Showing posts with label labour_mobility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label labour_mobility. Show all posts

Thursday, 13 June 2019

Young people are no longer footloose and fancy free – and rent rises are to blame

an article by Lindsay Judge for i news [via the Resolution Foundation blog]

In 1997, moving from Telford to Birmingham would mean a 14 per cent financial gain. Today, it would leave someone worse off



Millennials, eh? They never stand still. Always on the move, with their ‘portfolio careers’, side hustles in the gig economy, and no loyalty to the companies they work for. With an attitude like that, it’s no wonder they struggle to find decent work and pay.

There’s only one problem with this common trope though. It’s not true. Well apart from the struggle for decent pay – millennials who left education during the crisis are still feeling the effects in their pay packets and career prospects today.

In fact, young people today are moving jobs less than they were 20 years ago, and they’re even less likely to move areas to take up a new role. Resolution Foundation analysis of official labour market statistics finds that just 18,000 young people started a new job and moved home last year, compared to 30,000 in 1997.

Continue reading


Friday, 27 January 2017

Labour mobility and labour market adjustment in the EU

an article by Alfonso Arpaia (Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission, Brussels) and Aron Kiss, Balazs Palvolgyi and Alessandro Turrini (Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission, Brussels) published in IZA Journal of Migration Volume 5 Article 21 (2016)

Abstract

This paper assesses the role of labour mobility in the adjustment to asymmetric economic shocks in the EU.

After presenting a series of stylised facts of mobility in the EU, it assesses mobility as a channel of economic adjustment by means of a vector autoregression (VAR) analysis in the vein of Blanchard and Katz (BPEA 1:1–75, 1992).

Results indicate that, over the period 1970–2013, mobility absorbed about a quarter of an asymmetric shock within 1 year. Movements in response to shocks have almost doubled since the introduction of the euro. In contrast to previous papers on the labour market adjustment in the EU, the response of wages is integrated to the analysis.

It is found that real wages have also become more responsive to asymmetric shocks.

JEL Classification: J61, J64

Full text (HTML) PDF also available


Tuesday, 2 June 2015

Local labour markets delineation: an approach based on evolutionary algorithms and classification methods

an article by M. Pilar Alonso (Universitat de Lleida, Spain) and Asunción Beamonte, Pilar Gargallo and Manuel Salvador (Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain) published in Journal of Applied Statistics Volume 42 Issue 5 (2015)

Abstract

In this paper a methodology for the delineation of local labour markets (LLMs) using evolutionary algorithms is proposed.

This procedure, based on that in Flórez-Revuelta et al. [13,14], introduces three modifications.

First, initial groups of municipalities with a minimum size requirement are built using the travel time between them.
Second, a not fully random initiation algorithm is proposed.
And third, as a final stage of the procedure, a contiguity step is implemented.

These modifications significantly decrease the computational times of the algorithm (up to a 99%) without any deterioration of the quality of the solutions. The optimization algorithm may give a set of potential solutions with very similar values with respect to the objective function what would lead to different partitions, both in terms of number of markets and their composition.

In order to capture their common aspects an algorithm based on a cluster partitioning of k-means type is presented. This stage of the procedure also provides a ranking of LLMs foci useful for planners and administrations in decision-making processes on issues related to labour activities.

Finally, to evaluate the performance of the algorithm a toy example with artificial data is analysed.

The full methodology is illustrated through a real commuting data set of the region of Aragón (Spain).


Friday, 23 August 2013

Repeated job quits: stepping stones or learning about quality?

an article by Anne C Gielen (Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands and IZA) published in IZA Journal of European Labor Studies Volume 2 Number 7

Abstract

Increasing labour mobility is high on the political agenda because of its supposedly positive effects on labour market functioning. However, little attention has been paid to information imperfections, and to what extent they limit potential efficiency gains of labour mobility. When the quality of a new job offer is known ex ante, job quits serve as a stepping stone to better jobs. Yet, if job quality is only observed ex post, job quits may lead to worse matches.

This paper argues that actual job quit behaviour is characterised by a mixture of both, and investigates the relative empirical content of both extremes in quit decisions. A variance decomposition shows that for nearly 70% of job quits job quality was observed ex-ante; the remaining 30% was learned ex post. Hence, stimulating job mobility mostly improves labour market outcomes, though governments may aim to further reduce information imperfections in order to maximise the efficacy of labour policies.

