# How can you have 23% Jobless households with 10% unemployment?



## Brendan Burgess (15 Aug 2016)

Update: I have summarised the results of this thread in a new thread: 

*Why do more Irish people live in jobless households than in the rest of the EU?*

Extract from an article I had in yesterday's Sunday Independent - I have started a new thread on it to try to understand the figures.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...antle-our-culture-of-dependency-34963409.html

*In Ireland 77pc of working households are funding the other 23pc - that's twice the average of other EU countries*


There is one outstanding statistic about Irish society which is very rarely reported.

Despite having average levels of unemployment, we have the highest percentage of jobless families in the original EU-15 countries, which includes Greece, Spain and Portugal. But it's not just a little more than average, it's twice the average. The average is 11pc but in Ireland, it's 23pc. The next closest to us is the UK at 13pc.

So whereas in other EU countries, 89pc of households work and fund the 11pc who don't work, in Ireland, 77pc of working households are funding the other 23pc who don't work.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Aug 2016)

sahd said:


> According to CSO figures for 2015 the percentage of the population under 60 in jobless households in Ireland was 13.2% - not 23%. The highest it was in recent years was 17.2% in 2012



Hi sahd

Thanks for those updates.

I used the figures from the CSO's SILC survey as quoted by the NESC report:
*Jobless Households: An Exploration of the Issues - NESC*



Your data refers to something else entirely:

- the percentage of the population vs. the number of jobless households
- under 60 vs. all ages.

Do you know if there is any comparable data to yours for the rest of the EU?

I have always been shocked by the 23% figure and I have never seen an adequate explanation.  Those trying to explain it would never dare to suggest that it might be because the welfare system is too high.

But I still don't understand how we can have average unemployment levels and twice average household jobless levels. Given the CSO's publication of GDP growth of 27%, I wonder if there is some statistical explanation for at least some of it. 

Even if there is some such explanation, it doesn't take from the general point that we are paying social welfare rates and benefits which discourage people from working in low paid jobs. 

Brendan


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Aug 2016)

_Boss_ that NESC report possibly resolves your conundrum.  It is too long to read but it does cite Social Welfare traps as one cause.  Statistically a possible reason is the ratio of children (who are jobless but not unemployed) to unemployed people.  Say unemployed people had on average twice as many children in Ireland as in the EU then that would cause a big distortion in the ratio of "in jobless households" to unemployed.  Let's say this is an element of the explanation.  We then ask is it because the Irish unemployed are more fertile. That seems unlikely.  Much more likely is that those with children find SW a more compelling proposition than going to work - in other words supporting your argument.


----------



## Deiseblue (15 Aug 2016)

The figure of 23% of non working households comes apparently from 2010.
Unemployment rates peaked in Q4 2010 at 14.7% whereas July 2016 rates stand at 7.8 % which would hopefully lower the 23 % figure


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Aug 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Say unemployed people had on average twice as many children in Ireland as in the EU then that would cause a big distortion in the ratio of "in jobless households" to unemployed.



Hi Duke

That doesn't explain it.  This table refers to the number of jobless households and not the number of people living in jobless households. 

So John and Mary and their 6 children are one jobless household. 

Here are the figures for the percentage of "living in jobless households" 



We are higher than average on one measure and lower on the other. 

Brendan


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Aug 2016)

_Boss_ these stats are making my head sore.  Spain and Portugal come out "best in class" in that last Table and I though they were basket cases.


----------



## Protocol (15 Aug 2016)

Deiseblue said:


> The figure of 23% of non working households comes apparently from 2010.
> Unemployment rates peaked in Q4 2010 at 14.7% whereas July 2016 rates stand at 7.8 % which would hopefully lower the 23 % figure



Note that *unemployment *is not the same as *joblessness*.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Aug 2016)

Hi Protocol 

I wasn't aware of the up to date figures. Thanks for them. 

So as of 2013, we still had twice the EU level of jobless households.  Greece and Spain have crept up towards our levels which you would expect as their unemployment has increased.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Aug 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Boss_ these stats are making my head sore.  Spain and Portugal come out "best in class" in that last Table and I though they were basket cases.



I tried to reconcile 10% unemployment with 23% jobless families, and I can't figure it out. I will try to get an explanation from the CSO.

Brendan


----------



## Protocol (15 Aug 2016)

Happy reading, folks.

ESRI Social Inclusion report no. 3:

http://www.socialinclusion.ie/documents/2012-12-10_WorkAndPovertyReportWEB_FINAL_001.pdf


ESRI Social Inclusion report no. 4:

https://www.esri.ie/pubs/BKMNEXT248.pdf

Social Transfers and Poverty Alleviation in Ireland


----------



## Protocol (15 Aug 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I tried to reconcile 10% unemployment with 23% jobless families, and I can't figure it out. I will try to get an explanation from the CSO.
> 
> Brendan


The answer is in Fig. 3.3 of the report no. 3, see my previous post.



Also read the text around Fig. 3.3 and Fig 3.4


----------



## Protocol (15 Aug 2016)

Ireland has a higher level of inactivity by working-age adults than other countries. See Fig 3.4.

