Day / 7 Nov 2012

by sheilasingapore

Newspaper Column #3: Is unemployment, the real problem? The Story of Supply of Labour – Part III

As it appeared in the Sunday Standard, Botswana on  Sunday Nov 4, 2012 edition.

Labour is a cost

It can assist to generate revenue but it is firstly, a cost.  When we add them up, it can rack up into billions of dollars.  Easily.

Hence a situation of ‘that we have labour’, will not be enough reason why ‘jobs will be created’.  The jobs need to be paid.  When the money dries up, including borrowings, so does the job.  This will happen in the same way for any country.

The supply of labour however remains unchanged.  They are either more who are employed or more who are unemployed.

Next, think bottleneck.

When the supply of labour exceeds the demand for it, the demand becomes the ‘neck’ of the bottle.  It narrows the uptake of the supply. Competition and waiting for jobs are the inevitable consequences of the bottleneck.  As we release the bottleneck competition disappears.  And so would unemployment.

We would therefore require solutions on both sides of the ‘neck’ to solve the problem of persistent unemployment.

In the past two week’s editions of this column, we introduced two factors that influence persistent unemployment.  Should we create new jobs (i.e. there is demand for labour), unemployment goes down.  Should however, the numbers of births and immigration (i.e. the supply of labour) go up over time, so does unemployment.

We also discussed that the ability of sectors to create jobs is influenced by the health of profit margins of three interrelated industries, i.e. the primary, secondary and tertiary industries.   We discussed when the primary industry grows; they help to grow the secondary industries which in in turn help to grow the tertiary industries.

At this point, unemployment becomes resolved.  Hard as it may sound, it is a solution we cannot ignore.  The easy way out, would lead us back in, one way.  Back to the problem.

In today’s edition of the column, we explore the story of the supply side of unemployment and its solution.

This becomes important to help us see solutions that are digging us in deeper into the problem.  It will be ironical that what we had hoped will help the situation could actually be making them worse.  Things become better before they become worse.  At that point, we would have a situation spiralling out of hand.

A case in point is, if there are more of us than there are jobs available, skilling people without creating jobs will not make unemployment go away.  I know we do not like to hear this.  And neither do I.

Jobs do not stay vacant.  They are going to others.  And yes, while the best man may win, there is another man (or woman) out there.  That is the point.

If the problem does not budge despite resources, then it is a sign that all what we have done was to apply a solution to the consequence of the problem but not to its cause.  To deal with the cause, we would need to pull ourselves away from the fire to notice where the gas pipe is coming from.  A fireman cannot help us at this stage.

Supply of Labour

What causes the increase in the supply of labour?

One might say, well that’s easy.  It is caused by migration.  Well, that is certainly true.   For the short term.  Migration is just that.  Sometimes they are in.  And sometime they are out.

Sustained long-term increase in the supply of labour is caused by the rates at which locals add births to the population numbers within the country.   This impact is pre-determined.  It cannot be changed,  its effects are not felt immediately but they were set into motion twenty years ago.  They are felt twenty years later when the babies have grown into young adults and are about to join the employment pool of the country.

We therefore do not connect the problem to the cause since they are both distant in time and space from each other.  And when we do not see this relation, we disregard the cause and take the easier way out.  We look at immigration.  This happens for any country.

And so, if unemployment is persistent today, then this is an indication that numbers of those born twenty to thirty years ago and have now joined the labour pool, had been pushing up slowly but steadily.   Yesterday, we rejoiced each birth in our families.  Of course, we were not watching their total consequences on the nation for tomorrow.  Well, not yet.

As a nation, how many persons have we added to the pool of supply in the past forty years?  Yes, it may feel late to ask such a question.  It is meant as a way to face reality.

Let us say, should we produce 5,000 children per month, and that makes it 60,000 babies born in a year, then we can reasonably expect that twenty years from now (and 1.2 million people later), when they grow up, we would need to be preparing for an additional 60,000 jobs (given gender equality) for that cohort.

This is in addition to those already employed prior to them.  If we are seeing 30,000 retirees, we are still looking at creating an additional 30,000 or more new jobs for the cohort.  And do not forget these 60,000 do not stay at producing another 60,000.  Yes?  How many will they produce in ten to fifteen years from now?  That will become tomorrow’s reality.

How much would an additional 30,000 jobs (for that year) cost us?  Don’t forget the other years and other employees.

Who created the children?  You are right.  We did!

Who will create the jobs for them?