Full text (HTML) [High level statistics, or that’s what it looked like to me. I did O-level a long time ago.]

JEL classification: J28, J62


Saturday, 23 July 2011

Britain's livelihood crisis (Touchstone pamphlet 10)

This pamphlet from the TUC is produced in what is fast becoming a standard “leaflet” format (A4 folded lengthwise (105x297mm) which is actually a non-standard size). And at 57 pages it is difficult to read on screen and as for printing it … expletive after expletive!

For my own use I have converted to text but copyright issues prevent my sharing that with you.
Try it for yourself
If you want to purchase this pamphlet for your organisation it will cost you £10

Executive Summary (in lieu of an abstract)

Britain is facing a deep-seated ‘livelihood crisis’, with a significant and rising proportion of the population denied decent work, pay or pensions and facing growing economic uncertainty. Far from offering expanded work opportunities, the country’s brittle and turbulent economy has brought near-record unemployment and a fragile labour market in many parts of the country.

In early 2011 2.46 million people in the UK were unemployed and there were another 2.35 million “economically inactive” people who were out of work and wanted a job. Millions more are trapped in low-paid, low-opportunity, insecure jobs that offer few real hopes for the future. Many households face erratic, static or in some cases falling incomes from a very low base. Large numbers have no real hope of escape from this crisis, of improving their living standards in the medium or even the long term, even if the economy enjoys a strong recovery.

Over the last three decades, Britain has become a much wealthier country; real output has nearly doubled. Despite this, living standards and life chances for many have stood still or in some cases gone into reverse. While rising prosperity could have brought expanded choices and opportunities for all, a significant proportion of the workforce has found itself increasingly squeezed by economic and social circumstances over which it has little control. For a minority, economic and social prospects have actually declined in absolute terms compared with their parents’ generation, a decline that set in well before the recession.

This pamphlet will explore the nature, extent and causes of this crisis and possible solutions. It estimates that the crisis currently afflicts up to one-third of the population. For some the crisis has been a temporary experience: for most it has proved enduring or repetitive.

The livelihood crisis has been triggered by the increasing polarisation of the jobs market over the last three decades. As well as spreading joblessness, there has been a rise in the number of well-paid professional and managerial jobs, a decline in the number of middle-paid and skilled jobs, and a rise in the number of routine low-paid service jobs. Alongside this ‘hollowing out of the middle’ has been a steady growth in the number of ‘bad jobs’ that offer poor conditions of work, minimal rights and little security.

These trends have been accompanied by an ongoing wage squeeze, with the share of national output accruing to wage-earners falling from a peak of nearly 65 per cent in the mid-1970s to as little as 53 per cent by 2008.  Moreover, this collapse in the wage share has been borne most heavily by the middle and lower paid, leading to a sharp rise in earnings inequality. Some unskilled and semi-skilled jobs now pay little more in real terms – and in some cases less – than they did in the late 1970s.

Although these trends have been fuelled by technological change and the rise of a global labour market, their roots lie in a fundamental shift in Britain’s underlying economic and political philosophy. From the early 1980s, successive governments subjected the UK economy to an all-embracing economic and social experiment, a
switch from welfare to market capitalism.

The post-war commitments to full employment, progressive taxation and inclusive state-provided welfare were scaled back, public services and enterprises were privatised, and trade union and employment rights were withdrawn. The balance of economic power shifted upwards to a new domestic and global financial elite that enforced a new business model – the aggressive pursuit of shareholder value aimed at maximising the short-term rise in the share price.

The experiment in market capitalism led to successive waves of cost-cutting, downsizing, industrial restructuring and short-termism, bringing decades of upheaval for much of the labour force while handing fortunes to the new financial oligarchy on a scale not seen since the late 19th century. The reasons for the upheaval, as set out by its supporters, were clear – to correct for the failings of post-war welfare capitalism, lift Britain out of its tepid entrepreneurial culture and bring renewed economic dynamism. Although the wealth gap might grow, all citizens would be better off through an expanded economic cake.

It has not worked out like that. Finance capitalism has a poorer record on most economic measures than the welfare model it replaced. The new market freedoms have brought slower economic growth, renewed instability and three deep-seated domestic recessions. Far from a more dynamic and entrepreneurial economy, there has been a slump in productive investment, while productivity growth has been lower than in the 1950s and 1960s. Finance and banking created almost no net jobs in the 15 years to 2007, despite the industry’s greatly expanded share of the nation’s output and profits.