But what makes the VLWI figure really stand out, is that inactive people in Irl tend to live with other inactive people.


Example: inactive person lives with worker, 50% Work Intensity, so they are not in the VLWI category.

So you could have high unemployment, but still an average VLWI rate, as long as the inactive adults tended to live with other active adults.


BUT

In Ireland, see page 38, 

"Ireland is at the lower end: only 51 per cent of jobless adults of working age in Ireland live with at least one working adult. This will contribute to a high rate of very low work intensity because the non-working adult will not be drawn out of the VLWI category by other working adults in the household."

Difficult to get your head around, isn't it?


----------



## Protocol (15 Aug 2016)

2014 VLWI data is available here:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/income-and-living-conditions/data/database

Look under Health and Labour Conditions

2014 = 21.1% of people aged 0-59 live in VLWI households.


----------



## Protocol (15 Aug 2016)

2008 and 2014 VLWI data


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Aug 2016)

There is great reading in that. I will study it in the morning when I am fresher. 
From PDF page 55

3.5 Work Intensity and Living Arrangements
In the previous section we highlighted the role played in Ireland by the high level of
joblessness in recent years among the working-age population compared to other
European countries. In this section we now consider the impact of the living
arrangements of jobless people of working age and how it might differ between
Ireland and the other European countries. We focus first on the extent to which
jobless adults live with someone who is in employment.

It is worth noting that, all things being equal, a household with more adults is less
likely to be very low work intensity. Even if employment were equally distributed
across adults in different types of household, we would expect the VLWI rate to be
higher in one-adult households. This is because where there is only one adult in the
household, the work intensity of the household depends solely on the employment of
that adult. For example, assume an employment rate was 0.55 – implying a nonemployment
rate   of 0.45, assuming further that employment is evenly distributed
across household types, and that the employment of both partners in a couple
household is independent. In this case, the probability of very low work intensity is
0.45 for a one-adult household and 0.20 (=0.45*0.45) for a couple household. In
other words, if employment were equally distributed across persons, the odds of
being in a VLWI household would be lower for households containing more adults –
simply by virtue of the number of adults in the household.

In Figure 3.5 we show the percentage of jobless adults who live with at least one
working adult. There is wide variation in this respect across countries, from a low of
38 per cent in Denmark to a high of 73 per cent in Luxembourg. At the lower end we
find the Scandinavian countries and at the upper end Spain, Italy, Greece and
Portugal as well as Luxembourg. Ireland is at the lower end: only 51 per cent of
jobless adults of working age in Ireland live with at least one working adult. This will
contribute to a high rate of very low work intensity because the non-working adult will
not be drawn out of the VLWI category by other working adults in the household.


----------



## PMU (15 Aug 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I tried to reconcile 10% unemployment with 23% jobless families, and I can't figure it out.
> Brendan



I have great faith in the OECD databases. These show that in the quarter to June 2016 Ireland had a harmonized unemployment rate of 7.6% of the labour force. http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=36324. Unemployment relates to individuals that are part of the labour force.

Joblessness relates to households. Even where unemployment is low, the percentage of persons living in households headed by a person of working age who does not have a job may be high. This is joblessness. Jobless persons may not be in the labour force and not seeking work, but may be in receipt of Jobseekers' Allowance.

In the past the OECD has expressed concerns on the Jobseeker’s Allowance, that it is relatively generous;  is time-unlimited; and provides weak incentives for work, especially for low-skilled persons.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Aug 2016)

Protocol

I am really working hard reading that report. It's very interesting.  It seems that the figures relate to people up to the age of 59 only. I had assumed it included pensioners.



My main point is that we have 77 working households supporting 23 jobless households. In other words there are around 4 working households supporting each jobless household. Whereas in the rest of the EU 15, there are 9 working households for each jobless household.

But the definitions of jobless, unemployment, what age group we refer to , changes all that.

Do you know if there are any statistics to show the percentage of adult social welfare recipients in Ireland compared to the rest of the EU?

For example, do we have 4 working for each person in receipt of social welfare, compared to 8 to 1 in the rest of the EU?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Aug 2016)

I have read the report and I am still struggling with it. 

I have attached Chapter 3. Maybe someone else can explain or summarise it to show how we can have twice the level of jobless households with only a slightly higher level of unemployment. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Aug 2016)

Here is the summary explanation, which I still am trying to get my head around 

1 Why is the Very Low Work Intensity Rate So High in Ireland?
Very low work intensity occurs when the working-age adults in a household spend
less than one fifth of the potential working time actually at work over the reference
year. Working-age adults are those aged 18 to 59, excluding students under age 25.
The VLWI indicator is one of three measures of being at risk of poverty or exclusion
(along with at-risk-of-poverty and severe material deprivation) for the purposes of the
EU 2020 strategy. Ireland has a much higher rate of very low work intensity than any
other European country. In 2010, the rate was 23 per cent in Ireland, compared to 13
per cent in the next highest EU country, the UK.

