Q2 QNHS and Migration Estimates: CSO


Will be out shortly. The mid Q2 unemployment rate was estimated at 11.6% in May. Any deviation from will revise the figures from the August 12.4%. The economy lost 90k jobs in Q1 and what most people will be looking for in the data is whether there has been significant slowdown in job losses in Q2 and combined with the migration data at the levels of emigration and whether the country has turned from net immigration to emigration. Interest data to be released.


Key findings: 27k jobs lost in Q2; Average unemployment in Q2 of 12% pushing August figure up close to 13%; Large reduction in non-nationals in employment; Net emigration has returned but only 7800 according to the CSO.

cso.ie/releasespublications/ … t/qnhs.pdf
cso.ie/releasespublications/ … popmig.pdf


To put the migration/population figures in context, this is the lowest population growth (in absolute terms) since 1996. It is the largest net migration figure since 1990.

I think what the figures show is that there is/was a large element of transient migration in migration figures. This should not be surprising - the open borders of the EU encourage this sort of economic migration. What is surprising is that so many commentators in this country saw such migration as permanent… or perhaps that’s not surprising either…


I believe I have the subject for my new book; we are importing more females than males and exporting more males than females. Thus the female population is growing massively. We have only two possible solutions to this demographic crisis - polygamy or state sponsored lesbianism. I suggest we do both. I’m ready to volunteer… anyway, the book is to be entitled “Yet it is Best to Come”…


Let’s face it YM, you’re wrong, plain wrong.

Marc Coleman simultaneously forecast exponential population growth and called the property bubble at the same time… It can’t be any other way.


I was wondering if anyone else noticed the huge male / female gap in unemployment that seems to be happening


You’ll have to get Coleman and McWilliams to emigrate to open up a suitable space in the Irish literati for such a timely tome. :laughing:


Yeah, a few months ago the state moved from having more males in PAYE employment to having more females. A quarter of the males in the workforce are self-employed. Self-unemployed might be a more apt description for many of them…


Simply a result of the “Working male” having to go abroad for work, whilst Wifey stays at home.

Congrats Bertie. You really did build a foundation for the future.

Cunt… :frowning:


The Full-time Employed is being hammered. Over the last year it’s gone from 1,722.4k to 1,532.1k. Given a large number of full-time are state employees, these are pretty big.

Within the full-timers, a number will be low earners. Kinda makes the income tax base look small :cry:


cso.ie/releasespublications/ … t/qnhs.pdf

The total in the labour force topped at 2233.5, but it has dropped to 2,203.1, a drop of 30,400 would that be a more accurate reflection of emigration?


I wasn’t really looking at emigration. I think Full-time employees is a good indicator of how many households can be supported and taxed to support others. It’s also the number of people that can be hit for more tax. This year the government is probably borrowing (in the region of) 15k per full-time employed. :open_mouth:


I was making that point before, its simply incredulous that only 18 thousand civil/public service jobs will be lost,
People need the whole unemployment thing explained to them as follows,
every additional person made unemployed can be termed one more civil/public servant, as their benefit is in fact paid as a wage from the State. Hence we should stop distinguishing the unemployed for simplicity.

So for example, I’m not using exact figures these are relatively arbitrary numbers
Say that the civil/public service has increased from 460K (360K actually undertaking productive work and 100K sitting at home) to 760K (360K actually undertaking productive work + 400K sitting at home).

Government wage bill is C,
where C approx = N (no of employees) x W (annual median salary)
We know N has soared and will continue to do so (each additional unemployment person is a new employee for the government),
therefore it follows W has to fall, if C is to remain constant because increasing income to pay this wage bill is not a viable alternative.
If W is to fall - then either the every employee gets a cut or we “relocate” people from their salary from gainful employment to a lower salary for sitting at home. Either action will reduce the annual salary, thereby reducing keeping C constant.

Each month N increases further, the greater the need for the Government to make the necessary changes to W - if they don’t XX


Classic :laughing:


ewd3 sleazy post of the week award!!! 8DD


As soon as N(unemployed) > N(employed), W falls to the upper level of unemployment benefit.


Ireland is different,

I agree with the broad outline of what you’re saying. I shy away from high level formulas as I tend to start looking for faults. In your example, rather than the formula presented, you’re communicating an idea. And I think it’s good.