Unemployment down, but where's the growth?

More people are in work, but things aren't necessarily better

Some more good news from the labour market figures this month. Unemployment was down 0.2 per cent or 51,000 people quarter on quarter, while employment was up 0.3 per cent or 133,000. The fabled "rebalancing" appears to finally be upon us, with public sector employment shrinking by 39,000 but amply being made up for by an increase of 205,000 in the private sector.

Even some of the nasties that have been present in the last two month's data are gone now. The number of people working full-time finally rose by 82,000, matching a continued increase in the number of people working part-time (up 83,000). Similarly, the number of people temping against their will fell slightly, with 5,000 fewer people working temporary jobs because they couldn't find permanent work.

Underemployment is still growing overall, though. Another 25,000 people are now working part-time because they can't find full-time work. But overall, the labour figures are surprisingly positive.

I say surprisingly, because they certainly seem to conflict with the reports from the wider economy. We have had two straight quarters of negative growth, and are widely expected to be in the midst of a third (the pre-spinning began even before the quarter did, with the Jubilee Weekend being blamed). So how can we have a strong labour market?

Some commentators are using the unemployment data to cast doubt on the GDP data, but that is largely clutching at straws. It's long been known that the two can diverge quite seriously – witness, for example, the American situtation, where the unemployment rate has fallen by almost 2 per cent since November 2009 with growth which (while good in comparison to the UK) is less than the fall would suggest – and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that we are experiencing a growthless recovery.

The simplest way for the two to head in seperate directions is a fall in labour productivity. This is the measure, basically, of how much is made in one hour of work by one person; although it does count literally how hard people work, it is affected far more by technology and workplace innovations. The last data release, for the fourth quarter of 2011, showed productivity falling by 0.7 per cent, and it would be unsurprising if we saw further falls for the first and second quarters of 2012.

The economic story for falling productivity in a recession is simple and relatively intuitive. When times are hard, employers are less likely to spend money on training, tools, repairs to machinery, and so on; all the sort of things which let an employee work harder and smarter. This is compounded by the fact that labour is relatively sticky; while a business doing well will spend on hiring and productivity improvements, a business doing badly is far less likely to fire their employees than they are to cut back on productivity-boosting spending. Simply put, recessions lead to drops in productivity (source):

So it is absolutely possible to be in the situation we are now, with falling unemployment and a contracting economy. It's just not entirely pleasant.

Chris Grayling, Minister for Work and Pensions, and Chris Grayling, Minister for Work and Pension. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Is anyone prepared to solve the NHS funding crisis?

As long as the political taboo on raising taxes endures, the service will be in financial peril. 

It has long been clear that the NHS is in financial ill-health. But today's figures, conveniently delayed until after the Conservative conference, are still stunningly bad. The service ran a deficit of £930m between April and June (greater than the £820m recorded for the whole of the 2014/15 financial year) and is on course for a shortfall of at least £2bn this year - its worst position for a generation. 

Though often described as having been shielded from austerity, owing to its ring-fenced budget, the NHS is enduring the toughest spending settlement in its history. Since 1950, health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 4 per cent, but over the last parliament it rose by just 0.5 per cent. An ageing population, rising treatment costs and the social care crisis all mean that the NHS has to run merely to stand still. The Tories have pledged to provide £10bn more for the service but this still leaves £20bn of efficiency savings required. 

Speculation is now turning to whether George Osborne will provide an emergency injection of funds in the Autumn Statement on 25 November. But the long-term question is whether anyone is prepared to offer a sustainable solution to the crisis. Health experts argue that only a rise in general taxation (income tax, VAT, national insurance), patient charges or a hypothecated "health tax" will secure the future of a universal, high-quality service. But the political taboo against increasing taxes on all but the richest means no politician has ventured into this territory. Shadow health secretary Heidi Alexander has today called for the government to "find money urgently to get through the coming winter months". But the bigger question is whether, under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour is prepared to go beyond sticking-plaster solutions. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.