There was a sharp increase in very low work intensity in Ireland following the start of
the recession in 2008 – sharper than in the other EU countries – but the rate had
been high in Ireland even during the boom years of 2007 and earlier. The VLWI rate
in Ireland in 2005 was 15 per cent compared to an average rate of 10 per cent in the
EU 15.

Part of the high level in Ireland is explained by the high level of joblessness among
the working-age population. In 2009, Ireland had the highest European level of
economic inactivity at 42 per cent of the working-age population. However, this
inactivity rate on its own is not enough to account for the exceptionally high rate of
very low work intensity in Ireland. For an explanation of this, we needed to look as
well as the living arrangements of inactive working-age adults. If jobless adults in
Ireland are less likely to live with someone who works and more likely to live with
children compared to jobless adults in the EU generally, this would contribute to a
much higher rate of very low work intensity than we would expect based on the adult
joblessness rate alone.

Indeed a detailed examination of the 2009 EU-SILC data showed that in Ireland
fewer inactive working-age adults lived with someone who was at work than in other
EU countries. In Ireland, only about one half of jobless working-age adults live with
someone who works – one of the lowest rates in the EU. Additionally, in Ireland the
majority of adults in VLWI households lived with children (56 per cent) and the
average number of children in these households is among the largest in Europe
(1.8). Since the work intensity of the adults is assigned to all children in the
household in calculating the overall VLWI rate, the fact that jobless adults live with
children means that the impact of joblessness is multiplied by the number of children
living with the jobless adult.

Overall then, we need to take account of individual economic activity, household and
family structure and the impact of the recession in order to understand
the exceptionally high VLWI rate in Ireland in 2010.


----------



## Protocol (16 Aug 2016)

Here is the short answer as to why the rate of VLWI is so high:

_(1) In 2009, Ireland had the highest European level of economic inactivity at 42 per cent of the working-age population. _


We have more adults classified as unemployed / disabled / ill / carers, than in other countries.

Unemployment might be falling, but inactivity could still be high, or not fall as much.

Or unemployment could be below some other country, yet our inactivity rate could be higher than that same other country.

Others [e.g. David McWilliams] have written about the rise in numbers on disability payments, even though the country is healthier.


(2) However, this inactivity rate on its own is not enough to account for the exceptionally high rate of very low work intensity in Ireland.

For an explanation of this, we needed to look as well as the living arrangements of inactive working-age adults. If jobless adults in Ireland are less likely to live with someone who works and more likely to live with children compared to jobless adults in the EU generally, this would contribute to a much higher rate of very low work intensity than we would expect based on the adult joblessness rate alone.


So this second reason is about *the distribution of work across households*. It seems that jobless adults here are less likely to live with a working adult than in other countries. The working adult would lift the household out of the VLWI category. But that tends not to happen here.


----------



## Protocol (16 Aug 2016)

Just to be clear on what *work intensity* means:

The indicator *persons living in households with low work intensity* is defined as the number of persons living in a household having a work intensity below a threshold set at 0.20.

The *work intensity* of a household is the ratio of the total number of months that all working-age household members have worked during the income reference year and the total number of months the same household members theoretically could have worked in the same period.

A working-age person is a person aged 18-59 years, with the exclusion of students in the age group between 18 and 24 years.

Households composed only of children, of students aged less then 25 and/or people aged 60 or more are completely excluded from the indicator calculation.


----------



## Protocol (16 Aug 2016)

Also, to be clear on what *Very Low Work Intensity [VLWI] *means:


People living in households with very low work intensity are defined as people of all ages (0–59) living in households where the members of working age worked less than 20.0 % of their total potential during the previous 12 months.


----------



## Protocol (16 Aug 2016)

So the 23% figure in Irl means:

_In 2012-2013, approx 23% of people aged 0-59 lived in households that were classified as VLWI households.

_
Note that it does not mean "23% of households are classified as VLWI households"


----------



## Protocol (16 Aug 2016)

Eurostat go further, and provide a breakdown of VLWI across household types.

*Proportion of population aged less than 60 living in households with very low work intensity, by household type, 2013*


----------



## Protocol (16 Aug 2016)

Across all five family types, Irl has much more people aged 0-59 living in VLWI households than elsewhere.

You can see that lone parents have very high rates of VLWI in Ireland.

Combine that with the fact that we have a disproportionate amount of lone parents, and they you can see why we have so many people living in VLWI households.

In this context, I have long called for the abolition of OPFP, and its replacement with something else.

Paying OPFP encourages lone parenthood and leads to more people in VLWI households. Mothers and children suffer as a result.


----------



## Protocol (16 Aug 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Do you know if there are any statistics to show the percentage of adult social welfare recipients in Ireland compared to the rest of the EU?
> 
> For example, do we have 4 working for each person in receipt of social welfare, compared to 8 to 1 in the rest of the EU?




This is an interesting question.

It should be easy to get employment rates for working-age adults in Irl vs the EU.

But what's harder to find is no. of working-age benefit recipients in Irl vs the EU.


