A Richard Murphy
The question being when did the UK ever have full employment?
Back in January or thereabouts the employment to population ratio was the highest it has been since we started recording it. The unemployment rate was 3.9 % or summat, about what near all economists regard as the frictional rate – it takes time to be interviewed, hired, onboarded etc, meaning that there’s going to be some unemployment rate of people moving between jobs.
At which point Murphy told us there was still an awful lot of unemployment because not everyone had work that provided a decent income and living.
OK, his definition.
And the last time we had unemployment lower than that 3.9% was back in the 1960s/70s, when everyone was considerably poorer than they are now. Meaning that they didn’t have work that provided a decent income and living.
So it’s difficult to see that the UK – by he definitions being used of course – has ever had full employment. What makes Richard Murphy think that this time will be different? Other than, of course, that this is his idea?
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
Between "full employment" and balancing the budget, shouldn't gov't limit its activity to things its tax revenue will cover? If so, gov't might have to abandon subsidies and pursue goals like "full employment" by CEASING to do things that get in the way, such as dictating wages, hours, and work conditions to mollify the thin-skinned.
But Murphy is not conceding this; in fact, his Pinned Tweet says to "Pay for it with money creation". Seems his "poll" has a right answer.
The only way to make sure that *everyone* has a job that provides a decent income and living is to abandon the market economy (where no employer is going to pay that wage to someone who cannot or will not work) and impose Stalinism where everyone is forced to have a job and the state dictates their pay (and their job).
Murphy may like that - most of us would not. And it ends up with widespread falls in the standard of living because there is no incentive to work. Russia went from being an exporter of grain under the Tsars to importing millions of tons under communism with collective farms to being one of the world's largest exporters in C21 with privately-owned farms. samizdat "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work"
Murphy envisages being a member of the nomenklatura.
And such Stalinism ought to be compared to the free-market alternative, where generally, employees are anxious to do their best job and employers are anxious to retain their staff.
The Weimar Republic had full employment with a seriously imbalanced budget, but it didn't seem to restrain the rise of nationalism and anti-semitism.
But if the budget is broadly balanced ( to within a couple of % allowing for inflation and people hiding money under the mattress and not collecting their gambling winnings, that sort of thing ) then it does reflect a government that gets out of the way of the job creators.