When The Economy Speaks … ICT Graduate Unemployment Is Just the Tip of National Unemployment Iceberg

DEFINING THE RESEARCH SPACE

It is not difficult to create employment.

It is harder to keep unemployment off!

Do you wonder what came of the billions (possibly trillions) spent by countries both as governments as well as private sector (including foreign direct) investors, across the world, decade after decade (let’s say, now going five decades) with the purpose of creating employment, and then learn to find that unemployment persists relentlessly , companies shut down at the snap of a global economic meltdown and national economic growths continue to take hits, year after year?

Is this story familiar?

Why does this happen?

I am not alluding that the money is siphoned off. That is not where I am going. But, yes, there is another kind of ‘siphoning’ happening.

In the meantime, of course, governments face angry faces of unemployed constituents and so nations react by wanting to see both governments and foreigners ‘continue to invest’ in it.  Why does the issue persist?

Often, when an issue persists, it is a sign we have made the choice to avoid some difficult and hard decisions.  These hard choices  include questions such as what is causing our innate ability to be honest with ourselves, and that includes bearing criticisms, taking a hard look at ourselves (instead of cowing others into submission or hustling as needed), being patient, persistent and being sufficiently resilient to spring back from setbacks, diminish over time.  All of which are factors that are critical to the ability of a country to succeed as a nation in growing its economy.

So, which one do you think comes first?

Nurturing our capacity to be patient, to persist and be resilient and being frugal (doing more with less (not spending no more than 10% of the margins for personal spending while the business is still trying to stand up on its feet (and generate its own income) is the first rule of business)) despite the odds stacked up against us?

OR

Needing to seek investments?

What is destroying our ability to grow these innate capacities for us?  These and more questions are explored in this article.

Botswana’s new leader wants to shrink the civil service, sell state companies and cut red tape as he targets increased foreign investment.

President Mokgweetsi Masisi has identified reducing the country’s reliance on diamonds and creating jobs for the almost one in five workers who are unemployed as his top priorities since taking office six weeks ago.  Private companies will have to take the lead, he said in a May 14 interview in his office in the capital, Gaborone.

“The government in and of itself does not really create jobs,” Masisi said. “It is not my desire to grow the public service any bigger; if anything, it is my desire to trim the civil service so we are more efficient, we are leaner, meaner, and we can do business and we are more attractive to the private sector for them to invest.”

Source: Agency Staff. (2018). Botswana wants to shrink civil service so privatisation can grow the economy. Bloomberg. Available at: https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/world/africa/2018-05-16-botswana-wants-to-shrink-civil-service-so-privatisation-can-grow-the-economy/ [Retrieved on 17 May 2018].

OUTLINE:

  1. THE OVERARCHING SYSTEMIC STRUCTURE OF UNEMPLOYMENT
  2. THE STORY OF SUPPLY OF LABOUR
  3. THE DIGITAL USE DIVIDE:  A SPECIAL MENTION
  4. THE STORY OF DEMAND FOR LABOUR
    1. WHEN GOVERNMENTS INTERVENE
    2. WHEN PRIVATE SECTOR INTERVENES
    3. THE UNEMPLOYED DIGITAL USE (ICT GRADUATES) EXPERTS – WHEN THAT HAPPENS – A SPECIAL MENTION
    4. BUILDING INDUSTRY SYNERGY: VALUE CHAIN MATRICES
  5. THE UNEMPLOYED DIGITAL EXPERT (OR ICT GRADUATES) – A SPECIAL MENTION: WHY IT HAPPENS?
  6. WHEN DEFINING THE TRUE NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS
  7. REQUIRED RESEARCH ANALYSIS

GENERAL TALKING POINTS OF INTEREST:

THE OVERARCHING STRUCTURE:

Systemically, the growing pool of unemployment today is as the result of the different rates of change that exists between the levels of annual births from as far back as twenty years ago and the capacity of annual jobs created today.  Why twenty years?  That is the average age before someone becomes ready to join the labour market.  The changing rates of unemployment is determined by rate at which these two factors change over time relative to each other.