----------



## PMU (16 Aug 2016)

Protocol said:


> This is an interesting question. It should be easy to get employment rates for working-age adults in Irl vs the EU.



Our friends in the OECD tell us that in 2015 (most recent data available) Ireland had 63.3% of the total working age population in employment, as opposed to 65.6% for the total EU. https://data.oecd.org/emp/employment-rate.htm.



Protocol said:


> But what's harder to find is no. of working-age benefit recipients in Irl vs the EU.



It is but again the OECD's "Government at a Glance" series (always worth a read) tells us that in 2015,  4.1% of the age 15-64 population were in receipt of primary out-of-work benefits, but for secondary benefits (e.g. lone parent) it's 10.8%. [broken link removed]


----------



## Protocol (16 Aug 2016)

So our employment rate at 63.3% is below the OECD, EU and eurozone averages.

2015 data.

It is also well below the following countries:

DK = 73.5%
DE = 74.0%
UK = 72.7%

There's one main cause of high rates of people in VLWI households.


----------



## Protocol (16 Aug 2016)

It's 1,964,000 employed in 2015 as per OECD.

That's 63.3% of 3,102,686 working age adults.

If we added 10% to our employment rate, to reach DK or DE rates, that would mean an extra 310,000 people in employment.


----------



## Protocol (16 Aug 2016)

PMU said:


> It is but again the OECD's "Government at a Glance" series (always worth a read) tells us that in 2015,  4.1% of the age 15-64 population were in receipt of primary out-of-work benefits, but for secondary benefits (e.g. lone parent) it's 10.8%. [broken link removed]




The Excel file linked to this OECD data is good - thanks very much.

PMU,

look carefully at the figure for lone parents - it is recorded at 0.00 in Ireland for both years.

Odd?????


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Aug 2016)

Hi Protocol

Thanks for that brilliant series of posts explaining it. 

I completely missed this point: 



Protocol said:


> So the 23% figure in Irl means:
> 
> _In 2012-2013, approx 23% of people aged 0-59 lived in households that were classified as VLWI households.
> 
> ...



It explains a lot about the figures. I took statements like these from the NESC report to actually mean what they say: 



It should really be "Why do such a high proportion of adults and children in Ireland live in Jobless households"

This piece from the Executive Summary is also misleading: 


Table 1 seems to be the figures for your definition. We are only a bit above the average: 


Figure 1 is the main graph: 


23% of households are not jobless. 23% of those working in Jobless households are jobless? 

Now, I am confusing myself.


----------



## PMU (16 Aug 2016)

Protocol said:


> PMU, look carefully at the figure for lone parents - it is recorded at 0.00 in Ireland for both years. Odd?????



It is odd but perhaps understandable. When you look at the subsidiary tables in the spreadsheet they list various programmes, i.e. Jobseekers' benefit; Deserted Wife's allowance (which was replaced by OPFP in 1997); Carers' allowance; Farm Assist (what the hell is that?); and Guardian Payment, but not the OPFP.  So that is odd. 

One of the reasons I follow the 'Government at a Glance' series is that in my professional life I was vaguely involved in getting public servants to submit statistics to the OECD for this publication. (Not the unemployment / social welfare statistics I wish to emphasise). It really is up to the relevant national agency to submit the info and to submit the correct stuff. So someone appears to have goofed off on the details of the 42,000 approx. recipients of OPFP. I presume they were bunged in with the secondary payments data and not separately identified.


----------



## TheBigShort (17 Aug 2016)

_"I have always been shocked by the 23% figure and I have never seen an adequate explanation"
_
The 23% figure relates to 2010! Yet you compare it to average unemployment rates of 2016!!
Why dont you take the unemployment rate of 2010 and _then _make a comparative analysis?


----------



## Protocol (17 Aug 2016)

Percentage of people aged 0-59 living in VLWI households

2004 = 12.9
2005 = 14.7
2006 = 12.9
2007 = 14.3
2008 = 13.7
2009 = 20.0
2010 = 22.9
2011 = 24.2
2012 = 23.4
2013 = 23.9
2014 = 21.1

[broken link removed]


----------



## Protocol (17 Aug 2016)

Unemployment rate, ILO measure, SA, monthly rates - I used June data

2004 = 
2005 = 
2006 = 4.6
2007 = 4.7
2008 = 6.0
2009 = 12.2
2010 = 13.7
2011 = 14.5
2012 = 14.7
2013 = 13.5
2014 = 11.4
2015 = 9.4
2016 = 7.8


----------



## TheBigShort (17 Aug 2016)

Interesting.

The VLWI rate almost doubled between 2006 to 2011 whilst, during the same period, the unemployment rate trebled!


----------



## orka (17 Aug 2016)

TheBigShort said:


> Interesting.
> 
> The VLWI rate almost doubled between 2006 to 2011 whilst, during the same period, the unemployment rate trebled!


