There is, obviously, deep concern that unemployment (as measured by the claimant count) may rise to 3 million in 2009. This compares with figures mostly under a million over the past decade. Behind the statistics is the fact that unemployment means poverty and exclusion from the social and leisure activities which most people take for granted.

Unemployment under a million is commonly regarded as low and mainly a reflection of workers moving from one job to another. The long-term unemployed are largely ignored and offered short-term training schemes, recently as part of New Deal. The limited support for the unemployed becomes increasingly apparent when, as now, numbers start to rise rapidly.

Yet the claimant count, and the figure for job seekers – in the last decade between 1.5 and 2 million (almost twice the claimant count) – seriously underestimate the number of people who are not in employment. To some extent governments have minimised the totals – for example, by transferring large numbers to the “disability” category.

To understand the social reality of unemployment, a much more relevant figure is that for the economically inactive. This has been around 8 million since Labour came to office in 1997 and is likely to rise to over 10 million in 2009. It includes students but the main categories, with estimates based on figures since 2000, are as in the table.

Although there are those who would argue that this is the “real” figure is lower, there are compelling reasons to believe it is more likely to be higher. Nobody knows, partly because some people excluded from jobs are excluded from official statistics altogether. What is beyond doubt is that the estimate of around 8 million is nearer the actual level of people without jobs than the official monthly claimant count figure of under 1 million.

Unemployment and Communities

The citizens outside the statistics are usually the poorest, partly because they are not receiving social security benefits. If they are not poor they are likely to be part of the black economy, or of the criminal fraternity; two other areas of concern for the government.

There is an alarming discrepancy between official figures and government’s perspective, and perceptions of unemployment in poor communities. As Private Eye put it: “there is a widening gap between official figures and what people know to be the truth”.

Part of the explanation is that part-time jobs are replacing full-time employment. The perception of unemployment in many working-class and ethnic minority communities is also influenced by the fact that men, the traditional breadwinners, are denied full-time jobs, while women take most of the new part-time work. In poor areas men, especially those without qualifications, are now just as likely as women to be at home caring for children.

The “retired” (over 50, but under 65) category includes citizens who are made redundant in their fifties (or even earlier) and, especially if they are working-class and unqualified, have very little prospect of finding employment again. Statisticians deal in numbers and percentages but the reality is that the figures are about the exclusion of human beings from the labour market, and all that that entails.

The early retired lose the social benefit of working with others and frequently cannot afford to join clubs and groups as a substitute. The collapse of private pension schemes means that, unless urgent action is taken, the plight of many workers who retire in the future will be even worse.

The trend from full-time to part-time employment has resulted in a very different situation from the one described by Harold Wilson in the 1960s when he said: “every person unemployed is 100% unemployed”. The number of people recorded as employed (some 28 million) are certainly not all 100% (full-time) employed.

Casualisation of the Workforce

Increasing “casualisation” of the workforce also means that workers have less contractual protection and it is more difficult for trade unions to represent and defend them. An increasing number of employers use agencies to escape contractual responsibility for the workers they employ.

Although governments and employers refer, frequently, to the benefits of this flexible labour market, they are shy about explaining what these “benefits” are. They are even less forthcoming in answering the question: “Who benefits?”

It is now clear that the benefits of employing casual workers are benefits to employers. They are able to sack workers quickly, often without any redundancy payment obligations. It is also apparent that more women than men are affected.

The Urgency of Radical Policy Changes

Rapidly rising unemployment in 2009 means that radical policy changes are necessary and urgent. These should include an expansion of numbers in further education to create places for the large numbers currently denied opportunities.

Although some steps have been taken to create new jobs, a great deal more needs to be done. The strategy must include that government borrowing required in the short term is repaid, over the next five years, by higher taxation on the wealthy and on companies making excessive profits.

Readers interested in a wider discussion of the policy changes required may wish to visit my Blog wwwafairdeal.blogspot.com