People are trapped outside our labour market, and it's hurting our economy

The IEA's Philip Booth examines how the economy is shrinking even with a strong labour market.

Employment minister Chris Grayling might be going on holiday pretty chuffed with himself after the latest employment figures. On the other hand, a lot of other ministers have much to think about as they prepare to sun themselves.

How do we reconcile booming private sector employment with a flat economy? The obvious answer is that productivity is falling. The fact that real wages are falling suggests that this may be true. But why? There are several possible explanations, none of which are mutually exclusive.

  1. Policy uncertainty in the eurozone – and to some extent in the UK – is leading companies to sit on piles of cash instead of investing.
  2. Fewer companies at the margins of profitability are going bust because interest rates are very low and because of forbearance.
  3. The government is spending ten percentage points more of national income than ten years ago. All the evidence suggests that this will lower the growth rate by about one percentage point.
  4. A recent article in the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin suggested that it was the energy and financial sectors that have particularly sluggish productivity. One reason is declining output in the North Sea. The other reasons are entirely policy induced. It would be difficult to imagine how the government could design a "green" policy that involved reducing carbon emissions at greater cost than the current policy. If I were a "green" economist, I would be livid. The government has designed policy that leads either to less CO2 reduction for a given cost or a higher cost of a given CO2 reduction. All those solar panels really do have very little – or negative – value. In financial services, the government has chosen to impose higher capital and liquidity requirements on banks to try to reduce the risk of financial crises. This lowers the productivity of the financial sector – there will be fewer loans to businesses and individuals for a given capital base. This is a policy choice and the government could choose differently. Its policy is not irrational, but it should understand the consequences.
  5. Our appalling tax and welfare system puts in place huge marginal rates of tax and benefit withdrawal, especially for full-time workers with families. Why train, or search for another job with higher pay if an adequate one can be found quickly? Government policy has made search, promotion, training etc a waste of time.
  6. The same system has probably encouraged people to take pay cuts and thus encouraged labour hoarding in the recession. If somebody gets a £1 pay cut, most of this will be returned to the person taking the pay cut through increased benefits and reduced taxes.

Policies 4 and 6 have certain benefits in a recession. In a sense, the government is providing a generalised job subsidy to families with children. This keeps people in touch with the labour market. However, the long-term consequences could be dire.

The other thing that is deeply worrying is the level of long-term unemployment. Many people are losing touch with the labour market and staying unemployed for long periods. Our labour market is looking more like the French labour market with people trapped outside it. Nearly 500,000 people have been unemployed for over two years.

This is a tragedy and government policy may be responsible. Imagine somebody on the minimum wage of about £6 per hour whose productivity just about justifies this wage. They lose their job. Naturally, they are a little less productive in their second choice occupation. They therefore cannot get a job. Their skills then decline further – they are now even further from getting a job. They may be willing to work for a low wage (and the benefits system encourages them to do so), but it is illegal. The government then comes along and tightens maternity and paternity rights; regulates agency workers; imposes the costs of pensions auto-enrolment; increases employees’ national insurance; the list is almost endless. This all makes the worker’s productivity after costs ever-lower than the lowest wage at which it would be legal to employ the person.

I do not have figures for the UK, but in the US only a small proportion of people earning the minimum wage live in families in poverty (most are spouses working part-time, young people in families, and so on). A low wage job is a step on the ladder – nearly two-thirds of minimum wage employees move above that level within a year.

The government is determinedly removing the ladder of employment for many people with predictable results in terms of long-term unemployment.

Employment is buoyant, but poor policy choices are at least partly responsible for a labour market that, on the one hand, has many people trapped outside and, on the other, contains a large number of people who may answer the question "am I better off than five years ago?" with a strong "no" when it comes to the next election.

A French protest against unemployment. Coming to the UK soon? Photograph: Getty Images

Philip Booth is Editorial and Programme Director at the Institute of Economic Affairs.

 

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.