Creating Jobs

In a recent project on unemployment in a country, we saw the population of 35 year olds and younger, ballooned six folds in a thirty-year period.  On the other hand, job creation had not risen by anywhere near as much.  The population had disregarded these economic factors.  Of course, we can say, economic and bedroom choices do not always mix.

At rates of six-fold increases, just that layer of the population would quite easily add over another 1/3 million persons by the next generation.  These are figures before immigration.

So what is happening?

In short, we are now attempting to “fight” the problem somewhat oblivious to these realities. We saw the fire. But not what caused it! We had hoped that the supply of labour could influence the demand for labour. But that is just not economics.

Still, I wonder if, as citizens, we can totally absolve ourselves from not understanding these figures and how they play up in our everyday lives.   What do you think?

At some point we would no longer be able to shut our eyes to this.  The reality would soon wake us up, as as we see our children stay unemployed.

Have we come back full circle here?  Who designed this circle of causality?  Is this unique for one country?

What should we do today?

As citizens should we know what these numbers look like for the country?

Understanding this trends, profoundly changes the game plan in many ways.  Firstly, it allows the problem to be solved where it started (the community), not where it ended (government).  There is leverage here, as it allows the greatest changes to happen with the least amount of effort.

I have tended to believe that should citizens understand these numbers, they would become clearer at steering the country out of this problem.  Even by themselves.  These may include making choices such as coming up to speed in ways to create jobs rather than wait for jobs to be created.  Or consider seeking employment outside the country.  It is the go-getter attitude by such individuals that will eventually help draw revenue to any country and themselves.

That’s for today.  How may we better prepare ourselves for tomorrow?

Families are key

We could actually become better at matching birth with job creation rates.  Knowing these trends, may free us as families, to consider channelling resources to the building of the primary industries of the economy.  This is a strong system of production of raw materials for all levels of the economy.  Farmers, and growers of raw materials, who see this impact beyond putting food on their table for their family, are beginning to pay attention to this systemic reality.  Production is now greater than consumption in the country.

When they do so, the family is now taking a step towards ensuring that jobs are more likely to be created at other levels of the economy, for the children we produce.  We may find that as more resources are allocated to primary industry production (and less to child production) we become better at learning to manage our population numbers more in line with the capacity of the country to produce jobs for our children.  There is an order in which causality happens.

Unemployment, at that point, stops becoming a problem.

How do you see this issue?  Given the above, do we need to understand the picture that is happening for the country today?  What’s stopping families allocating resources to primary industries?

Go forward another twenty years from now.  What trends would you like to see?  For our families?  The economy?  And our country?  For employment?

Hope this inspires discussion amongst your family and friends for ways you see us resolve this issue.

English: US Whig poster showing unemployment i...

English: US Whig poster showing unemployment in 1837 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

by sheilasingapore

Newspaper Column #2: Is unemployment, the real problem? The story of Demand for Labour – Part II

As it appeared in the Sunday Standard, Botswana on  Sunday Oct 28, 2012 edition.

Supply of Labour

Industries (be they by locals or foreigners) do not exist for the sole purpose of employing citizens.  Hard as it may be to accept this point, it really is not that difficult to see the reason.

What is harder to see is an unemployed economy will affect the growth of his industry.  Not immediately.  But eventually it will.  Think most political revolutions. It is a sign of a vicious circle.

In last week’s edition of this column, we uncovered two factors that influence persistent unemployment in any country.   These were:

  1. The rates of growth of demand for labour (by employers) vs.
  2. The rates of growth of supply of labour (by employees)

As the supply of labour (rising birth and migration rates) persistently exceeds demand, unemployment grows.  This does not mean that our attempts at correcting the problem will not be successful.  They will not be successful for the long-term.

On the other hand, as the demand for labour (number of new jobs created) persistently exceeds the supply, unemployment would decline (and literally disappear by itself).

This week, we explore the demand – a side commonly used by most of us when focussing on the problem of unemployment.  In the next edition of this column, we will get around to supply.

But before we continue, what does the picture of growing demand for labour look like?  We might say, well, that is obvious.  We would see companies and industries recruit and persons as employees of their organizations.  That’s where most of us would stop.

But that would not be quite enough here.  We should see increasing numbers employed for the long-term.  Possibly even for decades.  And it happens primarily in the private sector.  They are key. If these three conditions do not happen, then real and deliberate growth in demand for labour has not quite happened.  Yet.

But what influences the demand for labour to grow consistently (rather than ad-hoc)?

It would require industries and the country to post a healthy growth of its income margins or profits.  Year-on-year.

