyers, doctors, accountants and other professionals charge out their time at more per hour than the workers get per week for 40 hours.

The top 10% are paid substantially (hugely) more than the bottom 10%, and a small reduction in their pay would more than pay for the increase of minimum wage. Now I am not suggesting they take a real cut, but it shows the twisted thinking by the wealthy that the minimum wage hits their pockets and it cannot be afforded.