The latest labour market figures cover the period May to July 2009, and show that:
All |
Up to 6 months |
All over 6 months |
|
Level, Mar-May 2008 |
1,604,000 |
947,000 |
657,000 |
Level, May-Jul 2009 |
2,437,000 |
1,396,000 |
1,041,000 |
Increase |
833,000 |
449,000 |
384,000 |
Proportional increase (%) |
51.9 |
47.4 |
58.4 |
The TUC has argued that we cannot claim the recession is over until unemployment starts to fall, and that this does not seem likely to happen soon. On the same day as this month's employment figures were released, the OECD published the 2009 edition of the Employment Outlook. This provides very authoritative support for our view, arguing that 'the early stages of the economic recovery are likely to be too muted to result in strong job creation'. The OECD expects UK unemployment to continue rising for some months and to 'remain at a high level' for the whole of next year.
Just as importantly, the Employment Outlook will be embarrassing for commentators and politicians who have claimed that this country has fared far worse than other industrialised democracies. The OECD points out that the UK's increase in unemployment is 'nearly identical to the average rise for the OECD area' and is less marked than in 'other countries where the banking and housing sectors also suffered strong reversals, in particular, Spain, Ireland and the United States.' The OECD refers explicitly to the Future Jobs Fund as an example of an 'encouraging' trend in which OECD governments have 'moved more forcefully to reinforce re-employment assistance for job seekers than in earlier recessions.'
(For more on the Employment Outlook, see Tim Page's entry on the Touchstone blog)
The Employment Outlook criticises the growth in the proportion of working age people on disability benefits in the UK, but the period they consider - 1990 to 2007 - includes a period before the current government was elected, when people out of work were encouraged to claim Invalidity Benefit to keep the claimant count figures as low as possible.
In fact, the criticisms of the Government under this heading are unfair. The Government is sometimes criticised for the numbers on Employment and Support Allowance (what used to be known as Incapacity Benefit), sometimes for the number of people who are economically inactive; both these criticisms rely on mistakes.
It is true that, over the past twelve years, the number of working age people who are classed as 'economically inactive' has risen, from 7,615,000 in March-May 1997, to 7,986 in May - July 2009. This is the result of the huge increase in that period in the number of people who were economically inactive because they were students: the numbers rose steadily, from 1,417,000 in Mar-May 1997, to 2,134,000 in May - July 2009.
The number of people who are economically inactive because they are long-term sick - the commonest criticism of the government - has actually fallen significantly.
LFS data
In terms of economic performance, the number of economically inactive people is much less important than the number of economically inactive people who want a job. Again, the government has a strong story to tell; although there has been some increase in this figure in recent years, it is still below the level the government inherited in 1997.
LFS data
The government is frequently criticised for the fact that there are well over two million people of working age claiming benefits for incapacity. In fact, the number of claimants has been falling since it peaked at 2.78m in November 2003, reaching 2,427,820 in February of this year:
LFS data
In the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s, the then governments attempted to hide the true extent of unemployment by encouraging as many people as possible to claim Invalidity Benefit. This created difficulties in later years when governments of both parties needed to reduce the level of long-term worklessness because it is harder to help people back to work from economic inactivity than from unemployment. The government deserves more credit for the fact that it has resisted the temptation to do the same during the current recession. As the chart below shows, the claimant count has risen sharply but there is no sign of workless people being pushed on to other benefits:
LFS data
ILO unemployment rates by previous occupation, Q2 2001 - Q2 2009
Employment (Labour Force Survey, April - June 2009) and claimant count (July 2009) levels by occupation
Occupation |
In work[ii] (April - June 2009) |
Claimant count (July 2009)[iii] |
Proportion of total workforce claiming JSA[iv] |
Elementary Administration |
215,214 |
124,930 |
37% |
Elementary Process Plant |
206,085 |
89,190 |
30% |
Elementary Goods Storage |
361,168 |
88,530 |
20% |
Mobile Machine Drivers & Operatives |
149,178 |
27,095 |
15% |
Administrative Occupations: General |
637,885 |
105,775 |
14% |
Building Trades |
233,432 |
33,865 |
13% |
Sales Assistants and Cashiers |
1,531,329 |
202,385 |
12% |
Construction Operatives |
142,223 |
18,530 |
12% |
Assemblers and Routine Operatives |
248,389 |
28,635 |
10% |
Metal Forming and Welding |
130,913 |
12,900 |
9% |
It is not possible to determine whether those occupations with high proportions of unemployed workers are those where workers have a high risk of not being able to leave unemployment - in many elementary occupations it may be that the occupations claimants are seeking differ from those they were previously undertaking, and there will be variation in the numbers of vacancies available in each occupation. But the analysis does show that the risks of experiencing unemployment are extremely high for workers in some elementary occupational groups.