The livelihood crisis and economic instability are now locked together – via soaring inequality – in a dangerous economic vicious spiral. This is because the rising concentration of wealth, driven by the collapsing wage and rising profit share, has not only led to the declining opportunities that underlie the livelihood crisis, but has also contributed to economic fragility. As relative wages fell and purchasing power sank, personal debt soared: as the newly inflated fortunes were turned into giant speculative bets, asset prices boomed. Hence the twin triggers of the credit crisis set in motion by the market experiment.

Despite the scale of its failure, the market model remains the economic orthodoxy, domestically and globally. Yet to tackle the current crisis and reverse the instability cycle requires a radical transformation of Britain’s political economy built around a new business and economic model. This does not mean a return to the pre-1979 mix of weak corporatism, state ownership and poorly targeted industrial activism.

What is needed is a ‘post-market model’ with a re-cast role for the state, business and labour and with an emphasis on wealth and job creation as well as a fairer distribution of the national cake.

First, the state needs to adopt a more central role in both minimising inequality and in promoting productive investment, entrepreneurship and wealth creation.
• Because of the market economy’s natural tendency towards excessive inequality, the state should adopt a new operating principle of a bias towards equality.
• It also needs to adopt a much more active approach to industrial policy – including the establishment of a National Investment Bank – along the lines of the successful interventionist strategies adopted by other countries.
• The economy needs to be rebalanced away from its dependency on finance with new controls over the financial excess and speculation that have fed Britain’s short-termism and unsustainable asset price booms.

Second, there should be a package of measures designed to encourage a more responsible capitalism with a better balance between market freedoms and the public interest.
• Regulations need to be tightened to ensure that companies are made more accountable to society, with, for example, new government powers to block or restrain on national interest grounds a hostile takeover of a British company by transient institutional investors.
• To counter the dominance of the ‘for-profit’ corporation and promote the idea of public purpose, alternative forms of more socially orientated business models – such as not-for-profit companies, mutualisation and social entrepreneurship – should be encouraged.
• Legislation is required to ensure that corporations have a responsibility to a wider group than just shareholders, including staff, the local community and the taxpayer.

Third, Britain’s flexible labour market needs to be modified.
• The trade union movement needs to play a more central role in workplace decision-making.
• The level of Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) – pegged in real terms and now among the lowest of any developed country – should be increased to nearer the European average.
• To tackle rising levels of long-term unemployment and greater economic volatility, Britain needs more active labour market policies, recognising that conditionality in the benefits system must be accompanied by improved support for unemployed people.



Monday, 20 September 2010

Mobility attitudes and behaviours among young Europeans

an article by Noeleen Doherty, Michael Dickmann and Timothy Mills (Cranfield School of Management) published in Career Development International Volume 15 Issue 4 (2010)

Abstract
Purpose
The paper seeks to explore the career attitudes, motivations and behaviours of young people in initial vocational education and training (IVET) in Europe.
Design/methodology/approach
This exploratory web-based survey was conducted during the European year for mobility. Drawing on existing research on the motivators of international careers, it explored young people’s perceptions of barriers and incentives to mobility.
Findings
The study differentiates “natives” (those who did not go abroad) and “boundary crossers” (those who did). Cultural exposure, travel and a desire for adventure are key motivators. Counter-intuitively, those who chose not to go abroad are significantly more positive about the potential for professional development but are significantly more concerned for personal safety. Some maturational trends are apparent.
Research limitations/implications
The study is limited to a “European-wide” perspective from a sample, which had access to the web survey. Further research could usefully explore differences in attitude and mobility behaviours within and across specific European countries.
Practical implications
Factors restricting boundary-crossing behaviour may be rooted in aspects of psychological mobility such as perceived benefits of the experience, self-confidence and risk aversion. This has practical implications for policy-makers and career development for early career foreign didactic experiences where support for placements may need to focus more on psychological mobility, an area currently under-researched.
Originality/value
This exploratory paper provides data to examine the mobility behaviours among young people in IVET, distinguishing between “natives” and “boundary crossers”. It presents an important attempt to more fully understand the dynamics of mobility attitudes and behaviours among young people.