Every silver lining has a cloud

In economics, there's nothing fully good.

From the department of counterintuitive findings come two findings showing the downsides of good news.

First up, the Washington Post reports on a new explanation for why it is that people start to die when the economy gets better. For every percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate, there is a 0.004 per cent increase in the number of deaths (a low, but statistically significant amount), which corresponds to about 6,700 dead people.

Suzy Khimm writes:

In a new paper, researchers argue that economic boom times create a scarcity of caregivers in nursing homes, raising the mortality rate through a disproportionately high numbers of deaths among the elderly.

The Center for Retirement Research explains that a strong job market creates “greater scarcity in front-line caregivers in nursing homes, which may cause more deaths among the elderly.” When the overall unemployment rate goes down, for instance, employment declines are particularly noticeable among certified aides and nurses in these facilities.

Meanwhile, in Investors Chronicle, Chris Dillow addresses the upside of a downside (so to speak).

Since 2007, labour productivity has fallen in the UK, meaning that the one hour of work now produces less output than it did five years ago – 3.4 per cent less, to be specific. This is pretty bad news. Historically, a lot of growth has come from population growth. A more populous country can make more stuff than a smaller one, after all. But now that much of the west appears to have a stable population, we need productivity to grow if we are to have any growth at all. If we can't have more people making stuff, we need to have each person making more stuff.

But this prductivity slump isn't entirely bad news:

If the relationship between GDP and employment in the last four years had been the same as it was in the previous 20, there would now (mathematically speaking) be 3.1 million fewer people in work. If all these had registered as unemployed, there'd be 5.8 million out of work - an unemployment rate of 18.2 per cent. Imagine the political effects of that.

On his personal blog, Dillow elaborates:

You might think that the very fact that workers are more productive in this alternative universe would cause firms to hire more of them. But things aren’t so simple. Firms only hire if they anticipate sufficient demand for the additional output. And where would this demand come from? The tendency for higher unemploymentwould depress consumer spending. On the other hand, it’s likely that business investment would be higher - not least because a world of growing productivity is a world in which there are more investment opportunities and easier access to finance.  But as business investment is only 8.3% of GDP, it’s unlikely that it would be so much higher as to create three million jobs.

Sometimes, good news can be bad news, and bad news can be good.

We may not be getting more productive, but there's an upside to that. (Getty)

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

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.