Why is that interesting?  Would you expect them to go up proportionate to each other?  I wouldn't.  The non-unemployment contributors to VLWI (disability, single parents, carers) aren't as affected by recession - they are what they are regardless of whether there are jobs available.  The unemployment rate increased by about 10 points and the VLWI rate increased by about 11 points (probably driven almost entirely by the increased unemployment rate).

[And just mathematically/logically from common sense, it's a lot easier to triple 4.6% unemployment than 12.9% VLWI (39% VLWI would really have us in the manure business...)]


----------



## TheBigShort (17 Aug 2016)

orka said:


> Why is that interesting?  Would you expect them to go up proportionate to each other?  I wouldn't.  The non-unemployment contributors to VLWI (disability, single parents, carers) aren't as affected by recession - they are what they are regardless of whether there are jobs available.  The unemployment rate increased by about 10 points and the VLWI rate increased by about 11 points (probably driven almost entirely by the increased unemployment rate).
> 
> [And just mathematically/logically from common sense, it's a lot easier to triple 4.6% unemployment than 12.9% VLWI (39% VLWI would really have us in the manure business...)]



Very true. Its not interesting at all, I not really sure why charts for VLWI and Unemployment rates are being compared in the first instance.


----------



## Branz (17 Aug 2016)

TheBigShort said:


> Very true. Its not interesting at all, I not really sure why charts for VLWI and Unemployment rates are being compared in the first instance


When did the correct data ever get precedent over an article in a rag like the independent?
Never thought BB was a choirboy for The Redacted One.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Aug 2016)

OK, I have spent about three days studying the reports and trying to present them in an understandable way.  The result is in this thread: 

*Why do more Irish people live in jobless households than in the rest of the EU?*


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Aug 2016)

I based my initial comments on the NESC report and on how I have seen it quoted. I had not seen it challenged anywhere.


“Ireland has a high level of household joblessness compared to other European countries, with nearly one-quarter (23 per cent) of households in Ireland described as jobless (in 2010).” – From the original NESC report on the issue.

This is not correct. 23% of households were not jobless. 23% of people aged 0-59, lived in jobless households.


“There was a sharp increase in jobless households in Ireland following the economic crash in 2008.  The jobless household rate increased from 13 per cent in 2004 to 22  per cent in 2010.”– From the original NESC report.


No it didn’t. The percentage of the population aged from 0-59 living in jobless households increased from 13% to 22%

“So whereas in other EU countries, 89pc of households work and fund the 11pc who don't work, in Ireland, 77pc of working households are funding the other 23pc who don't work.”
- My article in the Sunday Independent was wrong. It’s not that 23% of households aren't working – it’s that 23% of the population between 0 and 59 are living in households where no one is working.

“In 2010, 22 per cent of households in Ireland were jobless compared to the euro zone average of just over 10 per cent. A jobless household is defined as one in which its adult(s) spend less than one-fifth of their available time in employment.” Dan O’Brien in the Irish Times quoting the ESRI report.


“A striking aspect of the Irish economy is the high level of jobless households, at over one in five (23.4 per cent).” Donal de Buitleir in the Irish Times

In contrast, the ESRI got it right “New research report finds 22% of Irish population living in jobless households”

Well almost right. It's not 22% of the population, but 22% of the population aged under 60.


Cormac Lucey also got it right:  “24% of Irish adults lived in Households with very low work intensity in 2011”

Well I am not sure if this is right or not. I don't think it's 24% of adults, but 24% of the population under aged 60.


----------



## TheBigShort (23 Aug 2016)

I can only go with what is put in front of me. Read at your own convenience.



Brendan Burgess said:


> I based my initial comments on the NESC report and on how I have seen it quoted. I had not seen it challenged anywhere.
> 
> 
> “Ireland has a high level of household joblessness compared to other European countries, with nearly one-quarter (23 per cent) of households in Ireland described as jobless (in 2010).” – From the original NESC report on the issue.
> ...


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Aug 2016)

Perhaps on foot of information since gleaned Brendan should consider correcting the misinformation contained in his article in the Sunday Indo , I'm sure the Indo would be amenable , in the interests of veracity , to publishing such a correction.

As an addendum perhaps it could be pointed out that the substantial fall in unemployment rates between 2010 & now could materially effect the percentage of jobless households ?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Aug 2016)

Hi Deise

The overall points are still absolutely valid. 

We have a very high level of dependency which is either twice as high as the rest or Europe or 50% higher depending on which measure you use.   

Giving people social housing where they want it in prime locations is resulting in those who want to buy or rent being squeezed out. 

Having said that, I might propose another article on the topic to the Sunday Independent. 

It would be hard to rewrite this into a readable newspaper article. 

*Why do more Irish people live in jobless households than in the rest of the EU?*

Brendan


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Aug 2016)

I appreciate Brendan that you have made valid points which have led to an excellent debate on this site.

Nevertheless the facts quoted in the Indo article were incorrect & as such perhaps should be corrected ?

As recently as 2013 58.7 % of males aged 55 to 64 ( I cannot see figures for those aged 59 & over ) were employed , the figure for women in the same bracket was 43.1 % according to the CSO - those figures alone could materially alter the jobless household figures posited by you never mind the effect of the substantial reduction in unemployment rates between 2010 & now.

