Unemployment is the headline rate that is often quoted, which divides job seekers with the total population. But this number that some would argue is artificially deflated. Unemployment rates do not account for those who are not actively seeking work. Nor does it count those under-employed looking for more work. Sometimes those in part-time study and looking for work, also miss out in unemployment figures.
When you dig into the numbers the jump in the participation rate is wholly due to women entering the workforce. On a gender split, men have lost jobs to their female counterparts. When you consider that some countries, like the US include the unemployed as labor force participants, this trend is worrying at least for men.
The consequence of higher participation rate has been to inflate assets the workforce needs. Property price as a function of years worked is still high in those countries who avoided the GFC and continue with low unemployment. Both Australia and Canada have price multiples of 7 to 8 years of wages to buy a house. Contrast that with the US, being 3 or 4 years.
At this point political conservatives would finger a bloated government sector. But the share of government to private sector worker moves within a tight band. Granted, in the Thatcher/Regan era, the government workforce downtrend began. But rates remain much as they were then, in a now austere era.
Maybe with more of us working, we're working less. But a trend can't be found here either. Again recent events are anomalous, but the forty hour working week has not bounced out of trend. At least in working memory.
High workforce participation says more about what we are gainfully being employed to do. Technological advances have made our work lives more complex. Ironically computers have freed us from simple tasks, but we've found ways to do other more granular activities. Some would argue that its our inventions in efficiency that is the reason that more of us are working.
No comments:
Post a Comment