Thailand Unemployment At 1%

[Francis Maube]

The Economist is reporting unemployment in Thailand at 1%. That would make it the lowest in the world, the closest being Singapore at 2.6% I was wondering where the figure comes from as, to my knowledge, there are no unemployment benefits or agency in LOS that could tally the unemployed. The Economist can be sometimes controversial, which is one of its excellent features, and there is the occasional typo, however this number has been reported in 3 issues in a row.

Any thoughs out there?

[Mid]

figures probably true ,

now , about UNDER employment ......................

[Pink Mist]

without wanting to sound cynical, but those figures would be seriously flawed

[taxexile]

any country with little or nothing in the way of a benefit system will by default have a very low unemployment rate.

cut the benefits off in western countries and watch the unemployment rates come tumbling down as the workshy wake up and face the unpleasant truth that they will have to work if they want to eat.

the figure is probably a guess at the number of people who are genuinely incapable of finding and holding down a job due to illness or infirmity.

[ColPyat]

without wanting to sound cynical, but those figures would be seriously flawed

Those are the official figures. The question though how one comes to those figures.

Are the 1% people who have been employed by contract and are now receiving benefits, counted only then workers who are registered?

How about long term unemployed/now selfemployed who do not receive benefits anymore, are they part of those 1%?

What about the millions of agricultural wage labors who have no land, or insufficient land?

What about the millions working without contract and therefore not registered officially?

Another interesting number for Thailand's labor force: only about 3% of Thailand's labors are organized in unions. And i doubt that is because these workers here are so well paid that unions are not necessary...

[Pink Mist]

do they have an accurate census of population???

[think_too_mut]

The Economist is reporting unemployment in Thailand at 1%. That would make it the lowest in the world, the closest being Singapore at 2.6% I was wondering where the figure comes from as, to my knowledge, there are no unemployment benefits or agency in LOS that could tally the unemployed. The Economist can be sometimes controversial, which is one of its excellent features, and there is the occasional typo, however this number has been reported in 3 issues in a row.

Any thoughs out there?

I read The Economist (print edition) but can't recall seeing that 1% unemployment figure for Thailand. The last issue has a small article about unrest in the South.

Where did you read it? I may dig through the previous ones if you could help locating the date.

[kayo]

Probably a typo?!

[solo siam]

I don't know any Thai here without a job, unless they are at school. I guess all the villagers are just thought of as farmers and thus employed.

[soundman]

I think the figure of 1% is total BS.

I have no stats to prove it, however, where I live, which is fairly representative of rural thailand, there are thousands of un-employed. Most by their own choice. I advertise a single position for standard labour on a small piece of paper in the local service station and I have hundreds of applicants, within a day or two of posting it.

Simply not true...

Soundman.

[think_too_mut]

I think the figure of 1% is total BS.

I have no stats to prove it, however, where I live, which is fairly representative of rural thailand, there are thousands of un-employed. Most by their own choice. I advertise a single position for standard labour on a small piece of paper in the local service station and I have hundreds of applicants, within a day or two of posting it.

Simply not true...

Soundman.

We still don't know if The Economist has stated that figure.

[Francis Maube]

The Economist is reporting unemployment in Thailand at 1%. That would make it the lowest in the world, the closest being Singapore at 2.6% I was wondering where the figure comes from as, to my knowledge, there are no unemployment benefits or agency in LOS that could tally the unemployed. The Economist can be sometimes controversial, which is one of its excellent features, and there is the occasional typo, however this number has been reported in 3 issues in a row.

Any thoughs out there?

I read The Economist (print edition) but can't recall seeing that 1% unemployment figure for Thailand. The last issue has a small article about unrest in the South.

Where did you read it? I may dig through the previous ones if you could help locating the date.

Look at the page before last, Economic and Financial Indicators. To the right of the page there is a table featuring Output, prices & jobs.