Your article certainly did not state that depending on what measures you used our dependency figures were either twice as high or 50% higher than the EU average - you unequivocally plumped for the higher figure .

It does appear that you now agree that the headline quote of 77 % of households supporting the other 23% may have been overstated & perhaps your mooted article might reflect that ?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Aug 2016)

Deiseblue said:


> It does appear that you now agree that the headline quote of 77 % of households supporting the other 23% may have been overstated & perhaps your mooted article might reflect that ?



Hi Deise 

This is the bit I still have not got my head around. 

I should have said that 23% live in jobless households compared to 77% in working households. 

But the general point holds: We have more dependants, depending on fewer earners. 

I have tried to get data on this but without success so far. 

Brendan


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Aug 2016)

As you say Brendan , it depends on the measures used - the jobless households could total 23 % or approx 16.5 %  - a substantial difference I think you will agree .

Given that the reduction in unemployment rates from a high level in the year 2010 of 14.7 % to the current rate of 7.8% & the rather skewed figures from the NESC excluding the over 59 bracket ( I readily admit to being rather baffled by their conclusions & wonder does this exclusion effect the argument? ) I think common sense would lead to the conclusion that the 23 % figure is considerably overstated.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Aug 2016)

I am certainly not going to plunge into the spin off thread which is breaking all records without my help
But _Boss_ I think you are beating yourself up or more importantly others are beating you up unjustifiably. Ok, 23% of households jobless is not strictly the same as 23% of 0-60s live in jobless households but where's the big deal? If jobless people lived in the same average size of household the two stats would be identical.  As it happens, because of the higher proportion of single people living in jobless households, the number of jobless households should be *higher* than 23% contrary to _Deise's_ hunch.
I also note that _The BigShort_ who is the pace setter in that record breaking marathon makes a big play of this rather pedantic inaccuracy and I suspect that he like _Deise_ believes it overstates the %.


----------



## Deiseblue (27 Aug 2016)

Brendan himself as indicated by the title thread seems somewhat surprised that with 10% unemployment you can have 23% jobless households , I would also be more than surprised if that proves to be the case.

Brendan also has stated that depending on the measures used the jobless
households figure could fall to 16.5 %  - a salient point not mentioned in his article.

The 23 % figure was also predicated on the 2010 unemployment rate which peaked at 14.7 % as compared to the current such rate of 8.4 %

Hopefully , Brendan will be offered the opportunity by the Indo to submit another article as he has suggested above to elucidate matters.


----------



## JohnJay (27 Aug 2016)

I'm not a parent and am usually a bit of a hard-ass when it comes to social issues, but it upsets me sometimes when I see kids that I know will probably never work,  and have parents and grandparents who have never worked. Its a cycle that will be very hard to break. Does our society not give these kids the opportunity to get a decent education and get out of this cycle, or is our social welfare/social housing too generous and just puts the next generation in to the same cycle as their previous generations?


----------



## Protocol (27 Aug 2016)

Deiseblue said:


> Brendan himself as indicated by the title thread seems somewhat surprised that with 10% unemployment you can have 23% jobless households , I would also be more than surprised if that proves to be the case.



It's not at all surprising, as there are thousands upon thousands of households where the people are jobless, but not unemployed.

They are:

lone parents / SAHM single mothers
long-term ill
disabled
carers

etc., etc.

We have more of these dependents than other countries.

Or - we have the same amount as other countries, but they tend to be inactive here.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Aug 2016)

_Deise_ no way should the Boss publish some sort of retraction.  If anything he understated the %. And the main point is how we compare with other countries on the same stats.


----------



## Deiseblue (27 Aug 2016)

Have to disagree , Brendan has stated that depending on what measures you use that the jobless households total could be 16.5 % .

Equally the fact that the unemployment rate has fallen from 14.7 % in 2010 to 8.4 % currently has to be a factor.

It was Brendan himself who suggested the possibility of approaching the Indo with a view to publishing another article on this topic obviously with to clarify matters.

I look forward to hopefully reading same.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Aug 2016)

JohnJay said:


> I'm not a parent and am usually a bit of a hard-ass when it comes to social issues, but it upsets me sometimes when I see kids that I know will probably never work,  and have parents and grandparents who have never worked. Its a cycle that will be very hard to break. Does our society not give these kids the opportunity to get a decent education and get out of this cycle, or is our social welfare/social housing too generous and just puts the next generation in to the same cycle as their previous generations?



I would suggest our society does not give these kids a decent education and as such, a chance to get out of this cycle.
I, by no means claim that I came from a disadvantaged area, but when I attended primary school in '70's, '80's , there was some 36 pupils in the class.
Today, as a much richer country, my 9 yr old son will sit in a class of some 36 pupils cime September - no change, in thirty odd years.

The focus of the ciriculum is top heavy on achieving academic success. Participation rates of students from deprived areas to third level are abysmal, yet they face the same leaving cert as those students who come from typically more affluent areas and whose participation rate is extremely high.

