Despite the severity of the slump, so far we have not seen a tidal wave of job losses. Sure, almost every day there is a fresh round of redundancies at a retailer, restaurant chain or airline. But it is usually only a thousand or two. The latest statistics showed the headline unemployment total remained close to a record low, at only 3.6%, even if, rather ominously, the total number of hours worked showed a steeper decline, as did the overall number of people in employment. Even so, given the scale and the speed of the slump, far more people are still in jobs than you might expect.
How bad will it get?
The trouble is, that is going to change very soon. Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s hugely expensive furlough scheme has kept people on the payroll, but it is already starting to be phased out, and is due to come to an end by October. Firm will then have to decide whether they can afford to keep staff on. Lots of them will decide they can’t continue, or, if they can, to do so with fewer staff. The redundancies will start on an epic scale.
Plenty of people will argue that the furlough scheme should be extended, as it has been in other countries. Companies certainly still need help, and if a concert hall or beauty salon is shut because of government rules, there is a case to be made for supporting it financially. Against that, six months is not temporary, and we still have no idea when this crisis will end. It could be years. If businesses are no longer viable, we are not helping anyone by keeping them artificially alive. Either way, as furloughs end, joblessness is going to rise. If you add in the staff on furlough, 33% of the workforce is already unemployed, far more than the all-time UK record (24% in 1921, during the Spanish flu epidemic). It might not get that bad. Somewhere between 10% and 15% seems a certainty, however.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
It is more than three decades since we saw so many people out of work. As a result, expect to hear about job creation schemes and subsidies for employers to persuade them to take on more staff, especially young people. Higher education will probably be expanded yet again to try and massage the numbers, and the government will no doubt spend a ton of money on roads, bridges, schools and hospitals to revive demand. It will all help. But in truth we can’t ignore the most obvious solution. Price.
Over the last decade, with a booming labour market, we have steadily pushed up the cost of staff. We have increased the national living wage at one of the fastest rates ever, and it is now one of the highest in the developed world. While the economy was doing well, there was nothing wrong with that. It increased earnings, especially for the least skilled workers, and the economy still created jobs at a record rate. It was a simple policy that created lots of winners, and apparently no losers. But suddenly the economy has changed. The cost of labour can no longer be ignored.
It’s time for a wage cut
Price is what balances supply and demand. If there is too much of something, the price goes down, and that pushes demand back up again. If there is mass unemployment, it is crazy to keep the living wage so high. At a lower rate, a few employers would be tempted to keep people on. A socially distanced restaurant, for example, might not be able to pay waiters the same rate as before, but could break-even with lower wages. The same might be true of a shop, or a hotel struggling with fewer customers. At the same time, the new businesses starting up would find it a lot easier to hire the first one or two people if they cost a little less.
We should temporarily lower the living wage from £8.72 to £7. At the same time we should look at a round of deregulation of the labour market, and free up the gig and hustle economies too, because it is a lot easier to create flexible, part-time work than full-time jobs. Sure, that is going to be tough. And it is certainly not going to be popular. But the hard truth is that locking down the economy has made us a lot poorer. The only way to balance supply and demand is to cut prices. That is as true of labour as it is of anything else.
-
8 of the best houses for sale for around £500,000Some of the best houses for sale for around £500,000 – from a 19th-century stone farm cottage in North Yorkshire and a two-bedroom apartment in Edinburgh’s New Town to a converted Methodist chapel in Norfolk
-
What will the unravelling of US-China trade mean for the economy?What will a US-China decoupling mean for the global economy?
-
Why did the government take over British Steel – and was it a good idea?The government has stepped in to take control, not ownership, of British Steel, citing national security and other factors. But does that make sense?
-
'Rachel Reeves' plan to force pension funds into UK assets won't work'Opinion Hustling pension fund cash into British assets sounds like a good idea. It would be better to make Britain an attractive place to invest, says Matthew Lynn
-
What caused the Birmingham bin strike – and what does it mean for British businesses?The Birmingham bin strike is the fallout from an equal-pay claim brought by female cleaners. That bodes ill for the rest of British business
-
A new wealth tax is a terrible idea. The rich are already being hit by sneaky taxes – Merryn Somerset WebbOpinion Ideologues want to squeeze more tax out of the rich with a wealth tax. They’re already wrung dry, says Merryn Somerset Webb
-
Why are energy bills so expensive in the UK?Electricity bills in the UK are higher than in any comparable rich country. Some blame the net-zero zealotry of the government for that. What is really to blame for high energy bills?
-
Five years on: what did Covid cost us?We’re still counting the costs of the global coronavirus pandemic – and governments’ responses. What did we learn?
-
London can lure Brexit-fleeing banks back to UK – but the City must move quicklyOpinion Many banks fled to Paris in the wake of Brexit but are now in full-scale retreat. The City should move quickly to lure them back, says Matthew Lynn
-
Spring Statement: Rachel Reeves 'must turn good intentions into effective measures'Opinion Chancellor Rachel Reeves understands the economy’s structural problems but is unlikely to solve them, says Max King
