That old Lisbon Jobs canard - facts

Scofflaw

Since this comes up so very wearisomely often, here's the facts:

Month|Live Register|Change|Event
2008M01|181449|-%|
2008M02|189485|4.43%|
2008M03|197992|4.49%|
2008M04|195598|-1.21%|
2008M05|201756|3.15%|
2008M06|220811|9.44%|Lisbon 1 Rejection
2008M07|238240|7.89%|
2008M08|247384|3.84%|
2008M09|240217|-2.90%|
2008M10|250680|4.36%|
2008M11|267189|6.59%|
2008M12|290018|8.54%|
2009M01|326272|12.50%|
2009M02|352453|8.02%|
2009M03|369203|4.75%|
2009M04|381876|3.43%|
2009M05|394134|3.21%|
2009M06|415462|5.41%|
2009M07|432421|4.08%|
2009M08|436725|1.00%|
2009M09|419854|-3.86%|
2009M10|412407|-1.77%|Lisbon 2 Pass
2009M11|413505|0.27%|
2009M12|423595|2.44%|
2010M01|436936|3.15%|
2010M02|436956|0.00%|
2010M03|435121|-0.42%|
2010M04|432657|-0.57%|
2010M05|437922|1.22%|
2010M06|452882|3.42%|
2010M07|466824|3.08%|
2010M08|466923|0.02%|
2010M09|442417|-5.25%|
2010M10|429553|-2.91%|
2010M11|425002|-1.06%|
2010M12|437079|2.84%|
2011M01|442677|1.28%|
2011M02|444299|0.37%|
2011M03|441193|-0.70%|
2011M04|439571|-0.37%|
2011M05|440947|0.31%|
2011M06|457948|3.86%|
2011M07|470284|2.69%|
2011M08|469713|-0.12%|
2011M09|437441|-6.87%|
2011M10|430432|-1.60%|
2011M11|429567|-0.20%|
2011M12|434784|1.21%|
2012M01|439589|1.11%|
2012M02|439422|-0.04%|
2012M03|434054|-1.22%|
2012M04|430001|-0.93%|

In fact, numbers on the live register rose by 87% between the Lisbon 1 No and the Lisbon 2 Yes, and since then has risen only 4%.

Just so you know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Since this comes up so very wearisomely often, here's the facts:


In fact, numbers on the live register rose by 87% between the Lisbon 1 No and the Lisbon 2 Yes, and since then has risen only 4%.

Just so you know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Oh not your strongest use of statistics Scofflaw.

My first thought was: wonder how seasonal unemployment pans out.

So I said to myself: guess high positive for May, June, negative for September, October.

I also wonder how it correlates to emigration...

also in terms of absolute numbers... (both full employment and unemployment are asymptotic as you know)

I'm sure those figures will pan out much in the same way as the seasonal unemployment ones.

antoobrien

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, numbers on the live register rose by 87% between the Lisbon 1 No and the Lisbon 2 Yes, and since then has risen only 4%.

Just so you know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh not your strongest use of statistics Scofflaw.

My first thought was: wonder how seasonal unemployment pans out.

So I said to myself: guess high positive for May, June, negative for September, October.

I also wonder how it correlates to emigration...

also in terms of absolute numbers... (both full employment and unemployment are asymptotic as you know)

I'm sure those figures will pan out much in the same way as the seasonal unemployment ones.

Do? you know where we can get the Labour market figures for those periods (pm the link to me and I'll put it up if necessary)

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Since this comes up so very wearisomely often, here's the facts:

Month|Live Register|Change|Event
2008M01|181449|-%|
2008M02|189485|4.43%|
2008M05|201756|3.15%|
2008M06|220811|9.44%|Lisbon 1 Rejection
2008M07|238240|7.89%|
2009M09|419854|-3.86%|
2009M10|412407|-1.77%|Lisbon 2 Pass
2009M11|413505|0.27%|
2009M12|423595|2.44%|
2012M03|434054|-1.22%|
2012M04|430001|-0.93%|

In fact, numbers on the live register rose by 87% between the Lisbon 1 No and the Lisbon 2 Yes, and since then has risen only 4%.