One aspect of the circulum that needs addressing is sport. It is either neglected, or undervalued with basically no points. To emphasis, I used to play for the school GAA team, and considered myself a handy player. But our lead midfielder (who didnt even bother turning up to sit his Leaving cert), was in a different league to the rest of us. He went to play for the Dublin County team bagging a couple of Leinster title medals. Anyway, the point is, on the strength of his participation with the Dublin team he was offered, and carved out a reasonably successful career in the motor trade, in marketing and sales.
There are many other areas in sports, music, theatre, art etc that could offer avenues out of poverty for so many kids.
But this will mostly likely cost €€€€ in taxes to facilitate, and given the premise of Brendans Indo article, of too many taxes and charges, would society be prepared to pay for it?

And I should add to that the success of Brown Bag films. You should go on their website and follow their success story. College dropouts from Ballyfermot Tech, to 2 Oscar nominations, and a recent sale worth some €25m.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Aug 2016)

_Deise_ I don't see where Brendan estimates jobless households at 16.5%.
What I do see is a spreadsheet where he estimates jobless adults at 16.8%, a different thing.
Using his spreadsheet we might estimate jobless households as follows:
Adults in couples both working 10=5 households 0 jobless
Couples one working 18=9H,0XJ
Couples neither working 6=3H,3XJ
Singles working 4=4H,0XJ
Singles not working 2=2H,2XJ
Total 40=23H,5XJ
That's a percentage of jobless households of 22%, remarkably close to the maligned figure
So I repeat that the semantic faux pas to which the _Boss_ has fessed doesn't amount to a hill of beans and certainly no need for public retraction.
Now thanks to _Protocol_ we have the full picture which I will now repeat.
We start with the unemployed rate, U.
We then have a big jump to the without job rate XJ, consisting of carers, students, children, disabled, employed at less than 20%
There follows a big fall to those living in jobless households, the jobless rate JR, this fall driven by people with jobs removing those living with them from being JR, most notably couples one working.
The final transmission is to the percentage of households which are jobless HJR; we don't actually see this statistic anywhere though as _Boss_ admits he repeated the erroneous NESC citing of just such a percentage.  Intuitively one might expect HJR to be actually higher than HR as the more people are in a household the less likely that household will be jobless.

So as _Protocol_ observes there is no great mystery in JR being higher than U, it's just that the first jump above dominates the second fall.  To understand why we are outliers in EU terms we need to dig deeper into the two jumps.  In the first jump we see that we have much more carers and to a lesser extent more disabled.  The former possibly reflects that the traditional single bread earner family unit has survived more in Ireland than elsewhere and/or we have more single parent carers, this latter together with the higher rate of disability claimants possibly deriving from SW abuse, but let's leave that to the marathon runners

In the second transmission, the fall from being XJ to being JR _Protocol_ suggests that our fall is less than others as our inactive people have a greater tendency to combine with like persons and therefore not to be "bailed out" by someone employed.  I am not so sure on this one or on what sociological inference we could take from it.

So in summary, no reason at all for a retraction from the _Boss_.


----------



## Dan Murray (28 Aug 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I have started a new thread on it to try to understand the figures.



In terms of lessons learnt for future articles, my views are that:

1. It would be better to understand the figures before using them as a basis for an article
2. It would be better, where possible, to independently check the accuracy of the figures rather than relying on a single source
3. If very dated figures are being used, then this should be stated - i.e. no where in the link provided is 2010 mentioned and the widespread use of the present tense gives the false impression that the figures are reasonably up to date


----------



## Delboy (4 Feb 2018)

I'll resurrect an old thread with some updated news

http://www.thejournal.ie/jobless-households-3832381-Feb2018/


> ALMOST ONE IN six Irish households has no adults of working age in employment, according to the Department of Social Protection.
> A jobless household is one where no adult in the household it working, it excludes households made up completely of students or adults over 65.
> New figures released this week show that there are 253,000 such households in Ireland, out of a total of  1,440,600.
> It gives Ireland a rate of jobless households of 17.6%, slightly above the EU average of 17.3%.
> Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty gave the figures in a response to a question from Fianna Fáil TD Willie O’Dea, noting that the rate had dropped from 23% in 2012.


I'm really surprised to see the EU figure so high


----------



## Protocol (24 Sep 2019)

Fresh LFS data out from the CSO today.

2013-2019






						LFS Households and Family Units Q2 2019 - CSO - Central Statistics Office
					






					www.cso.ie
				






Proportion of persons aged 18-59 years living in jobless households = 8.8%

Note that this may not be exactly the same as the Eurostat data.


----------



## Protocol (16 Oct 2019)

Eurostat 2018 data out today.



			https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/10163468/3-16102019-CP-EN.pdf/edc3178f-ae3e-9973-f147-b839ee522578
		



There are three components to the Eurostat measure AROPE at risk of poverty or social exclusion:

(1) relative income poverty - we are at 15.6%, below the EU average

(2) material deprivation - we are at 5.2%, below the EU average

(3) people 0-59 living in VLWI households - *we lead Europe here, at 16.2%*

NB: the Irish data is for 2017.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (16 Oct 2019)

I guess a lot of this is down to assortive mating, ie, people hooking up with people very like them.

