Real wages down and unemployment stubbornly high, but could that be good news?

Unemployment's fall has stopped, but that could signal a recovery in productivity.

The ONS has released the latest labour market statistics, showing a 0.2 percentage point decline in the unemployment rate to 7.8 per cent in the last three months (2.51 million unemployed people, down by 57,000 people). The employment rate, however, was also down by 0.1 percentage points to 71.4 per cent over the same period (29.71 million employed people, up by 17,000 people).

Other headline stats show long term unemployment increasing by 15,000 to the highest level since 1996, youth unemployment decreasing by 0.2 percentage points to 20.9 per cent, and total pay increasing by 1.7 per cent, leading to a 1 per cent decrease in real wages.

As you can see from the first graph above, the quarter-on-quarter fall in unemployment is largely reversing the rise that was reported this spring. If you look at the month-on-month statistics, designated as "experimental" by the ONS due to their habit of fluctuating fairly wildly, we can see that unemployment was down by slightly over half a percentage point since April.

That's important, because it adds further support to the theory that the long-term improvement in the labour market has been replaced by stagnation. Economics reporters tend to focus on the fact that unemployment is down from a high of 8.4 per cent, even against a background of stagnant GDP. And indeed, for over a year, that decline was nearly constant. But the unemployment rate hit a low in December of last year, and since then it has been fluctuating in the high sevens.

That's bad news for Cameron and Osborne, because falling unemployment was frequently used as a fig leaf to cover the atrocious GDP growth. All the signs indicate that next week's GDP figures will be good, but they may not be good enough.

But it might paradoxically be good news for the country. The disconnect between employment and growth was due to productivity in Britain plummeting. In simple terms, a British worker doing an hour's work simply wasn't producing as much value after the recession as they were before. There's a lot of theories as to why, ranging from low morale and lazy workers to insipid investment and low demand, but regardless of why, they all point to the same conclusion: if GDP is to properly take off, productivity has to recover. The hope is that slowing decline in unemployment could be because the recovery is coming to productivity; and our catch-up growth might finally be around the corner.

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

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

How can Britain become a nation of homeowners?

David Cameron must unlock the spirit of his postwar predecessors to get the housing market back on track. 

In the 1955 election, Anthony Eden described turning Britain into a “property-owning democracy” as his – and by extension, the Conservative Party’s – overarching mission.

60 years later, what’s changed? Then, as now, an Old Etonian sits in Downing Street. Then, as now, Labour are badly riven between left and right, with their last stay in government widely believed – by their activists at least – to have been a disappointment. Then as now, few commentators seriously believe the Tories will be out of power any time soon.

But as for a property-owning democracy? That’s going less well.

When Eden won in 1955, around a third of people owned their own homes. By the time the Conservative government gave way to Harold Wilson in 1964, 42 per cent of households were owner-occupiers.

That kicked off a long period – from the mid-50s right until the fall of the Berlin Wall – in which home ownership increased, before staying roughly flat at 70 per cent of the population from 1991 to 2001.

But over the course of the next decade, for the first time in over a hundred years, the proportion of owner-occupiers went to into reverse. Just 64 percent of households were owner-occupier in 2011. No-one seriously believes that number will have gone anywhere other than down by the time of the next census in 2021. Most troublingly, in London – which, for the most part, gives us a fairly accurate idea of what the demographics of Britain as a whole will be in 30 years’ time – more than half of households are now renters.

What’s gone wrong?

In short, property prices have shot out of reach of increasing numbers of people. The British housing market increasingly gets a failing grade at “Social Contract 101”: could someone, without a backstop of parental or family capital, entering the workforce today, working full-time, seriously hope to retire in 50 years in their own home with their mortgage paid off?

It’s useful to compare and contrast the policy levers of those two Old Etonians, Eden and Cameron. Cameron, so far, has favoured demand-side solutions: Help to Buy and the new Help to Buy ISA.

To take the second, newer of those two policy innovations first: the Help to Buy ISA. Does it work?

Well, if you are a pre-existing saver – you can’t use the Help to Buy ISA for another tax year. And you have to stop putting money into any existing ISAs. So anyone putting a little aside at the moment – not going to feel the benefit of a Help to Buy ISA.

And anyone solely reliant on a Help to Buy ISA – the most you can benefit from, if you are single, it is an extra three grand from the government. This is not going to shift any houses any time soon.

What it is is a bung for the only working-age demographic to have done well out of the Coalition: dual-earner couples with no children earning above average income.

What about Help to Buy itself? At the margins, Help to Buy is helping some people achieve completions – while driving up the big disincentive to home ownership in the shape of prices – and creating sub-prime style risks for the taxpayer in future.

Eden, in contrast, preferred supply-side policies: his government, like every peacetime government from Baldwin until Thatcher’s it was a housebuilding government.

Why are house prices so high? Because there aren’t enough of them. The sector is over-regulated, underprovided, there isn’t enough housing either for social lets or for buyers. And until today’s Conservatives rediscover the spirit of Eden, that is unlikely to change.

I was at a Conservative party fringe (I was on the far left, both in terms of seating and politics).This is what I said, minus the ums, the ahs, and the moment my screensaver kicked in.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.