Just so you know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And the facts are that before Lisbon 1 we had less than 200,000 out of work and since Lisbon 2 we have more than 400,000 out of work: we are currently hovering around 430,000+ out of work with no sign of a downward trend.

I hope you don't mind reducing the size of the table for clarity. The numbers are unchanged.

later12

Can you explain why you describe this as a canard?

I didn't believe the timing of the live register increases were ever in doubt.

The causation however, is another story. So I'd love to hear an explanation for the thread title.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

And the facts are that before Lisbon 1 we had less than 200,000 out of work and since Lisbon 2 we have more than 400,000 out of work: we are currently hovering around 430,000+ out of work with no sign of a downward trend.

I hope you don't mind reducing the size of the table for clarity. The numbers are unchanged.

Not a downward trend, but certainly a marked deceleration, you'll admit, since Lisbon passed, to use an arbitrary milestone

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh not your strongest use of statistics Scofflaw.

It's not really intended to be, to be honest - I'm not claiming any causality, for example. It's just that figures are so blatantly and obviously the reverse of the claim it's worth noting.

RandomName2 wrote: »

My first thought was: wonder how seasonal unemployment pans out.

So I said to myself: guess high positive for May, June, negative for September, October.

I also wonder how it correlates to emigration...

also in terms of absolute numbers... (both full employment and unemployment are asymptotic as you know)

I'm sure those figures will pan out much in the same way as the seasonal unemployment ones.

None of which makes any difference to the overall changes!

Here's the quarterly unemployed plus in work - numbers of students don't change much, so I've left them out - the unemployed rate is as a % of unemployed plus working:

Quarter|In work|Unemployed|Total|Unemployed %
2008Q1|2046.9|135.1|2182|6.19%|
2008Q2|2029.8|143.2|2173|6.59%|Lisbon 1
2008Q3|2015|172.5|2187.5|7.89%|
2008Q4|1989.5|201.2|2190.7|9.18%|
2009Q1|1898.2|264.2|2162.4|12.22%|
2009Q2|1872.5|305.8|2178.3|14.04%|
2009Q3|1847.5|332.8|2180.3|15.26%|
2009Q4|1829.4|335.5|2164.9|15.50%|Lisbon 2
2010Q1|1798.7|345.3|2144|16.11%|
2010Q2|1799|344.1|2143.1|16.06%|
2010Q3|1784.1|351.5|2135.6|16.46%|
2010Q4|1764.5|354.9|2119.4|16.75%|
2011Q1|1766.7|352.2|2118.9|16.62%|
2011Q2|1774.2|350.6|2124.8|16.50%|
2011Q3|1752.7|367.7|2120.4|17.34%|
2011Q4|1758.7|358.8|2117.5|16.94%|

Same result - nearly all the rise is actually between Lisbon 1 and 2, not after Lisbon 2.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

Can you explain why you describe this as a canard?

I didn't believe the timing of the live register increases were ever in doubt.

The causation however, is another story. So I'd love to hear an explanation for the thread title.

If you're willing to pretend you haven't seen anyone claiming unemployment rocketed after Lisbon 2, I'm hardly going to bother debating it with you. After all, I don't know when you close your eyes.

regards,
Scofflaw

antoobrien

RandomName2 wrote: »

I also wonder how it correlates to emigration...

Not well (if you're trying to blame the drops in the live register on emigration) - according to the CSO there have been about 250,000 people that have emigrated in this period (99,000 of these Irish).

In that time the labour market has dropped by about 91,000.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you're willing to pretend you haven't seen anyone claiming unemployment rocketed after Lisbon 2, I'm hardly going to bother debating it with you. After all, I don't know when you close your eyes.