Margins / Profits = Level of Revenue Earned – Level of Costs Incurred

This difference needs to grow sustainably.  Where revenues grow and costs decline, the industry is well positioned to create new jobs each year and pay for higher wages in other years.  The reverse is also true.  When the margins are negative, we would face sustained unemployment.

What would cause the margins to grow sustainably for any industry?

Asking this question is deliberate in helping the mind steer itself to the inevitabilities.

Does sustainable growth of margins happen because we are able to apply “do more with less” strategy, really well?  Or, is it because sales have picked up for that industry.  Well, yes, partly.

However, here’s the inevitable.

The extent to which we see sustained growth of margins depends on the extent margins or profits grow across ALL the three levels of industries in any economy, i.e. primary, secondary and tertiary industries.  These three share a very tight systemic relationship!

As we take care of the whole, not parts of the economy, the nation grows.  We all know that.  AndI know we can turn this knowledge around with our hands and feet.

So what causes sustained systemic growth of all three types of industries?

Think tomato sauce.  The cost of manufacturing and eventually retailing that sauce would depend on the cost of the transport and distribution systems (secondary industries) needed to transport the raw materials to the factory or retail sites as well as the cost of producing the raw material itself (i.e. from seed to fruit by the farming industry).

The transport industry, in this regard is secondary to manufacturing while farming of tomatoes is primary to both transport and manufacturing.

Should however, the costs of the primary and secondary industries for each unit of product produced increase over time, the  tertiary industries would not be able to reverse those costs, much less grow without incurring further costs and will have their work cut out for them to stay afloat, much less see their margins grow in sustained ways.  That is the reality.  The experience will otherwise be like juggling balls.  It will be hard to take our eyes off them because we do not know when they will fall.

When these costs are passed on to the customers or citizens, it makes it harder for them to find ways to fund continued private sector development efforts.  Here we have now come full circle.

In most cases, the primary industry refers to raw material production, in particular crop production.  As we grow our raw materials (as we have achieved with sorghum production), its secondary (farm and brew trucks) and tertiary (brew production and retail) industries will begin to grow as well.

Just as the white farmers in South Africa in the primary industries (vegetables, fruits, dairy and livestock production) have done for the Chinese and the Indians in the secondary and tertiary industries there (as well as here in major supermarket chains).   This relationship, however, did not happen overnight.  It took almost one hundred and fifty years in the making in South Africa (and not forgetting two centuries before that in India).

So for a nation to thrive (not survive), think the root of a plant.  When the root thrives, so does the plant.  When it dies, so will it and the other healthy roots around it will suffocate the plant out.  Removing the top of the plant will not cause it to go away.  The root will bring it back.

I am sure you see it!  When the profit margins do not grow for all of the three industries, the number of new jobs created does not grow.  Instead, unemployment grows.What is the implication of these to employment, you ask?

Where are we today as a nation on this graph?

Which industries are dominant for the nation?  Which ones are not?  Which industry do you see as driving the others?  Would you like to be a part of or lead from that seat?  I am sure you can!

What would cause the health of primary industry or production of raw materials to grow over time?  This will be the subject of another column.  But till then, I wish you, happy thinking and discussing.

So is unemployment the real problem or could it just be the tip of another problem? The iceberg. How do you see this issue?  Go forward another twenty years from now.  What could these trends look like then?  Could this possibly affect the sovereignty of a nation?  For any nation?

The 3rd instalment in this three part series of this article will appear in the next edition of this column.  It will explore the supply side of the equation of labour and unemployment.   Watch this space.

by sheilasingapore

Newspaper Column #1: Is unmployment the real problem – Part I

As it appeared in the Sunday Standard, Botswana on  Sunday Oct 21, 2012 edition (maiden print).

This is the 1st of a three part series of this article.  Each part will build on the earlier article to an eventual conclusion.  We invite you to participate in the column as well as do your ‘own homework’ – searching and discussing to build your own conclusions.

When unemployment persists (hard as it is to admit it is happening)

Persistent unemployment, in any country is a consequence of two factors.

The rate of increase of supply of labour (birth rates from twenty years ago) relative to the rate of increase in the demand for labour (job creation rates of today).  In jest, it is a mismatch of rates of child creation of the past vs. rates of job creation today.

Should the rate of demand for labour exceed supply year on year; we would have full employment of the locals and perhaps be able to employ foreigners as well.  However, should supply of labour persistently outgrow demand; we would now have a classic case of persistent unemployment.