My latest copy is march 24th to 30th, the previous week reported the same figure, so was the one before. Up in the country I cannot lay my hand on a more recent issue. I'd be interested to know what are the figures on the latest.

[think_too_mut]

Look at the page before last, Economic and Financial Indicators. To the right of the page there is a table featuring Output, prices & jobs.

My latest copy is march 24th to 30th, the previous week reported the same figure, so was the one before. Up in the country I cannot lay my hand on a more recent issue. I'd be interested to know what are the figures on the latest.

Yes, you are right, in several issues, including the latest one, that table shows 1% unemployment rate in Thailand.

We should ask John Mickletwait to explain. As you started it, fire an email to him.

[Francis Maube]

Guys, I have a very slow connection via AIS wireless, so things are happening in a rather slow motion. The Economist is on line and in particular the Output, Prices and Jobs but I cannot get connected. Is the site blocked, AIS server, not sure. Has anyone got a good connection and can take a look at it.

http://www.economist.com/indicators

[jbsears]

The unemployment rate only counts those that are actively seeking employment. Therefore, those that are in the black market or unemployed by choice do not count towards the unemployment rate.

[Naam]

The Economist is reporting unemployment in Thailand at 1%. That would make it the lowest in the world, the closest being Singapore at 2.6% I was wondering where the figure comes from...

i am not sure but my best guess is the figure was composed by the weather man who recently forecasted 18.5 cm of snow for some areas of Samui.

[think_too_mut]

The Economist is reporting unemployment in Thailand at 1%. That would make it the lowest in the world, the closest being Singapore at 2.6% I was wondering where the figure comes from...

i am not sure but my best guess is the figure was composed by the weather man who recently forecasted 18.5 cm of snow for some areas of Samui.

No shit?

[PeaceBlondie]

The unemployment rate only counts those that are actively seeking employment. Therefore, those that are in the black market or unemployed by choice do not count towards the unemployment rate.

That's a reasonable way to count; same in the USA and other countries. But I can't imagine where The Economist gets its figures, unless it's from an agency of the Thai government, which....which....would require me to say something uncomplimentary.

One percent is too low an estimate for the number of people crossing Sukumvit without being injured or scared within an inch of their life.

[gummy]

The statistics from which these figures are deduced bear little resemblence to fact upon which the true rate of unemployment is deduced insofar as there are serious deficiencies in the recording of such data. At best it is a very optimistic "guesstimate" or at worst a lie. However let us not get into a fuzz about whether this is another Thai problem as the figures in the UK have been continually massaged over the years such that the 400k + so called long term unemployed were not included in the UK unemployment figures.

At the end of the day it is obvious for all to see that this figures, should we say, are perhaps erring to the low side ?

[Francis Maube]

I did send an E-mail to The Economist, since they must be getting several thousands a day, I am not holding my breath. However if I do get an answer, I'll post.

Looking at the comments on this thread, I think it is fair to say that most people agree that the number is dodgy. If one assume that the figures are official, why would the number be so low?LOS citizen would not give a toss, the educated ones would probably have the same reaction that on this thread. So who is supposed to believe the figure? Foreign investors? Certainly not, low unemployment means shortage of skilled workers, high wages and no employee loyalty as was painfully experienced prior to the '97 crises. The World Bank if LOS was planning to borrow money? They would check a couple others figure before entertaining the idea.

Or is it simply a matter of who cares?

Any more thoughs on that one?

[GuestHouse]

I wouldn't worry about the figures, low or high, accurate or nonsense, they have no impact on you.

The time to worry is when some do gooder sets Thailand on the way to ruin by suggesting people out of work should be paid out of the pockets of those who do work.

It's at that point the figures start to matter, and as gummy says start to be manipulated.

Right now in the UK there is discussion going on about the rise in single parent families. The chattering classes proclaiming shock at the statistics indicating rising numbers of single parent families.

I'd be shocked if the numbers didn't go up given the amount of effort and expenditure that has gone into funding them.