There is no doubt that those in professional jobs have also been affected by the recession, and although the incidence of unemployment among many professionals before the recession was low, some groups have experienced some of the largest proportional rises in claimant unemployment. For example, architects have seen a 649 per cent increase in claimant unemployment, quantity surveyors a 462 per cent increase and taxation experts a 411 per cent increase. But the actual numbers have been relatively low. Our analysis shows that in total the 25 occupations that have seen the largest proportional rises in claimant numbers only account for 5 per cent of the total number of new claimants over the year.[v]
In this section of the Report we look at trends in the relative value of benefits for unemployed people over the past thirty years. Today, Jobseeker's Allowance for a single person is worth 10% of average earnings. This is less than in the 1980s and 1990s recessions. Furthermore, UK benefits for unemployed people are low by international standards.
There is briad consensus that the benefit system should help unemployed workers in two ways. Jobseeker's Allowance should ameliorate poverty but it should also cushion families from a large drop in incomes.
Workers take on responsibilities that demand a certain level of resources - such as mortgages, loans and regular activities for children and other family members. A sudden drop in income, can leave unemployed people immediately unable to meet these obligations. Benefits for unemployment should shelter people who have just lost their jobs from this experience, at least for an initial period.
The system can only offer this protection if the level of income it guarantees does not become too detached from the norms set by wages and salaries.
The TUC has analysed increases in average earnings and rates of unemployment benefits since 1970 (the first year that average weekly earnings data is available for men and women). This analysis reveals a steady decline in the value of benefits relative to earnings:
Date |
Weekly out-of-work benefit rate |
Weekly Average Earnings |
Benefits as proportion of earnings |
1970 |
£5.00 |
£26.10 |
19% |
1973 |
£6.75 |
£36.40 |
19% |
1976 |
£11.10 |
£64.20 |
17% |
1979 |
£15.75 |
£89.60 |
18% |
1982 |
£22.50 |
£136.50 |
16% |
1985 |
£28.45 |
£171.00 |
17% |
1988 |
£32.75 |
£218.40 |
15% |
1991 |
£41.40 |
£284.70 |
15% |
1994 |
£45.45 |
£325.70 |
14% |
1997 |
£49.15 |
£373.90 |
13% |
2000 |
£52.20 |
£426.70 |
12% |
2003 |
£54.65 |
£489.20 |
11% |
2006 |
£57.45 |
£536.80 |
11% |
2008 |
£60.50 |
£576.80 |
10% |
This country's main benefit for unemployed people is Jobseeker's Allowance. The current rate for a single person aged over 25 is £64.30 a week (£50.95 a week if you are aged under 25.)
One objection to these figures would be to point to other benefits unemployed people can claim. When these are taken into account, the proportion of average earnings that benefits represent is higher, but UK benefits remain comparatively low.
The following tables were taken from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's 'Tax -Benefit calculator' (which can be accessed online[vi]). Each table in this report shows the net replacement rate[vii] for a different family type, in 2007.[viii] We have limited our choice to some countries the UK is commonly compared to, and in each case assumed one worker, earning the average wage.
Replacement rates for single person with no children, 2007
Country |
Replacement rate |
Australia |
31.3% |
Canada |
63.6% |
Denmark |
61.4% |
France |
66.5% |
Germany |
59.4% |
Ireland |
55.3% |
Italy |
61.6% |
Japan |
53.8% |
Netherlands |
73.1% |
UK |
40.2% |
USA |
55.8% |
Replacement rates for married couple with no children, 2007
Country |
Replacement rate |
Australia |
27.4% |
Canada |
66.0% |
Denmark |
63.0% |
France |
66.4% |
Germany |
59.0% |
Ireland |
73.7% |
Italy |
63.1% |
Japan |
52.8% |
Netherlands |
74.1% |
UK |
40.2% |
USA |
56.1% |
Replacement rates for single person with two children, 2007
Country |
Replacement rate |
Australia |
52.2% |
Canada |
75.9% |
Denmark |
75.9% |
France |
69.4% |
Germany |
68.5% |
Ireland |
64.4% |
Italy |
72.0% |
Japan |
53.4% |
Netherlands |
72.4% |
UK |
59.3% |
USA |
53.6% |
Replacement rates for married couple with two children, 2007
Country |
Replacement rate |
Australia |
61.1% |
Canada |
77.2% |
Denmark |
73.2% |
France |
68.9% |
Germany |
71.6% |
Ireland |
81.6% |
Italy |
70.0% |
Japan |
60.4% |
Netherlands |
70.0% |
UK |
66.0% |
USA |
54.9% |
Our focus here is on the value of benefits for unemployed people relative to income in employment, but there is also a debate about whether benefit levels are adequate to prevent deprivation and ill health. In the 1990s, the then Department for Social Security argued that 'the current Income Support rates are not the result of any single calculation or historic set of rules'[ix] and successive governments have refused to adopt objective criteria by which the adequacy of benefit rates could be judged.
Other organisations have attempted to fill this gap. In 2000, a report from researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine estimated the cost of a healthy diet, home and other necessities for a healthy, single, working man aged 18 - 30. The minimum cost (in April 1999 prices) was £131.86 a week. At the time, the relevant rates of Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance were £40.70 for young people and £51.40 for over 25s.[x]
Using the official Expenditure and Food Survey, Peter Kenway has compared[xi] JSA with the amount of money people actually spend. People in the poorest fifth of the population actually spend twice the amount provided for by JSA - over £150 a week.
Average weekly expenditure for a single adult in the poorest fifth of households, 2007
Areas of weekly expenditure |
Cost |
Food & non-alcoholic drinks |
£18.60 |
Alcoholic drinks, tobacco & narcotics |
£6.10 |
Clothing & footwear |
£5.20 |
Fuel, power and housing related |
£39.30 |
Household goods & services |
£8.80 |
Health |
£1.10 |
Transport |
£13.60 |
Communication |
£5.60 |
Recreation, culture, hotels and restaurants, miscellaneous goods and services and other expenditure |
£52.00 |
Total |
£150.30 |
As he points out, even if we exclude the final line, that standard would require £98 a week.
Kenway also notes that the Government's child poverty target indicates a possible relative standard: 60 per cent of median equivalised household income. In 2007/8, this was £158 for a single person with no children[xii] - more than twice the level of Jobseeker's Allowance. Kenway also points out that JSA for a single person is half the equivalent rate for Pension Credit (£130) and two-thirds of Retirement Pension (£95.25).
Over the past 30 years, there have been many changes to benefits for unemployed people, nearly all of which have either reduced the amount of benefit paid or the number of people who qualify for it.[xiii]
The most important explanation for current JSA rates, however, is to be found in policy on uprating (raising benefits to take account of increases in prices and wages).
In the 1970s, benefits like Unemployment Benefit were increased in line with increases in prices or increases in inflation, whichever was higher. Peter Kenway notes that, although there was no official policy before then, over time, UB increases roughly matched increases in earnings.[xiv]
The effect of such a policy is to hold back the growth of inequality. When benefits rise at roughly the same rate as wages, families that rely on benefits for most of their income will remain in roughly the same position vis-à-vis families whose income mostly comes from earnings. But when wages rise faster than benefits, the families living on benefits will fall further and further behind those in employment.
The big change in benefits uprating came in 1980 when a new policy was introduced: only raising benefits in line with increases in prices. In 1982, the government stopped using the Retail Price Index and began using the 'Rossi index',[xv] which excludes most housing costs.
Since then, the average wage has grown by about 1.6 per cent a year more than prices; this does not sound like a huge difference but, over time, compound interest has guaranteed a large decline in the relative value of benefits for unemployed people. As Peter Kenway points out, the real value of these benefits is about the same now as it was then, but average consumption has roughly doubled.[xvi]
In 1980, the uprating policy was changed. If benefits for unemployed people had been increased in line with earnings over the last 30 years, JSA for a single person over 25 would not be £64.30; it would be worth over £100 a week.
If the new Government elected in 1997 had reversed this policy and reintroduced uprating in line with earnings JSA would now be worth more than £75 a week - over £10 more.
That is why the TUC is renewing its call for an increase in JSA to at least £75 a week, to provide more of a cushion for the newly unemployed.
Notes
[i] When referring to the total number of people claiming JSA for each occupation we have used data for 'usual occupation'.
[ii] The data include all employees in full or part-time work or self-employed.
[iii] The claimant count is disaggregated by the 'usual' occupation of claimants.
[iv] The base for this calculation is the total claimant count + the total number of employees in each occupation.
[v] Although there may be higher rates of underclaiming of JSA among professional groups, who may have higher household incomes and be less likely to qualify for income based JSA, this variation will not account for the very large discrepancies in claimant levels between many elementary and professional jobs.
[vi] At http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_34637_39717906_1_1_1_1,00.html
[vii] The replacement rate is a family's net out of work income as a percentage of net in work income.
[viii] 2007 is the most recent year we have results for.
[ix] DSS (1994) Response to [OECD] Social Assistance Official Questionnaire, London: DSS.
[x] Morris J N, Donkin A J M, Wonderling D, Wilkinson P and Dowler E A (2000) 'A Minimum Income for Healthy Living', Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 54, pp885-889.
[xi] Kenway P (April 2009) Should Adult Benefit for Unemployment Now Be Raised? York: JRF. This publication is available to download at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/benefits-unemployment-poverty.pdf
[xii] DWP, Households Below Average Income 1994/95-2007/08, DWP, table 2.3, available at http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2008/chapters.asp
[xiii] The most important was the abolition of Unemployment Benefit and its replacement by Jobseeker's Allowance in 1996. There is a very good list of changes in the first appendix of Jones K (2003) Unemployment Benefits in the United Kingdom, Seoul: Korea Labor Institute.
[xiv] Kenway P, ibid. p 13.
[xv] This is not an abbreviation; the Minister of State at the time was Sir Hugh Rossi.
[xvi] Kenway, ibid.
Want to hear about our latest news and blogs?
Sign up now to get it straight to your inbox
To access the admin area, you will need to setup two-factor authentication (TFA).