The claim that migrants are disproportionately accessing jobs in Britain compared to workers of UK nationality is based on a simple misreading of the statistics.
Yesterday’s monthly labour market statistics (pdf) from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) were bad news; not disastrous, but bad enough to spark serious concerns about the direction of the UK labour market.
They were particularly disappointing because the previous month’s figures (pdf) had shown what looked like a promising fall in unemployment: the working age unemployment rate had fallen to 7.8%, the first time it had moved outside the range 7.9-8.1% since the spring of 2009.
In contrast the figures for March-May showed the working age unemployment rate rising back to 7.9%.
The very slight numerical fall in unemployment which dominated yesterday’s headlines can be discounted; what is important is the return of the unemployment rate to its earlier value, which means unemployment in the UK has essentially been oscillating around 8% for the last two years.
To avoid confusion, this is the unemployment rate for those aged 16-64: ONS also reports the unemployment rate for all economically active people over 16, which is slightly lower, and to add to the confusion, Eurostat uses a different base again- see below.
To see why this stability of the unemployment rate is worrying, Graph 1 below shows unemployment from 1971 up to yesterday’s figures. We have to go back to the mid 1980s to find a period when unemployment rose and then stabilised at its higher rate for a comparable length of time.
As of the present moment, unemployment in the UK looks frozen: we have yet to see any sign of a downward trajectory.
Graph 1:
This should be a source of concern, not grounds for apocalyptic prophecies. Every recession is different and it remains the case that unemployment rose much less during this recession than was widely expected given the collapse in output.
This month’s downturn may just turn out to be a blip in the downward trend we have been waiting for. But the absence of any real signs of labour market recovery in the UK contrasts with the picture in a number of comparable economies.
The figures in Graph 2 below from Eurostat, which run from June 2010 to April this year, show that the stability of UK unemployment is not a general pheneomenon across wealthy economies. (Note that the population base is different for these figures).
Graph 2:
There were other worrying signals in yesterday’s figures. It is striking that while male unemployment is far lower now than in the early 1990s, at 6.3% compared to a peak of 10.7% in late 1993, female unemployment at 6.1% is only one percentage point lower than it was then.
The long term unemployment rate (24 months or more) has more than doubled since the summer of 2008 and has shown a particularly sharp upward trajectory over the last year. Flows on to Jobseeker’s Allowance have substantially exceeded off-flows since March, in contrast with most months last year.
With all of these negatives to focus on in yesterday’s figures, what did the Daily Mail choose to highlight?
‘Iain Duncan Smith was RIGHT: Foreign workers took three in four new jobs in Britain in the last year’
– Number of foreign men and women in work soars by 334,000 to over 4 million
– British-born workers finding employment in same period rose by only 77,000
Now anyone reading this might be under the impression that only 77,000 ‘British-born’ workers got a job last year, compared to 334,000 ‘foreign workers’. So it’s worth pointing out that even with unemployment remaining stable, some four million people left the claimant count last year, most of them for jobs, and they represent only a fraction of people moving from unemployment into work.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch UK, said:
“It is impossible to look at these figures which show a substantially greater increase in the foreign-born workforce than in the British-born workforce without deducing that there has been a significant impact on the prospects for British workers.
“There is no point in being in denial about this.”
In fact, it is perfectly possible to look at the figures without leaping to any such deduction, and without being ‘in denial’. Table 1 below shows why.
It doesn’t cover the same period as yesterday’s figures because ONS haven’t published the relevant data yet, but it illustrates the importance of a factor which rarely gets mentioned in these contexts, which is economic activity – basically, whether people are in the labour market or not.
Between 2009 and 2010 there was virtually no change in aggregate working age employment – along with a huge amount of turnover within this stable total, as we have seen – but for UK nationals of working age total employment fell by nearly 50,00 and non-UK nationals’ employment increased by 45,000.
Was this because migrants were crowding UK workers out of jobs? Hardly, because economic activity among UK nationals fell 42,000 over the same period. In fact, the change in the balance of UK national and non-UK national employment pretty much corresponded to the change in the numbers of economically active people in each group.
Table 1:
The claim that migrants are disproportionately accessing jobs in the UK labour market compared to workers of UK nationality is based on a simple misreading of the statistics.
Nonetheless, the combination of a stagnant labour market and commentators eager to voice their know-nothing insights at every available opportunity means we can expect to hear these claims with numbing regularity for some time to come, every time the monthly labour market statistics are released.
59 Responses to “The bad news in yesterday’s employment stats (and it’s not about migration)”
Ed's Talking Balls
Nothing remotely resembling a rant in my comment. Quite a bit of issue-avoidance and obfuscation in your responses, however.
I see you’ve heeded my advice to carry on in your haughty manner. Good to see that something at least can permeate that thick skull of yours.
Anon E Mouse
scandalousbill – We are not discussing ex-pats fella and nor do I remember any riots caused by Brits abroad.
What’s your answer to the question though: As Labour’s Jack Straw effectively articulated it is not possible to have a conversation with a woman forced to wear a death shroud burqa by her misogynistic husband which results in fragmentation of the community.
Isn’t that a destruction of community cohesion being unable to speak to a woman who lives locally or even know what she looks like?
Go on….
Leon Wolfson
Again, the haters are ignoring our very low percentage of immigrants, are insisting on using absolute figures rather than percentages of employment, are ignoring my proposal for targeted funding, are ignoring the OBR’s point that immigrants are economically positive and the Tory’s exclusion of many skilled workers, hence hitting the economy…
None of this is new. It’s wilful blindness, where the xenophobia is all that matter. Immigrants, ‘stealing OUR JOBS. *Sigh*
Anon E Mouse
Leon Wolfson – Third time you have misrepresented my position today in a typical Labour style smear attempt.
I suppose since you actually voted for Gordon Brown I shouldn’t be surprised.
Please tell me why stating a fact that of the 1.7 million jobs taken, 98% went to non UK Nationals is displaying any hatred whatsoever. From an open mouth into a closed mind I believe it’s called.
It is just stating a fact. The only person not stating facts and lying in a public forum is yourself as you continue to make comments about things I haven’t said.
My comment was that “hostility” (as you see it) is NOT the reason like minded people live together. And it’s not as you well know…
Leon Wolfson
Of course your kind of bigotry and hatred, and the licence which it gives like-minded individuals with less personal restraint drives communities to live closely together, far more than would otherwise be the case.
I have experienced this, personally. I KNOW you’re a xenophobe who keeps on trying to put words I didn’t speak in my mouth in a typical far-right style.
You are, as usual, misusing a figure to justify yourself. The figure you quote comes from an incorrect headline and you are using a figure of the number jobs which have been added, overall, to the economy and claiming that these are the jobs “taken” (i.e. advertised and recruited).
Realistically, in 2007 the percentage jobs worked of foreign nationals was 7.4%. Because you’re conflating the figures for foreign-born British nationals into your figures, among other errors. This is very low, just as our percentage of immigrants is low. But that won’t stop the hate.