« House prices as leaky bucket | Main | Healing Labour's class divide »

February 15, 2017


Dave Timoney

Does this mean we can now start referring to older workers as job-blockers?


I think that to make the case, you need to separate voluntary outflows (quits) from involuntary (sacking/redundancies). If people are worried about their prospects of finding a better paying or more secure job, they will not even quit their job unless they are sure that they definitely have a better one lined up.


I'm running a campaign, please stop using the term "creative destruction" - use "destructive creation" instead. Cars didn't need to get rid of all the horses before they could take over the road - the cars drove the horses out.

jonny bakho

I agree with Almar about voluntary vs involuntary outflows
Do people commonly lose their job to robots? Or do companies that automate move existing workers to other tasks and hire fewer people?

What I see in manufacturing business is a slow erosion due to automation that is reflected in less hiring as tasks are automated. The Big outflows occur when big facilities close which cause far more disruption


@ Almar - those data are in the link. They show that redundancies/dismissals are below mid-00s levels, whilst resignations are slightly higher. I think this is consistent with there being overall slightly more job security now than then.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad