As a result of the Coalition's policies, unemployment will remain at a very high level and around 1 million people who want to work full-time will remain stuck in part-time jobs.
George Osborne claimed in a speech yesterday that: “Employment is growing at the fastest pace for over a decade, confounding predictions that the economy cannot generate private sector jobs”.
In aggregate terms, this is true – in fact it could even be said to undersell the real situation. Employment in the latest three months (April to June) was 184,000 higher than in the previous three months. That is the biggest quarterly gain since 1989.
But the Chancellor failed to point out that somewhat less than half the increase in employment, 68,000, was accounted for by full-time employment, while part-time employment increased by 115,000. The gain in full-time employment is welcome, but not particularly noteworthy – larger increases were being recorded little more than two years ago. It is also, perhaps, not surprising given the number of jobs that were lost over the preceding two years.
This would not matter if people were choosing to work part-time, but this does not appear to be the case. Since the end of 2007 the number of part-time workers in the UK (excluding those on temporary contracts) has increased by 324,000.
But the number saying that they are working part-time because they cannot find full-time employment has gone up by 347,000, while those working part-time because they do not want full-time employment is virtually unchanged (up 3,000 – the numbers do not total because there are also people recorded as working part-time because they are disabled or students).
And, while he was fulsome in his praise for the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Chancellor also failed to mention its forecast that, as a result of public spending cuts and job losses in the government sector, employment levels in the UK will still be close to current levels in April 2012. This suggests that the present rate of private sector employment growth will not be sustained.
In other words, the private sector is not currently generating enough of the full-time jobs that people want and it is unlikely to do so over the next 18 months. As a result, unemployment will remain at a very high level and around 1 million people who want to work full-time will remain stuck in part-time jobs.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
11 Responses to “Part-time jobs are no substitute for full-time employment”
DrKMJ
Part-time jobs are no substitute for full-time employment: http://bit.ly/alIjjR #ConDemNation #FalseEconomy via @leftfootfwd
Northern TUC
RT @leftfootfwd: Part-time jobs are no substitute for full-time employment: http://bit.ly/alIjjR #ConDemNation #FalseEconomy
Ash
“George Osborne claimed in a speech yesterday that: “Employment is growing at the fastest pace for over a decade, confounding predictions that the economy cannot generate private sector jobs”.”
So let’s see if I’ve got this right, George – Labour’s policies aimed at getting people into work and promoting economic growth have been a roaring success so far, confounding all predictions, so the thing to do is scrap all those policies without further ado on the assumption that the private sector will do just as well without any pesky government assistance. Hmm – let me know how that works out for you.
Kevin
One other thing the statistics do not take into account is how many of these “new” part time jobs are indeed second jobs taken by people needing to earn extra money because their partner has lost their job?
Mr. Sensible
Ash you took the words right out my mouth or, should I say, off my keyboard!
🙂
I was just going to say that those employment figures are for just before the Emergency Budget.
I have to say the picture painted by economists is more pecimistic than the one painted by Osborne.
I know I keep talking about it but, remember that slide that the Guardian got hold of?