I always thought the irritation with the "Yes to Jobs" slogan was that Lisbon didn't actually deliver employment.

So Ireland finally voted Yes to Lisbon, and then unemployment didn't decline.

Right.

PopeBuckfastXVI

later12 wrote: »

I always thought the irritation with the "Yes to Jobs" slogan was that Lisbon didn't actually deliver employment.

So Ireland finally voted Yes to Lisbon, and then unemployment didn't decline.

Right.

When you throw a ball in the air it's always accelerating downward, even while moving upward.

Are you actually going to pretend that the rate of increase in unemployment is unimportant when assessing the economy? The only important thing is the absolute level?

So if in a years time the employment level had dropped to say 350k and was trending downward you'd be saying that we were in a better situation in 2009 cause it was only 300k and trending upward?

I'm not even claiming any causation here, but bloody hell you are jumping through hoops on this one!

View

later12 wrote: »

I always thought the irritation with the "Yes to Jobs" slogan was that Lisbon didn't actually deliver employment.

So Ireland finally voted Yes to Lisbon, and then unemployment didn't decline.

Right.

Look, it is taking longer to get the EU Army - with its loads of jobs - set up than planned. The No side weren't lying about it and neither were the Yes side about the jobs in it. The posters after all didn't set a time-frame on those jobs, did they?

Dirk Gently

perhaps they should have said "vote yes to lose less jobs" ?

very poor thread tbh. We had full employment before lisbon too, we even had half of eastern europe working on our building sites. It has about as much relevance to lisbon as this thread does though.

Newaglish

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Not a downward trend, but certainly a marked deceleration, you'll admit, since Lisbon passed, to use an arbitrary milestone

The figures presented do not take account of the numbers who have emigrated so this cannot be determined.

later12

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Are you actually going to pretend that the rate of increase in unemployment is unimportant when assessing the economy? The only important thing is the absolute level?

What? Are you saying the slowdown in jobs attrition was down to Lisbon 2 being ratified?

What I am saying is that there is no possible evidence for that - not in the slightest. And that my understanding of the irritation with the "Yes to Jobs" slogan is that Lisbon had nothing to do with jobs - good or bad.

I'm not even claiming any causation here, but bloody hell you are jumping through hoops on this one!

I'm jumping through hoops?

Jumping through hoops usually means responding to somewhat bizarre commands, and so on this one I'd rather agree with you.

What an odd thread. Do go on, please.

PopeBuckfastXVI

later12 wrote: »

What? Are you saying the slowdown in jobs attrition was down to Lisbon 2 being ratified?

What I am saying is that there is no possible evidence for that - not in the slightest. And that my understanding of the irritation with the "Yes to Jobs" slogan is that Lisbon had nothing to do with jobs - good or bad.

I'm jumping through hoops?

Jumping through hoops usually means responding to somewhat bizarre commands, and so on this one I'd rather agree with you.

What an odd thread. Do go on, please.

Not even slightly, I've never claimed, and nor do I believe in any direct causation, I was merely pointing to your use of absolute numbers as the only indicator of health.

Scofflaw

Dirk Gently wrote: »

perhaps they should have said "vote yes to lose less jobs" ?

very poor thread tbh. We had full employment before lisbon too, we even had half of eastern europe working on our building sites. It has about as much relevance to lisbon as this thread does though.

Eh, like I said, I got tired of having "blah blah Lisbon jobs" flung around by people who seemed to think unemployment went up particularly after Lisbon 2. The thread is just to set that particular claim straight, no more. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever - I presume the leveling off after Lisbon 2 is entirely coincidental.

I am, of course, delighted to hear that nobody here would make such an elementary error, and that some posters are unable to even imagine anyone doing so, bless their innocence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Exactly the point, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

A point that was apparently lost on Clare Daly at the end of tonight's unedifying Prime Time.