When the numbers of Jobs Created Today < Children ‘created’ from twenty years ago cause the number of persons that are unemployed adds on to an existing pool.

WHEN
Growth Rate of Births From Twenty Years Ago (A)
IS GREATER THAN (>)
Growth Rate of Job Creation Today (B)

= GROWING RATES OF UNEMPLOYMENT Today (C)

A = SUPPLY OF LABOUR
B = DEMAND FOR LABOUR

And so,
Growing Unemployment = When Growth of A > Growth of B

Meanwhile
Growing Employment = When Growth of A < Growth of B (it would now have the capacity to absorb increasing immigrant employment).

And of course,
Full Annual employment = When Growth of A matches the Growth of B

SUPPLY OF LABOUR

The factor that contributes to the supply of labour in any nation is the rate of births.  Yes, it is dependent directly, on the number of students who graduate from the education system but how wide that pipe is, would depend on the rate at which the nation populates or replaces itself.

It would, however, not be completely accurate to say that had the overall population numbers not increased substantially over the years, that it must mean that the rate of births has not increased.  It could mean instead that the rates of attrition (deaths or migration) or somewhat higher than the rates of births.  Hence, the theory would have to be tested before being confirmed that it is so.

Couples within an intact marriage often would have a better chance at influencing the rates of births within their combined capacity to provide for the children.  However, in an impaired marriage (and I am not referring to visual or hearing impairment) or a marriage where the couple has lost or is losing their ability to be committed to each other, as a couple they begin to produce children outside of the marriage.

As males become increasingly sexually active with several partners (or with the same partner), he then tends to produce more female progeny.  A higher proportion of females within the system would mean a higher propensity of the population to increase its birth rates and therefore even further female offsprings (testament to polygamous communities typically living off on arid lands).  It does so, at times, at runaway rates i.e. populate at rates faster than their capacity to provide for it.

Of course, when the males present their progeny within an open system (marriage or a polygamous community), where everyone sees the number and the gender of children he has produced, it is much more evident as a community and as a nation the impact such behaviours will have on unemployment and job creation in the future.  When he is, however, unable to do so or such information is limited to immediate family members or the village, impacts of such acts become less discernible to the nation as a whole.  Governments seem to be caught unawares of the extent of the issue till the election times are upon them.

THE DIGITAL USE DIVIDE:  A SPECIAL MENTION

The Digital divide is a term that typically refers to the gap between demographics and regions that have physical access to modern information and communications technology, and those that don’t or have restricted access.  This technology can include the telephone, television, personal computers and the Internet.

But I would like to make a special case for this divide here.  The Digital Use Divide. One perhaps that was brought on by man’s own decision to avoid the hard choices when he had to make them.

Think back to the time when we were choosing to decide to whom should a topic such ICT to the population?  The old ones?  The young ones?  Which one did we choose?  We thought, it was easier to teach ICT to young minds.  Teaching the old ones would be like trying to teach old dog new tricks.  It will be painful and take a long time.  That is harder.  It takes time and resources’.  Well, moulded, we sure did.

Except, what becomes the consequence of this choice?  It meant that the old ones except in the case of passive use of the ICT are fearful of engaging ICT actively for purposeful and creative uses.  They did not want to come across as incompetent or worse, stupid.  So what will be the result of older generation trying to work with the younger ICT graduate?  What would we do?  Did you say, we could ‘push them away’.  This way the older ones can avoid dealing with the pain of that fear of using ICT.

DigitalDivide_Infographic
Figure 3:  Digital Use Divide

Adding, to this, persons who would typically venture into small businesses in the private sector or set up their own businesses would be persons (typically the parents of the millennials) who did not do as well in school particularly in the  areas of mathematics and science.  They have found it difficult to keep a job since they are not able to do most jobs that are common in the new knowledge economy.

On the other hand, an ICT graduate would have had a much easier time with these subjects, and appear to come across as the ‘know-all millennials who do not care for the ones who do not understand maths and science subjects’.  They would then be perceived as a threat to the older ones.  These experiences, can often push the  wedge in the divide between the two, even further, and often generations apart, from each other.

