European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Some employment numbers

by Jerome a Paris
Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 06:02:17 AM EST

employment rates, selected countries

employment rates of the female population

employment rates of seniors (55-64)

(all USA and Japan numbers for 2004)

And this: public spending per person of all spending for the unemployed, including early retirement programmes

From Le Monde (subscribers only)

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Some employment numbers | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Quick questions (none / 0)

1.) What's the difference between employment rate and empoyment numbers (if there is one)?

2.) For your last graph, is there a way we can look at the numbers but with the retirement programmes excluded? I read that Denmark spends a lot in re-schooling unemployed workers, and I'd be interested to compare that to other countries, as in comparing the "Anglo-Saxon" model vs "Scandinavian" model.

by Nomad on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 06:09:31 AM EST

Re: Quick questions (none / 0)

1) The employment rate is the rate of the number of people working (including, in part time jobs) to the total population of the group considered. In this case, for total employment rates, it is as a ratio of workers in the 15-64 population to the total 15-64 population.

Another metric would be to compare the number of full time-equivalent jobs to the total population: i.e. 2 persons in a half-time job would mean only a 50% "full employment" rate. That would have a significant impact for countries that have a lot of part-time jobs.

2/ No, sorry. Not in that Le Monde article anyway.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 07:12:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok, thanks + more questions... (none / 0)

Would be an interesting exercise (again) to see how the posted graph in employment rate would compare to the full-time equivalent amongst European nations.

This may sound doltish. But if in general it is compulsory to have education until 16-18 years old in the listed countries, why include part of the student population in the age range of 15-64? Why not sample more realistically and start at 18? Or should I stop picking at this and accept things because they are just the way they are...?

Even so, Denmark looks impressive this way. Assuming a 50:50 distribution between men and women, up to 80 percent of the men of total population appears employed...

by Nomad on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 07:37:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok, thanks + more questions... (none / 1)

Why this obsession with full-time employment? If increased productivity allows us to work 30 hours instead of 40, so much the better!

But the total activity rate in hours per week per person (or per active person) is an interesting statistic to look at.

It's just that, like GDP, this only measures the labour that is exchanged for money (I pay you to scratch my back), as opposed to the labout that is traded (mutual back-scratching) or altruistic work (you scratch my back because you're my friend).

So, hours worked per person per week does not really totally measure activity. It just measures taxable activity [to steal a.swedich.kind.of.death's theme].

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 07:44:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not obsessed (none / 0)

But others are... The now resigned Minister of Economic Affairs (Brinkhorst) recently called to reinstate the 40 hours work week for as many as possible. I'd like it even better to compare full employment vs employment rate vs labour productivty vs "taxable activity" for different nations. Or would all of that be nonsense?

by Nomad on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 07:54:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not obsessed (none / 0)

I was not accusing you of being obsessd with it, just pointing out our general "cultural" obsession, as with GDP. Might make for a nice second round of Socratic Economics, but first I have to come up with the proper ironic question to ask.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 08:04:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No harm done (none / 0)

Sorry, I phrased myself wrong. It was clear to me you were thinking out loud.

The first round of Socratic Economics (love the title) went widely over my head, but it sure was educative (for me at least). And it also unearthed Chris's post which is a brilliant starting point.

by Nomad on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 08:30:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No harm done (none / 0)

Chris' Post? Who's Chris?

I'm still trying to come up with an answer to rdf... He's a heavy hitter...

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 08:43:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who's Chris? (none / 0)

Chris Kulczycki's "Let's Ban the GDP"

He hasn't been posting diaries for a while... Shame...

And unless rdf writes about fake food, I just watch with blinking eyes. Come to think of it, I don't think I even responded in those threads. Rats.

by Nomad on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 08:56:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's Chris? (none / 0)

Oh, yeah, I thought it was him.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 08:57:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hours worked (none / 0)

for people in full time jobs, including overtime:

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 08:02:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good stuff (none / 0)

You get the sense that the higher the employment rate, the lower the amount of working hours... Notable exception: Great Britain. Which I don't understand, since I experienced the Brits as very strict on having their lunch breaks and a pub after five. The Earth Sciences department was practically deserted after five.

by Nomad on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 08:37:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good stuff (none / 1)

You're talking academia...

In the real world, UK business leaders convinced the UK government to obtain an exemption from the 48h/wk limit in the relevant European Union directive.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 08:45:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And once again... (none / 1)

Regulation matters.

by Nomad on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 08:58:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok, thanks + more questions... (none / 1)

Even so, Denmark looks impressive this way. Assuming a 50:50 distribution between men and women, up to 80 percent of the men of total population appears employed...

Indeed.