When we, as citizens, learn to watch these two behaviours of change as a nation over time then we should expect to resolve the issue of unemployment.   For good.

When we don’t, and we are oblivious to the reason, all we can expect to do is to play a catching-up game but not solve the problem.  It stays on the charts as a stubborn problem, usually on the President’s table, worsening over time.  This is, despite efforts from all quarters to run ahead of the problem or get to the root of the issue.  Not to say, we hear persistent disgruntlement amongst the locals about the lack of employment opportunities for the youth or for those employed the lack of pay rises and we harbour fears of jobs being taken away by foreigners.

So,

Sustained Growth of Supply of Labour > Sustained Growth of Demand for Labour

= Sustained Unemployment

[Insert graphic here]

These two factors are not directly related to each other, but they each

 influence unemployment, separate as they may be.

But what led things to get this far?

What causes the demand for labour to decline relative to the supply of labour?  And what causes the supply of labour to increase relative to the demand for it?

First let’s explore the supply side.

Here’s a case in example.  In the ten years to 2010, Vietnam saw its population numbers grow from 80 to 89 million.  Growth of population numbers and more typically birth and migration numbers influence the supply side of this equation.  Job creation on the other hand, did not see such levels of growth.  The result is, we see runaway unemployment in the country.

Closer to home, while, population numbers in the country do not compare anywhere close to those we see in Vietnam, still when we look beyond the overall numbers, there are interesting data that we cannot ignore.

We know the overall population numbers have grown somewhat from 1.5 to 2 million levels over a decade.  Given however, the concerns of mortality rates one may conclude that our population numbers have not really changed all that much to warrant the unemployment levels we see in the country.

But realistically … has the supply of labour declined over time?

Births rates from twenty years ago, leads to the supply of labour and therefore the unemployment numbers we see today.

When we remove population and mortality figures and see our fertility rates, we may notice that these numbers have not been all that low.  In fact, typically in most populations, each generation outnumbers the previous one.  Think of population pyramid, where the numbers of young born are in numbers greater than older persons in the population.  But also see population pyramids for more recent decades assuming wider bases than those in previous ones.

Such trends are not apparent when we gloss over overall population data.  Yes, there is migration data.  But we cannot shut our eyes to these sheer levels of increase.

Do we know by how much such numbers have grown?  In the country?  In the region?

A separate question is, when should we start noticing such increases?  Would it be when the young turn 20 years old and are now looking for a job and they complain they cannot find one?

That will be too late!

We would now instead be dealing with “a fire” in our hands.  Youth unemployment rather than employment.  Yet it really is a problem that had its embers simmering for the past 20 years.  Quietly but surely.  But we were not watching it, till the embers had blown over and we now have a fire in our hands.  At this point, we say, we have a problem.  A burning platform.  But the signs were long there.  If we push this now, the system will push back.

Ok it has not.  And … has the demand for labour increased by such levels during this period?

If it has, we should not see sustained unemployment.  This is indicative that the demand for labour has not matched such levels.

How much has it increased by?  Perhaps more importantly, how much would it need to increase by?  Two-folds?  Six-folds?  What do you see are the answers?  What is making it difficult to get there?

Interestingly, should we think carefully about both sides of the equation, that is, the jobs and the children we create are influenced by the same segment of the population.  The Adults.

While perhaps we may argue that these’ activities are carried out’ by different sub-segments of the adult population, it is still the sole prerogative of this group.  The problem may not belong to any one part of this group, i.e. government or private sector or families.  That sounds like the bad news.  That it was our fault (in any generation).  But the good news is if we created the problem, then we also have the ‘power’ in our hands and in our hearts to turn it around (yes, even as a citizen) for the nation.  Together.

So is unemployment, still the real problem?  How do you see this issue?  Go forward another twenty years from now.  What would these trends look like then?

Yes, you are right given this, the reality looks painful for our children too.  But I also know, if anyone can turn this around, it is us!

The 2nd and 3rd articles in this three part series will appear in the next edition of this column.   It will seek to explore the story of the demand and supply sides of labour respectively more deeply and what causes them to either grow or decline over time.

END

#998

Countries by birth rate in 2008World map showing countries by nominal GDP per...

While this is her maiden newspaper column, Ms Sheila Damodaran is an avid writer on her blogs and website.   An international consultant in the use of systemic thinking for regional or sectoral strategy development, she welcomes feedback on her column as well as requests for types of persistent issues you wish to see discussed in her column at sheila@loatwork.com.  For more information, refer to www.loatwork.com.