We need a firm limit on the time we are prepared to tolerate anyone being unemployed

Society should place a firm limit on the amount of time we are prepared to tolerate anyone being unemployed, writes IPPR’s Graeme Cooke.

E-mail-sign-up Donate

 

.

Graeme Cooke is an associate director at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)

Long term unemployment has more than doubled since the start of the recession. As Graph 1 shows, the number of people out of work for more than a year has risen from around 400,000 in 2007 to reach 855,000 in the three months ending in January 2012.

The majority of people who lose their job find another one fairly quickly, even in a recession – but those who suffer a prolonged period of unemployment risk losing touch with the labour market and face permanently reduced work and income prospects, not to mention the detrimental health and social impacts of being without work.

Graph 1:

UK-long-term-unemployed-1995-2012
Tomorrow’s labour market statistics are likely to see the jobless total rising on a quarterly basis for the ninth consecutive month and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predicts the unemployment rate will increase to 8.7 per cent by the end of the summer.

With a total of 2,666,000 people already looking for work, IPPR analysis suggests the unemployment total will rise by a further 100,000 in the coming months. As other respected analysts have shown, this is both unnecessary and damaging – both to individual’s lives and the national economy.

 


See also:

The US has turned a corner in unemployment; can we follow them? 6 Feb 2012

Ignore Osborne’s spin; a jobs recession is inevitable 1 Nov 2011

IMF: Cutting the deficit too fast causes higher unemployment 19 Sep 2011

Labour market weakness continues – while help for long-term unemployed is cut 13 Oct 2010

The questions that George Osborne must answer 17 Nov 2009


 

Based on the OBR projections and current patterns of unemployment flows and durations, IPPR also expects the number of people out of work for a year to go up by a further 107,000 by the end of the year to hit almost a million – 962,000.

This is the ‘hidden crisis’ of the current era of stagnation that the British economy is experiencing.

With the economy likely to just about avoid a double-dip recession, there is no immediate reason to expect the headline unemployment total to spike. But neither is there sufficient growth for unemployment to fall.

In this situation, with the public sector continuing to cut jobs and new job opportunities in the private sector relatively scarce, the penalty for being out of work for longer rises – compounding the original problem.

The big worry is whether, when stronger job growth does return, people who have experienced long term unemployment will be able to take advantage. Our society is still grappling with a disastrous legacy of this kind from the 1980s and 1990s recessions: high levels of worklessness, poverty and benefit spending.

There is already some evidence a similar problem might be being stored up again. Before the recession about one in five unemployed people had been out of work for a year. That proportion is now up to a third (during a period when the denominator in that equation has been rising rapidly).

And while there has rightly been a strong focus on youth unemployment, it is worth noting that more than two-fifths (43 per cent) of the over-50s who are out of work have been unemployed for more than a year.

The government’s response to this problem is its flagship Work Programme. It is too early to tell how effective this policy is being, though there is no obvious dent in the unemployment numbers despite provider contracts being up and running for many months now.

Concerns have already been raised about the likely effectiveness of the Work Programme and even under the best possible performance scenarios, less than half of people going through it will find sustained employment.

So what happens to those who don’t?

At the very least, the government should introduce a job guarantee for those reaching then end of their Work Programme placement without a job, who would at that point have spent three years out of work.

This should provide 25 hours of paid employment, combined with on-going support and job search, which individuals would have to take up or face losing their benefits. It would effectively create a time-limit on JSA.

As we learn more about how well providers are getting on, the debate about the best way to prevent the human and economic tragedy of long term unemployment will sharpen; IPPR believes that while the state, private and charitable sectors all have a vital role in supporting people into work, society should place a firm limit on the amount of time we are prepared to tolerate anyone being unemployed.

 


Sign-up to our weekly email • Donate to Left Foot Forward

49 Responses to “We need a firm limit on the time we are prepared to tolerate anyone being unemployed”

  1. liverpool_poets

    Graeme Cooke @IPPR is also a massive tool for using the word 'tolerate' alongside 'unemployment': http://t.co/uDujOmZe #workfare

  2. Shifting Grounds

    We need a firm limit on the time we are prepared to tolerate anyone being unemployed http://t.co/hVljxEHg @leftfootfwd

  3. Foxy52

    So called progressives advocating time limit for unemployment benefit. http://t.co/Q5Zw5Osx @IPPR @leftfootfwd #workfare #boycottworkfare

  4. Graeme Cooke

    Hello Newsbots9
    I’m not sure you read my article! My argument is about the terrible waste and unnecessary damage done by long tern unemployment – and the fear that the government’s Work Programme won’t be enough in response.
    I think it’s a bit harsh to accuse me of an OUTRIGHT SCAM! My graph refers to the ILO measure of unemployment, but policy necessarily focuses more sharply on those claiming benefit. It wasn’t a very effective OUTRIGHT SCAM seeing as how quickly you spotted it!!
    Anyway, my aim is to put a limit on how long people are on JSA – but through the government stepping in as an employer of last resort (the TUC have done a lot of good thinking about this, among others). Rather than leaving people to live on pretty meagre benefits it would provide people with paid work – stepping in to correct a market failure.
    I like your plan for making better use of the phone and internet for job search
    Cheers, Graeme

  5. liverpool_poets

    Cooke @IPPR, you are a Tool for linking unemployment to damaging the national economy: http://t.co/uDujOmZe Heads Up > http://t.co/9Wt6AJDs

Comments are closed.