The trick for now may lie in the young ones learning to make a very conscious, but not obvious, choice to ‘hand-hold’ the older generation along in crossing this bridge of divide that exists now between them.  Very patiently and learning not to tread on tender emotions, when doing so.  Should the two generations figure ways to build that trust between them, we could possibly enter a new era of interacting between the owners and enablers of the economy that would enable them to expand their market, manufacture bases and export capacity to the region, all of which requires the ICT environment to flourish.

It would also mean opening opportunities up for several other careers such as sales, accounts, finance and marketing to take off in the industry.  Should we, however, not be successful in doing so, we face the risk of riding off into a bleak future of seeing the pool of ICT unemployed graduates grow or eventual dwindling of numbers willing to enter the study of the profession or a draining of their talents out of the industry or worse off, the country.    That would present a loss of investments by the country in their learning and therefore a possible alternative future for the country.

What is your view?

Now, going back to the point on the supply of and demand for labour, just a bit.  The trick is both, the supply of labour (bearing of children) and the demand for labour (creation of jobs), is essentially ‘managed’ by the same person, the man in his 30s to the 50s.  When he figures how he would create more jobs than children, he, more than anyone else effectively wipes out unemployment for his country.  Not the government.

DEMAND FOR LABOUR:

– WHEN GOVERNMENTS INTERVENE

When governments create jobs (in government) to absorb the unemployed, they do so at the expense citizens pay to the state coffers or from revenue of sales of raw materials extracted from the ground.  It typically behaves as a cost to the overall system with low returns.

Additionally, these jobs do not fundamentally change the structure of the economy, in particular develop the primary sector of the economy i.e. the production of natural raw materials by its citizens.  This sector not only has the greatest capacity to absorb employment that will be needed for sustained growth of the economy over time compared to manufacturing or industry and service sectors, but it serves as the fuel that will keep the economy burning to some extent, literally, and therefore growing its GDP (the ROI on government and private sector spending).

Investing without the  need to sustain the investment is a sign that the country is primed for investments in the sector as a result of solid growth of the supporting industries.  However, should a country after, tens of years (decades) of investment injections by corporations and nationals from both within and outside the country and in-spite so, continues to rely on such injections to sustain its growth, it then speaks to a fundamental breakdown of the supporting set  of industries (primary for industries and, manufacturing for retail) needed to support sustained growth of the ones above it.

– WHEN PRIVATE SECTOR INTERVENES

Notice as in a pyramid (see figure below) the layers at the bottom of the pyramid of economic structures provide much greater capacities to absorb employment than the ones above it.  The math is easy.  If there are 30,000 personnel in the services sector, then we are looking at say, 100,000 persons that would be needed within the agriculture raw material production strata to grow and support the layers above it.  The services and the government sectors will not be able to absorb 130,000 persons when there is little persons and materials to sustain the growth profitably from within the primary industries.  Also refer to Figure 1 below for reference of a country till in recent times that has absorbed large numbers of the population within the primary economic agriculture sector.

pyramid-of-classes-in-egypt.jpg

The private sector creates new jobs when it has the capacity to generate revenue (notice I did not say funding) in a sustained manner at rates faster than the costs of production of the organization.  When the change between the two grows a margin such that the growth in the margins itself is sustained, then the organization is able to create new jobs in a sustained manner for the economy.  This does not, however, happen when its development is based on the principles of socialist economic systems where we strive for equality in the distribution of wealth (that poses risks of rising costs).  It only happens when the rates of growth of revenues inclines and rates of growths of costs decline.

What would influence that?  The current set of employees do.  From management and that includes the boss to the cleaner.  Companies do not create employment. Employees do.  When everyone in the company helps to grow (rather than consume) the margins, they, in turn help the company create margins that help it to expand and therefore recruit more employees in the future.

 When we understand that, in principle, anyone could start anything from anywhere.  There right there is how new jobs become available to us today from the past.  However, when a new employee joins asking what is it in there for them, or carving out their own niche, that’s a warning bell.  It is the start of that company not only losing potential new employees but stand to lose their current jobs.  When there is unemployment today, this suggests that this has been happening from the past.