Experts: what accounts for Denmark's statistics? nb: I understand that employment policies are by no means "one-size-fits-all", but might there be valuable, adaptable lessons to be learned from the Danes?
.

by cigonia on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 01:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BTW (none / 0)

I just picked up today's edition of the Dutch NRC Handelsblad - and their monthly magazine is dedicated to the finitiy of the oil/gas reserves. It includes funky graphs and they even attempted to separate the oil and gas distributions and (Russian) pipelines. Of course I've no clue to call foul if they botched it. The tone of the articles is, however, rather different than what I've been hearing the past year.

If you're keen, I could post or send you the graphs and list the experts they interviewed.

by Nomad on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 07:42:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BTW (none / 0)

yes, send over whatever you can. Links if you have, or whatever is available.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 08:03:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I will (none / 0)

It's all paper, so I'll have to scan it. There's one article accessible on their website with the header: "Shortage of Oil expected before 2010".

Second paragraph:

Het probleem is niet dat de olievoorraden opraken, maar dat de olie niet snel genoeg gewonnen kan worden. Zolang geen nieuwe grote olievoorraden gevonden worden, zijn alleen Saoedi-Arabië, Koeweit en de Arabische Emiraten in staat de olieproductie op te voeren.
The problem isn't that oil supplies are running out, but it's because oil can not be extracted fast enough. As long as no new large oil fields are found, only Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are capable to increase oil production.

The rest of this article centers around the book of Matthew Simons, who concluded that the oil fields in Saudi Arabia are in a deplorable condition and will be unable to keep up with increasing demand. (There's a notion I seem to remember you've flagged repeatedly, although you flagged the entire OPEC.)

The notion that more large oil fields will be found and that tarsands could buffer the shortage is debunked at the end of the article.

by Nomad on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 08:49:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some employment numbers (none / 0)

Those statistics illustrate the negative power of Catholicism and the tragedy of Poland.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 06:45:16 AM EST

Re: Some employment numbers (none / 0)

Jerome, tha latest chart is not the cost per unemployed person, but the cost per person of state programs assisting the unemployed (and early retirement which is a way for companies to lay off their workers and have the State pick up the tab).

Putting together those costs per person with the active/inactive/unemployed population statistics we should be able to calculate a cost per inactive/unemployed person, and a cost per active person.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 06:49:51 AM EST

Now corrected (none / 0)

You're right, thanks.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 07:07:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some employment numbers (4.00 / 4)

As usual, you have to be careful about using employment rate. Do you find optimal that 100% of the 15-24 population is working and not in school? What is the optimal retirement age for workers? Did the government insist in sending old workers to retirement?

The population less subject to these questions is the 25-54, hence I usually try to look for statistics on this population when I'm to evaluate some kind of "health" of the economy. And sometimes just male, since as shown below 25-54 female employment rate is rapidly changing.

Pink in France, blue is UK, data from eurostat online database.

Male 25-54 employment rate:

Female 25-54 employment rate:

Total 25-54 employment rate:

15-64 part time workers rate amongst workers:

(only stat available on part time on the OECD site, I'd liked to get the 25-54 rate as well)

The male situation was bad in the UK in 1992, so beware of article showing only progress on the last ten years while ignoring starting positions :).

25-54 male employment rate is more or less stable in France, moving in the 86-88 range. UK is above in recent years, I don't know if 88 is some kind of limit ("real" inactive people and transition from work to work).

25-64 female is going up 0.5/year, France is around 2 below UK (don't know how child bearing is counted). On a continued trend it would take more than 20 years to reach the male rate.

The part time rate difference is not negligible (10 points and stable), interpolating the stupid way (2 part time = one full time) it would make around 4-5 point difference in employment rates (unless all of it is concentrated in the 15-24 population).

Some detailed UK statistics here. I'd love to find something similar in France, especially number of public vs private creations and self-employed in France.

Your analysis?

by Laurent GUERBY on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 09:04:14 AM EST

Re: Some employment numbers (none / 0)

France is around 2[%] below UK (don't know how child bearing is counted).

For what it's worth, I once calculated 5% of fertile-age women are pregnant at any given time...

Assume 2 children per woman [replacement rate].
Assume 9 months of pregnancy per child [mild assumption]
Assume 30 years of fertile life [15 to 45]

2 pregnancies/woman * 9 months/pregnancy / 30 years/woman = 5%

Coincidentally, 30 years is also the length of the 24-54 age period.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 09:12:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some employment numbers (none / 0)

Statistics 101 :).

However my question was about wether a women on pregnancy vacation who had a job before is counted as employed or unemployed.

by Laurent GUERBY on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 01:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some employment numbers (none / 0)

I would count them as inactive, but I don't know what the official statistics say.

However, the point is that each 15/16 weeks of maternity leave could account for 1% of the female population being inactive.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 02:25:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some employment numbers (none / 0)

The inactivity report I cited has some statistics: 25-54 mother of young children (<7 years old) have inactivity rate of 34.7% instead of 22.1% for non mother of young children in the EU-25. In France it's about 28% vs 18%, in UK it's 38 vs 18%.

by Laurent GUERBY on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 02:55:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some employment numbers | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]