CSO have it here: cso.ie/releasespublications/ … t/lreg.pdf
interesting that (by percentage) more females than males joined the live register in 2009:
When you consider the wave of emigration underway, and the fact that many on jobseeker’s benefit will fail to qualify for jobseeker’s allowance once their 9 or 12 months are up and therefore fall off the register, the numbers are very interesting.
I still think both of the above factors will kick in strongly in the first quarter and will be spun as part of the Lenihan Stabilisation Paradigm.
I don’t think you necessarily fall of the register once you’re not getting any payments.
Many people continue to sign on for social welfare stamps and therefore remain on the register.
True, I forgot about that.
The number of people in employment has fallen, the number of people leaving the country is rising, the number of empties is rising. No way will house prices rise in the next 2/3 years.
I presume there is no way to quantify the number of people emigrating other than asking everyone getting on to a flight if they are coming back is there ?
estimations are fine but I imagine it’s fairly fallible no?
And there’s the added complication of the common border with the UK.
The best measure is the decrease or increase in employment.,
Which wouldn’t adjust for retirements or people dropping out of the available to work pool for lifestyle reasons, etc.
How is there such a large difference between the seasonally adjusted and non-adjusted rates of 3,300 and 10,000 respectively. Does that mean that 6,700 jobs are lost in December every year because the work runs out? Surely December would be a seasonally positive month as the shops take on extra staff, and most businesses try to increase output in a big push to improve their end of year figures. I’ve worked in a variety of jobs, and all of them were either busier or the same in December than at any other time of year.
Or is it based on the fact that because last December there were a load of redundancies, this December’s figure is seasonally adjusted down because of that?
Also, if job losses increased by 70% in 2008 and jobs were lost at the same rate in 2009 then the % job loss in 2009 would be 41%. So 46% is an increase in the rate of job loss. Yet somehow I suspect it will be touted as a decrease in the rate of job loss because it was 70% in 2008 but “only” 46% in 2009. By my calculation, if the job loss rate was to continue at the same rate as 2008 in 2010 it would be a 29% increase in the number of jobless.