THE UNEMPLOYED DIGITAL EXPERT – A SPECIAL MENTION – WHY IT HAPPENS?

When graduates or trained ICT personnel continue to stay unemployed within the nation, it is a sign the following are happening:

  • A numbers mismatch.  This is a case of where there are more graduates created (SS) than there are jobs inherently (naturally as in a free market system, as opposed to forced employment creation (those created by government in response to appease an unhappy voting public)) available for the sector.
  • Skills mismatch.  Where the employers are unsure or even feel threatened to hire ICT graduates.  This is a case where employers do not understand what ICT graduates can do (refer to the digital divide segment above, where this elaborated further) for them or what that job would do to affect the bottom-line of the organization.  This gap is particularly noted in the small, medium and micro-businesses.  If these businesses make up the majority of the populace, then ICT graduates who come from that same populace (who are children of that population), will inevitably find themselves at the short-end of the stick.  Their parents are unlikely to open jobs to them, except on compassionate (for socialist reasons) grounds, unless the parent sees a very experienced ICT personnel (who is at this juncture is not a graduate) who can convince they can and will change the bottom-line for the organization.  The small businesses make up the major employers of any country.  Each one of them may not be anywhere close to the size of your national network chain employers, but they are more important as a combined system in terms of numbers and impact.  If this sector does not change its mind towards ICT employment, doing anything else to change it will not make any significant difference to the country.
  • When other graduates are employed gainfully, ICT graduates are better placed to be employed as well.  They usually do not make a substitute for a missing production base, unless the ICT graduate is just as skilled in non-ICT-based jobs, such as cooking food products, as an example, in which case, they would then know how to mechanize the process.  When they don’t. the job for which they are trained for, ceases to stay relevant.There is a systemic breakdown of the economic sectors within the country.  ICT sector employment does not create or conduct the actual jobs needed to generate revenue within the economy.  They facilitate an existing process to become more efficient particularly when the volumes of trade are significant.  The presumption is a process or a window exists that needs to be made more efficient between factors of production and management of production.  This is caused by two interrelated factors:
  • This means sales and revenues are generated particularly in a vibrant manufacturing and agriculture sectors.  However, when markets are dull (as in what happens when there does not exist a strong set of primary and secondary economic sectors) and the economy is not hiring factors of production (jobs in other sub-sector, e.g. milling, cooking, producing furniture, clothes, and so on) in the first instance, and in which case, this window for the ICT sector becomes narrowed significantly.

So which one is your reason?

BUILDING SYNERGY OF INDUSTRIES: VALUE CHAINS

The easiest way for an opposing political party to bring a ruling government down  is, noteworthy enough, not at the elections.  It is slowdown, low productivity and tool down at the workplace, often by employees that are party to the opposition.  This fundamentally does one thing.  It works at gradually eroding the synergies needed in an economy to keep the economy well-oiled and running effectively.  These are its  value chains.

This does not change because the ruler is no longer at the helm and had to leave office to his opponent.  All it does do is the see the camps trade places.  But nothing changes fundamentally until, the lines between the ruling and the opposition fade away and the people of all creeds and parties decide to join their hands, hearts and minds as one.  A broken industry value chain is a sign of the breaking down of its people of the nation.

WHEN DEFINING THE TRUE NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS

Governments and nations can only consider patch works of correcting unemployment as a nation when it looks at the narrowest definition of unemployment.  To consider working with the real rate of unemployment, it would require understanding the state of unemployment that exists at its fullest extent within the nation.  Refer to Figure 3 to determine such a figure.  Remember as always, it is not the primary responsibility of governments to absorb these numbers, if they are high.

These numbers need to be understood as a nation and dealt with as a nation to turn the issue around.  The ruling party or the government can bring it to the awareness of the nation but it is still the responsibility of the nation in deciding together what it will do next as a nation.

To note, unemployment in the region cannot be ruled out as part of the unemployment structure within the country.  We cannot run away from this reality.  A true picture of the country needs to include the true picture of unemployment in the region that needs attention.

Homelessness, crime, substance abuses, domestic violence, divorce rates, growing single-parent households and reliance on government programmes are just making up the tip of this ice-berg.

Vietnam's Employment Figures 1990-2009
Figure 5: Share of employment by sector

Source: Tuyen Tranh and Tinh Doan. (2010). Industralization, economic and employment structure cbanges in Vietnam during economic transition BCollege of Economics Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Available at: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/26996/1/Vietnam_industrialization_and_employment_structure_changes.pdf [Retrieved on 17 May 2018].

Unemployment Rate.png
Figure 6:  Defining Real Unemployment Figures within the country / region

REQUIRED RESEARCH ANALYSIS

FOR DETAILS OF DATA REQUIRED FOR RESEARCH ANALYSIS FOR THIS SUBJECT, CLICK HERE.

FOR STORIES RELATED TO PRODUCTIVITY, CLICK HERE.

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.

Regional Article 20: Why do disputes by labor (with unions) and employers go up?

  1. Despite our efforts to set up judiciary courts to preside over cases involving employers and employees embroiled in disputes with each other as well as educate ‘people’ on ways to avoid disputes with each other, why do relations between employers and employees continue to sour and such disputes tend to soar year after year?  Surely, it should have made a dent to the trend by now.  If not, why so?   As this forces us to allocate even further public resources to it the following year!
  2. Think how much money we have poured (country after country) to ‘douse the flames and put out the smoke’ after thirty, forty, fifty years of working at our industrial relation efforts.  Has that been little amount of money?
  3. So why do things not change?
  4. Will it get better?  Or can it get worse?

Why do things happen that way?  Why are such trends resisting our efforts to control it (for the sake of up-liftment of our economies, we would argue)?

Regional Article 17: Is unemployment real?

UNEMPLOYMENT = SUPPLY OF LABOUR > DEMAND FOR LABOUR

In a country, where levels of unemployment stay persistent over time, then it is a sign that the rates of growth of the supply of labour (population numbers -” child creation”) each year is growing at rates faster than the rate of growth of the demand for labor  (job creation).  And we as a nation are not noticing these two trends.  Period.

When the supply consistently outstrips demand over time, we have persistent unemployment.  It is an unhealthy situation (as we would have with when supply of manufactured goods exceeds their demand we would have a drop in prices, when supply of rainfall exceeds demand for water, we have  rising water levels, when supply of migrant influx exceeds rate of city planning we have slums, and so on).  Unemployment is a function of how these two variables are behaving relative to each other.  Period.

And should the problem be led by the supply of labour, we need to be realistic to expect that the demand for labour (be they by job vacancies by the private (employment) or the government sectors (education, employment) will grow fast enough to overtake and get rid of the state unemployment in the country.  Seeing scenes of citizens walking the streets looking for jobs is here to stay.  Period.  Again.

What influences the supply of labor?

The rate of supply of labour is influenced by the rate of the population’s growth (i.e. procreation).  The only issue is the supply we see today of twenty and thirty-year olds in the labour market, was set into motion twenty or thirty years ago.  By the population.  The children born then have today become the youth and labour of today …. and therefore today’s unemployment.

In most cases, the populace do not see the relationship of the birth-rates of yesteryears (well pretty much like what happens between the sheets and the timing of births) and much less so their impacts on the labor supply for tomorrow.  It is and is likely to stay “unrelated” in our minds for as long as these inter-relationships are not raised and discussed by all.  Instead, our mind replaces that (“vacuüm in our) thought by fears of our survival or security for our future should “if “the one, two or three” dies or moves away tomorrow?” (this is the voice of the grandmother in the lesser developed  countries).  So, we multiply … mindlessly.

But there is a misconception and it is unfortunate!

Supply does not drive the demand for labour.  This  means, that ‘should there be excess labour’, it is not to say that the demand for labour should go up.  It could go up for compassionate reasons but not on economic grounds.  We forget that in reality, it is the demand for labour that drives its supply.  Period.

