Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I wonder why they never mention one of these two studies?

Inactivity, Sickness and Unemployment in Great Britain: Early Analysis at the Level of Local Authorities
(Oct. 2003, pdf-file)

Great Britain (GB) has almost five times more working age sickness & incapacity benefit claimants than 3 decades ago - though (nationally) most health indicators have improved, and many claimants would prefer to work. The increase is unmatched in other European Union (EU) states and is concentrated among older, unskilled men in areas of high unemployment. GB also has a higher composite rate of unemployment and inactive sickness than either France or Germany.
There is evidence that the relatively low ILO unemployment rate in the United Kingdom (UK) results in part from misclassification of some unemployed persons as long-term sick or disabled. True long-term joblessness in the UK is relatively high - suggesting that more appropriate benefit structures could be used to reduce inactivity.

The Diversion From `Unemployment' To `Sickness' Across British Regions And Districts
(April 2004, pdf-file)

This article explores what is probably the largest single distortion to the data - the diversion from unemployment to sickness benefits. In particular, the article presents new and up-to-date estimates of the scale of the diversion and, for the first time in a journal article, provides estimates of the size of the diversion in every region and district of Great Britain.
The other measure of unemployment (and officially the preferred one, even though it is less often quoted) is the ILO measure derived from the Labour Force Survey. This uses the International Labour Organisation definition of unemployment which counts anyone who is out of work and wants a job, is available to start in the next two weeks, and has looked for work in the last four weeks. The ILO definition produces unemployment figures for Britain as a whole that in the last three or four years have been around half a million higher than the claimant count. In theory the ILO measure of unemployment is independent of benefit rules. In practice, because there is no requirement for IB claimants to look for work and because many think that they would not find suitable work, most IB claimants do not look for work. They therefore fail one of the ILO unemployment tests and drop out of the ILO unemployment figures as well as the claimant count.
Table 3 also shows the numbers estimated to be part of this diversion. Across Britain as a whole it is estimated that 1,130,000 people have been diverted from unemployment to sickness benefits - 650,000 men and 470,000 women. For comparison, total claimant unemployment across Britain at the same time (August 2003) stood at just 911,000. The comparison is illuminating: it suggests that Britain has more `hidden' unemployed among sickness claimants than `visible' unemployed on the claimant count.

Or did they change the laws and regulations in the meantime? I couldn´t find anything about it. Only that the latest OECD report about that topic mentioned higher than average numbers of sickness claimants too.
If true, these reports would suggest that "real" British unemployment rates aren´t that different from France or Germany.

By the way, Jerome, don´t take them so seriously. Bad for your blood pressure. :)
But what were they to do? After collectively (FT, NYT, Economist) deciding this year that maybe Germany isn´t the sick man of Europe any longer, they naturally needed a new one to feel superior. Preferably "Old Europe", Eurozone member. Not a member of the "coalition of the willing" a bonus. And that would be France if you want to choose one of the larger EU countries.

by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Thu Apr 19th, 2007 at 08:39:14 AM EST
If you look at employment ratios for the UK and France they are not that different:

France has a higher employment-to-population ratio for 25-54 year olds than does the US.

by TGeraghty on Thu Apr 19th, 2007 at 11:59:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The young and the old are not working enough?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Apr 19th, 2007 at 12:48:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They say that, but the young and the old being less likely to have employment is fairly typical.  I don't follow why that's so shocking to a lot of these reporters.  Most people under twenty five are either in school or just entering the labor market.  They're unskilled, relative to older workers, so they're not as highly demanded.  Older workers see less employment for various reasons.  Maybe they retire early in one case, or they're too expensive compared with the cost of paying and training the young in another case, or perhaps they're discriminated against in another case.  Whatever the reason, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

From what I've read, the status of older workers is changing a bit, too.  A lot of companies have been making noise in recent years about prefering older workers in the states because of the difference in skills and attitude, which makes sense to me, based on my experience.  I do find that the two groups have a different mentality in many cases.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Apr 19th, 2007 at 02:16:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hissing! :)

That´s exactly my point! Obviously France, Germany etc. have an unemployment problem. I´m simply saying that countries like the UK and the USA, our "examples" according to the "FT", "The Economist" etc. have the exact same problem too.

The UK apparently masks it with "sickness/disability" benefits. The USA partly hides it with their prison population and the size of their armed forces. Not to mention the fact that European welfare states will support you much longer than any US program. You just have to register (as unemployed) for it.

And just to mention it.

There was an article in the NYT Germany's Export-Led Economy Finds Global Niche about the new "German economic wonder" on April 13, 2007. Curiously enough, that article mentioned an unemployment rate of 9.8% in their article. The author however didn´t mention at all that he used "German national" unemployment rates instead of the more comparable ILO unemployment rates.

Of course I complained to him.
Guess what he wrote back?

I used the German unemployment figure because that's what drives the perception of Germany's economic health within the country. The fact that it recently fell below double digits was greeted as a minor milestone.

Not even mentioning the fact that he was primarily writing for an American newspaper. How many Germans read the NYT? Why use a German number while writing for a primarily American newspaper?

But you are right that I should have included a brief explanation of the differences in definition, and perhaps cited the ILO/OECD number as well. I've done this in other stories when I've compared German unemployment to that in other countries. In those cases, I've used the ILO number for an apples-to-apples comparison.

He should have. I fail to see however why use of ILO numbers in former stories excuse him. Unless he expects that NYT readers are a static mass, reading every single story the NYT produces for months on end.

by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Thu Apr 19th, 2007 at 07:50:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is employment 88% (25-54 years old) in Sweden now?!

No wonder there is a lot of jobs. Guess the Nordic model is still going strong.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Apr 20th, 2007 at 12:56:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For a discussion of this, based on other evidence (I wish I'd found yours at the time!), see this diary.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Apr 19th, 2007 at 12:54:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series