[PeaceBlondie]

Just a side note on the whole issue: people who could be in the labor market, but choose not to, shouldn't be taken into account. The elderly, the parents staying home to take care of their kids (such as my Tex-Mex son-in-law), the idle rich, the disabled, the insane, the grammar school dropouts, the unskilled, the retarded, the drug addicts and alcoholics - don't look for work because they choose not to, or they're unqualified. That long list would include several million Thais.

[gummy]

Just a side note on the whole issue: people who could be in the labor market, but choose not to, shouldn't be taken into account. The elderly, the parents staying home to take care of their kids (such as my Tex-Mex son-in-law), the idle rich, the disabled, the insane, the grammar school dropouts, the unskilled, the retarded, the drug addicts and alcoholics - don't look for work because they choose not to, or they're unqualified. That long list would include several million Thais.

I agree but please don't limit this list solely to the Thais, it equally applies to many other countries including the Uk. Differance is of course that as Guesthouse said the UK has too many do-gooders to make sure the insane, drug adicts, newly arrived immigrants etc etc get their benefits of the backs of those working.

[chownah]

The CIA world fact book shows 2.1% estimated unemployment for Thailand for 2006.

[sierra01]

If you count people rummaging around in bins, for plastic, cardboard, etc to sell, beggars and kids flogging nic nacs as employed then 1% could be right.

[ThaiGoon]

If you count people rummaging around in bins, for plastic, cardboard, etc to sell, beggars and kids flogging nic nacs as employed then 1% could be right.

Like if we counted all the homeless, the retarded, the obese housewives staying home in the US then, I guess.

[LaoPo]

The CIA world fact book shows 2.1% estimated unemployment for Thailand for 2006.

That 'estimated' % is correct, according to the CIA; I wonder however what happens right now with the 49% of the Labor Force in Agricultural industry in LOS...and the estimated 10% of the population below poverty line (2004)....

Do they have jobs.....?

Labor force - by occupation:

agriculture: 49%

industry: 14%

services: 37% (2000 est.)

Unemployment rate:

2.1% (2006 est.)

Population below poverty line:

10% (2004 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...os/th.html#Econ

LaoPo

[think_too_mut]

I did send an E-mail to The Economist, since they must be getting several thousands a day, I am not holding my breath. However if I do get an answer, I'll post.

Looking at the comments on this thread, I think it is fair to say that most people agree that the number is dodgy. If one assume that the figures are official, why would the number be so low?LOS citizen would not give a toss, the educated ones would probably have the same reaction that on this thread. So who is supposed to believe the figure? Foreign investors? Certainly not, low unemployment means shortage of skilled workers, high wages and no employee loyalty as was painfully experienced prior to the '97 crises. The World Bank if LOS was planning to borrow money? They would check a couple others figure before entertaining the idea.

Or is it simply a matter of who cares?

Any more thoughs on that one?

There is a footnote saying that unemployment rate is by "National definition". I noticed it next to the word "rate" in the header. So whatever it is by Thai standards.

If Thai definition of "unemployed is, as Google returned when the search was "unemployment definition thailand":

"Unemployment is measured annually as the percent of the labor force that cannot find a job. The labor force comprises adults who want to work. Uncounted are those who do not seek employment, or who have become discouraged enough to stop looking." that is probably the stat The Economist gathered form some institution and is using it.

By the same definition, the rates are:

US: 4.5%

Britain: 5.5%

Japan: 4.0%

Australia: 4.6%

Canada: 6.1%

Germany: 9.2%

And those figures are reported daily by many media and undisputed. Now, I am no longer disputing the Thai figure.

[fxm88]

See also this post.

[think_too_mut]

See also this post.

The Economist shows 25.5% for South Africa, with a note : "Sep ++ not seasonally adjusted".

Singapore is there with 2.6%, Switzerland with 3.2%. No New Zealand.