What influences the demand for labour?

I sometimes joke, it is often easier to “create children” than it is to “create jobs”.   But in both cases,  the “jobs” are done by the “same person” – Adults.  So well, how is it then that we do not see how we are attempting to solve a problem we have created by our own volition?

Also the mind that ‘looks for a job’ for oneself to feed my children, is not the mind that learns to ‘create jobs’ for others, including for our children.

So it is the fault of the ‘bosses’ for not creating jobs, or the ‘fault of the rest of us’ for not thinking about creating jobs for others (while we are busy trying to find one for ourselves)?

What influences our ability to create  jobs?

It is dependent on the propensity by the same adults of the country to grow the economy, i.e. the private sector.  It includes us defining the ability of the country (and sector / industries) to see :

  1. Capital, flow into the economy (and not the family only)
  2. Increase of the economy’s revenue and
  3. Reduction in the costs of running the economy
  4. Diversification of the economy (systemic growth)
As the margin between the two widens, so to does the country’s / industry’s capacity to see:
  1. Creation of further posts for existing employees to progress into
  2. With progression of existing employees in moving to higher level jobs, it leaves the posts vacant for younger entrants (youths) to more easily enter the labour market
  3. More likelihood of higher wages increase across the board for all

This is dependent on the systemic development (what diversification could look like) of the economy, e.g. the story of the dairy milk production.

So, is this just a case of “not enough jobs”?  Yes? Given what?  We would need to complete the sentence … for everyone!

  1. What should we be doing today to solve the problem of  unemployment?  Who is the ‘we’?  The government?  The private sector?  The public sector?  The citizens?  The male or the man (the demand for labour?)?  The female or the woman (the supply of labour?)?
  2. What, in your view, would  citizens need to understand about these realities before they begin ‘discussions about unemployment’ in the country and to figure their own ways to turn the situation around?
  3. When should we be thinking about the solution to the problem?  When we create the problem or when the problem leads us to another problem?

What are the roles of the wife, mother and the man in turning these situations around?

Which role as a woman does she have an impact on the growing the demand for labour?

Which role does she have an impact on growing the supply of labour?  What is motivating her?

What roles are the men play in each of their relationships with these women?  As the son or the man?

Which role of the man helps grow the demand for labour (job creation) in the economy?

As the son or the man?

But this reasoning almost also begs the question, what were we doing when ‘the spark’ sparked the problem?

Sleeping, you say?

Ahh ….. SURE!

World map showing countries by nominal GDP per...

unemployment rate

English: unemployement rates in OECD countries...

Image via Wikipedia

English: Unemployment rate in Europe (UE) and ...

Image via Wikipedia

English: selfmade image of U.S. Unemployment r...

Population, Landscape, and Climate Estimates, ...

Population, Landscape, and Climate Estimates, v3: Population Density 1990, Africa (Photo credit: SEDACMaps)

Global: Settlement Points

Global: Settlement Points (Photo credit: SEDACMaps)

National Article 15: Is one choosing to work because one needs to eat?

Or does one choose to work because one wants to carve a career (to advance the public or private good) for oneself and for others?

National Article 7: Is Job Descriptions a cover-up for hiding otherwise our fears or our aspirations at the workplace?

And bound by a belief that our views of the world and our aspirations cannot be ‘brought out into the world for others to see’?

Job descriptions, yes they describe the job we do or that someone should do.  But it is that ubiquitous clause at the end that always says, ‘To carry and obey all lawful orders of persons who have authority either over or within …. or sometimes put more simply: ‘And any other jobs as delineated by the supervisor’ that really nails the deal.

It defines who is the boss, I mean the real parent / master, and who is the child (might I say ‘slave’).

Yes, on a day-to-day basis it lays out clearly the tasks that the supervisee will carry out for the supervisor and serves as a document that makes it clear why payment should either be or not be made out depending on the services carried out as per the document.

There is no dispute to use of that document and its validity for doing so.

It is the effects they have in placing someone ‘in his place’ that we would need to watch out for in the long-term.

[More …. soon.]