
It’s Employment, Stupid. The Recession Diaries - May 10th
If, as Keynes said,
‘If you look after unemployment, the budget will look after itself”
then no wonder the economy remains mired in an economic and fiscal crisis. Fianna Fail has not looked after unemployment; the budget has not looked after itself; no one is looking after the economy.
How does Irish employment fare in comparison with other EU countries over the three years of the recession (2008-2010)? The recent EU Commission’s recent economic forecast provides some depressing numbers.

The collapse in employment in Ireland has been little short of staggering. In the entire EU-27, Irish employment has fallen, in percentage terms, more than any other country save for Latvia. It has fallen at five times the rate of the Eurozone.
What would have happened if Irish employment fell at the same rate as the Eurozone? There would be over 200,000 more people at work. You don’t need a calculator to assess the impact that would have on the budget:
- More income tax/PRSI revenue
- Less Government spending on unemployment and related costs
- Higher consumer spending which equals more VAT revenue
- Because of more consumer spending, more businesses still in business - paying business taxes
In other words, the deficit would be considerably lower.
Of course, even without the global downturn, Ireland would have had a property bust, resulting in considerable job losses. The growth in construction employment was ultimately unsustainable - rising from 9.7 percent of total employment in 2000, to 13.7 percent in 2007.
Factoring this in, a fall in employment consistent with the Eurozone average (including the fall-out in construction from the property bust) would have been a little over 6 percent - still less than half of what we have experienced.
Were other Eurozone countries just lucky to escape a dramatic fall in employment? No, it was policy; a policy that understood that maintaining employment is key to surviving a recession, key to maintaining fiscal integrity - key to shortening the duration, and limiting the damage, of a recession. That’s why other countries took steps to increase public investment, launch job-retention schemes, maintain demand (increase the minimum wage, cut VAT, etc.). Fianna Fail didn’t take employment seriously. Now we’re paying the price.
What can we look forward to? The Government is bullish. In 2011, they are projecting a net increase in employment of 20,000. What do some other forecasters say?
- The ESRI is projecting no net increase.
- The EU Commission predicts employment will grow by approximately 7,000 (but that is on a no-change fiscal policy basis; measures in the 2011 Budget that dampen demand could result in a downward revision).
- Ernst & Young predicts that unemployment will remain in double-digits up to 2014 and probably beyond.
If the Government is wrong (and Batt O’Keefe’s detached-from-planet-earth aspirations don’t materialise), then employment will stagnate until at least 2012. This will result in sluggish tax revenue, continuing high levels of unemployment expenditure, with all the fall-out on the deficit and debt levels that this entails.
All this because the Government didn’t follow the dictum from someone who know a little bit about depressions and how to get out of them.
Discussion
We welcome and encourage lively discussion from the public about articles on Irish Left Review. You can leave a comment using the form at the bottom of the page. Please read through the existing comments before posting your own.

Comment by: jb
May 11th 2010 at 23:05
dude just to let you know your never going to win any argument on policy if you continue to come out with rubbish like this. i don’t mean to dash your hopes but it is impossible for socialism to work absolutly 100% impossible and throwing a few keynes quotes around is not going to change this. If you had a clue what you were talking about then you would know that it is the following of keynes’ ideas that has got us where we are.
Comment by: Michael Taft
May 12th 2010 at 11:05
Thanks, er, dude, for your comment. Can you point me to where Keynes called for fiscal policy to actively, or even passively, support an asset bubble? I must have missed that paper.
Comment by: Small Girl
May 12th 2010 at 14:05
Did Keynes write about socialism or regulation of capitalism and redistribution?
Comment by: jb
May 12th 2010 at 23:05
Keynes’ general theory was not a radical new economic policy. The reason it spread was that it provided justification and intelectual cover for the massive government deficit spending and easy money policies that were already in place. Modern keynesianism economists tell politicians who are already addicted to spending OUR money that government expenditure is good, they tell consumers who are burdened by debt that spending more is good and saving is bad. Both these couldn’t be further from the truth.
The reason you missed keynes paper on bubbles is because it doesn’t exist. Keynes had no real theory of capital.
In-fact if your looking for the smoking gun for pretty much every single major problem we face it can all be traced back to the European Central Bank and the regulation of all capital and interest rates. They were addicted to growth. Politicians irrespective of there ideoligy don’t think about the day after tommorrow.
If your pushing a socialist propaganda agenda fair enough, but if your looking for real solutions to the problems we face you should look elsewhere. They will not come from central planning by the elite. i have to say again socialism can not work, it has never worked and never will. The only reason socialism still exists in a few countries today is because of subsidies from ‘capitalist’ countries.
Comment by: BL
May 13th 2010 at 00:05
Hmmm… But when the General Theory was written (1936) the British government was following it’s typical balanced budget policy. Indeed, it was 1937 when the first real deficit spending began in Britain; and was entirely re-armament spending. That the government should run a deficit during wars was generally accepted by the British elite.
After the war the Labour government faced a choice between economic planning through physical controls (a legacy of the war) or Keynesian demand management through the price mechanism. For various reasons they choose the latter. This involved variations in the budget surplus rather than deficit due to the economic conditions of the time.
Though of course the government should run a large deficit in times of recession. Hence the term ‘countercyclical’. Unfortunately the government didn’t use budget surpluses as an anti-inflationary tool during the Celtic Tiger; it just cut taxes/
Comment by: Conor McCabe
May 13th 2010 at 01:05
“it can all be traced back to the European Central Bank and the regulation of all capital and interest rates.”
Ok. so you can type from that parallel universe you live in, where central banks regulate all capital, to this one here no problem?
wow. That’s some internet connection.