So you get a lot of households with two people working or no one working in Ireland. Rest of Europe probably has a higher share of households with one person at work.

Ireland also has a high lone-parent-with-kids rate which pushes up the numerator.


----------



## Protocol (16 Oct 2019)

Why do we have more lone parents?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (16 Oct 2019)

Protocol said:


> Why do we have more lone parents?


No idea. 

The statistics are here:


----------



## michaelm (16 Oct 2019)

Protocol said:


> Why do we have more lone parents?


Who knows.  Maybe that's just on paper.  I expect that the welfare and social housing rules incentivise keeping a man out of the house.


----------



## joe sod (17 Oct 2019)

Protocol said:


> Why do we have more lone parents?



there are alot of statistics that pop out that nobody wants to investigate.
I think its also the case that the state does not follow up the fathers of these children for maintenance, many of these men father multiple children.


----------



## Purple (18 Oct 2019)

michaelm said:


> Who knows.  Maybe that's just on paper.  I expect that the welfare and social housing rules incentivise keeping a man out of the house.


We just have more children generally.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (18 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> We just have more children generally.



Yes and no. 

Ireland has a bigger share of <18s in general.

But the ratio of kids living with one parent to kids living with two parents is still higher in Ireland than most of EU.


----------



## Purple (18 Oct 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> Ireland has a bigger share of <18s in general.
> 
> But the ratio of kids living with one parent to kids living with two parents is still higher in Ireland than most of EU.


Sure, but let's be honest here; a large proportion of those single parent families are in fact two parent families where the mother claims to be a lone parent so that she can get welfare and housing benefits. 
Where I work it is the norm that the mother is a "lone parent" with the State paying for their house etc. In one case the state is renting the house from the father for the mother and children. He, of course, lives there too. basically you are paying their mortgage.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (18 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> Sure, but let's be honest here; a large proportion of those single parent families are in fact two parent families where the mother claims to be a lone parent so that she can get welfare and housing benefits.



There is a common misconception about the reliability of these data.

These are CSO-sourced numbers based on household surveys. They are not drawn directly from DEASP records.

People of course lie to people conducting household surveys, but they lie much more when there is money and financial sanctions involved.

So there is probably an upward bias in these numbers, but it's probably not very much.


----------



## Purple (18 Oct 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> There is a common misconception about the reliability of these data.
> 
> These are CSO-sourced numbers based on household surveys. They are not drawn directly from DEASP records.
> 
> ...


When people are commiting fraud they seldom tell the truth about it, particularly to a state agency, so I very much doubt that they think to themselves "sure the CSO don't share information with the DSP so I'll let them know we are defrauding the State".


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (18 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> When people are commiting fraud they seldom tell the truth about it, particularly to a state agency, so I very much doubt that they think to themselves "sure the CSO don't share information with the DSP so I'll let them know we are defrauding the State".



So how incorrect are Ireland's reported numbers on lone parent status? In percentage points or thousands please. 

I'd love to see your hunch quantified.


----------



## Purple (18 Oct 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> So how incorrect are Ireland's reported numbers on lone parent status? In percentage points or thousands please.


I dunno, but my hunch is a valid as _"So there is probably an upward bias in these numbers, but it's probably not very much. "_


NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I'd love to see your hunch quantified.


So would I. 
I can only speak about the anecdotal experience I have. That experience is that for people from the geographic area where I work who are in long term relationships it is the norm for the mother claims single parent benefits. The only time there was a serious attempt to address this was when Joan Burton was Minister in charge. During that time one of the people I know was ordered to repay a small portion of the money he and his partner had stolen from their neighbours.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (18 Oct 2019)

@Purple So you're not taking up the challenge. Fair enough.


----------



## Purple (18 Oct 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> @Purple So you're not taking up the challenge. Fair enough.


What challenge?
Are you suggesting that I conduct a broad study of that 6.6% of families and somehow get them to be completely truthful about their familial and financial circumstances, something that all institutions of the State have failed to do (by your own admission) in order to answer a vague question on an internet discussion forum? 
I think quitting my job, sourcing the millions of Euro of resources required to do such a thing, not to mention the years it would take, would be a disproportionate input on my part in the context of this discussion.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (18 Oct 2019)

@Purple 

I'm saying that you've made an empirical claim, and it would be nice if you could put a number on it.

Based on these discussions I don't think you have a feel for the magnitudes involved, but I'd be happy if you could set me right.


----------



## Purple (18 Oct 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> @Purple
> 
> I'm saying that you've made an empirical claim, and it would be nice if you could put a number on it.
> 
> Based on these discussions I don't think you have a feel for the magnitudes involved, but I'd be happy if you could set me right.


No, I said that I doubted your claim that "there is probably an upward bias in these numbers, but it's probably not very much"


----------

