The one number that explains the employment situation
5.6 people are chasing every one job. Without reducing this number, unemployment can never substanti
By Alex Hern Published 18 April 2012 15:58
Perhaps the best single piece of news in the unemployment data isn't the reduction in the number of unemployed people, which, though a positive indicator, obscures a number of less positive results. It is instead the reduction in the number of unemployed people per vacancy, which now stands at 5.6, down from 5.9.
The data has also allowed the TUC to recompile their list of employment blackspots – those places where this ratio rises to unacceptable heights:
|
Local Authority |
Region |
Claimant Count |
Vacancies |
Ratio |
|
West Dunbartonshire |
Scotland |
4,036 |
111 |
36.4 |
|
Inverclyde |
Scotland |
3,023 |
84 |
36.0 |
|
Lewisham |
London |
10,886 |
318 |
34.2 |
|
Hackney |
London |
10,869 |
461 |
23.6 |
|
Blaenau Gwent |
Wales |
3,393 |
150 |
22.6 |
|
Hartlepool |
North East |
4,671 |
214 |
21.8 |
|
Eilean Siar |
Scotland |
566 |
26 |
21.8 |
|
Lambeth |
London |
12,362 |
592 |
20.9 |
|
Kingston upon Hull |
Yorkshire & Humber |
15,431 |
759 |
20.3 |
|
Haringey |
London |
10,393 |
552 |
18.8 |
These figures should pour cold water on the government's triumph at the evidence that their work experience programme is effective at getting people back into employment. Yes, this is good news (although also, of course, the minimum that should be expected from a programme which, until recently, threatened people with loss of benefits if they did not volunteer their time). But unless the programme reduces this ratio of unemployed people to vacancies, then all it does is fill vacancies with one set of people rather than another.
When there are five people competing for every vacancy the best way to make unemployment go down is to create new jobs to fill. There are other ways to reduce the figure - for instance, the government could make seeking work so unpleasant that people stop claiming jobseekers' allowance and eventually stop looking for work altogether - but they are merely massaging the figures, rather than solving the problem. Helping people get what vacancies there when low growth means that there are no new jobs will do nothing for the unemployment figures.
It is the fundamental difference between acting on an individual level and a societal one.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















1 comment
It’s too simplistic to say there are X amount of unemployed and X amount of vacancies, divide one by the other and you end up with 5.6 people chasing every job. This figure doesn’t take into account that many people who already have a job are chasing the same jobs as the unemployed. People who are perhaps working part-time but want a full-time job; people who are temps but want a permanent job; people who are going for jobs that are more interesting, better paid, looking to relocate for whatever reason etc. Therefore, the actual number of people applying for each vacancy is far higher than 5.6. I have been out of work for over a year and recently applied for a job where 300 other people applied! Also, some of the top graduate schemes attract thousands of applicants. I always ask at interviews how many people have applied for the job. The figure is rarely below 40 and in my experience with the answer the interviewer’s have given me is the average is somewhere between 60 and 120.