You know, the kiddie that everyone else stares at as if they can’t believe in its existence?
Almost half of all new jobs in England are in south-east – report
Well, not, not really, not quite.
Almost half of new jobs in England in the last decade were in London and the south-east, despite only a third of the population living in that region, according to a new report.
Research by the thinktank IPPR North shows that 47% of new jobs between September 2009 and September 2019 went to the southern regions.
Across England, which is home to 56 million people, the number of jobs increased by 3.8m over the last decade, from 26.7m to 30.5m.
In London and the south-east, the number of jobs rose by 1.8m, from 9.2m to nearly 11m. Office-based professional and administrative roles, as well as those in accommodation and food service, were among the kinds of jobs that increased.
In comparison, the north-east and north-west of England, and Yorkshire and the Humber had 17% of the country’s new jobs. In those regions, which contain 28% of the population, the number rose from 7.2m in 2009 to 7.8m in 2019.
Actually, no, not at all. They’re looking at the net number of jobs there. Which isn’t useful at all. For this – these perhaps are – is a residual. Job creation is an entirely different number.
Job creation being vastly greater than the change in net employment:
Just over a quarter (28.0 per cent) of all jobs in the private sector were either
destroyed or created over a typical 12 month period – a remarkable level of
turbulence in the UK economy. Analysis of the process of job creation and
destruction shows that, on average, 5.2 million jobs in the UK were either created
or destroyed each year between 1998 and 2008. The process is summarized by
this graphic.
That’s not the way we normally put it. Rather, x% are destroyed each year, y % created. Unemployment is when the numbers get out of whack.
Doing it that way brings us to the usual rule of thumb we use, that 10% of all jobs are destroyed every year.
The importance of this? Well, if 2.5 to 3 million jobs are being created each year, 2.5 to 3 million being killed off, and government job creation is 10,0000 here and there by rescuing a steel works, then government job creation is pissing into a hurricane, isn’t it? Something that’s messy, expensive and useless. We’d do rather better to be changing the rules of the system so that new job creation is easier, no?
And the answer to that no? is yes!
But then that’s IPPR North for you. Being, as they are, based north of Watford Gap their output is toothless gurning rather than anything anyone actually finds useful.
But given that 10% of jobs are destroyed and created each year (and the new ones are not the same as the old ones), far better to locate where there is the most human protoplasm nearby to find new combinations for: London and the South-east.
(Pissing into a hurricane isn’t “expensive.” Government job creation is.)
Not quite. Best to locate where there are most available people with the skills that you want. Available being unemployed with skills or paid less than you’re prepared to pay or paid the same or not much more with a lousy boss/work environment. If you want to build/rent a factory and manufacture heavy engineering products then the north-east is far better than London, cutting-edge science, Cambridge Science Park. BUT the list of jobs that increased were among those that are London-centric – so that was the reason for the increased imbalance: if the geography was the cause then other London-centric… Read more »