Follow this blog:
RSS

World unemployment rate on the rise

By | January 22, 2013, 7:06 AM PST

Despite two consecutive years of falling global unemployment, the number of jobless is once again on the rise. And projections for future years aren’t looking much better.

According to a new report from the International Labour Organization, the global unemployment rate in 2012 rose to 5.9 percent of the workforce, increasing by 4.2 million people. Over 197 million people are now considered unemployed.

“An uncertain economic outlook, and the inadequacy of policy to counter this, has weakened aggregate demand, holding back investment and hiring,” said ILO Director-General Guy Ryder. “This has prolonged the labour market slump in many countries, lowering job creation and increasing unemployment duration even in some countries that previously had low unemployment and dynamic labour markets.”

Much of the increase can be blamed on rising unemployment in advanced economies.

The job market is particularly bad for workers under 24, as 12.6 percent are unemployed. And while the situation is expected to improve for young people in advanced economies, it’s only projected to worsen in emerging economies in Eastern Europe, East and Southeast Asia and the Middle East.

But, overall, a rising middle class in emerging economies should help soften the unemployment blow but not enough to prevent rising unemployment in the coming years.

So what can governments do?

“[M]any of the new jobs require skills that jobseekers do not have,” Ryder added. “Governments should step up efforts to support skills and retraining activities in order to address such mismatches which particularly affect young people.”

The report also noted that 39 million people left the labor market last year.

Read the full report here.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Tyler Falk

About Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Contributing Editor

Tyler Falk freelance journalist based in Washington, D.C. Previously, he was with Smart Growth America and Grist. He holds a degree from Goshen College.

Follow him on Twitter.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Tyler does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
19
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
-1 Votes
+ -
Why do people act surprised?
"Much of the increase can be blamed on rising unemployment in advanced economies."

What a pathetic statement that denies reality.

It is the rise of the global welfare state mentality that all the "wealthy" developed nations can afford to carry the lazy. Often the lazy from other countries. This problem should have been expected.

Locally, the taxpayers of Massachusetts have to watch over $1 billion of their state tax dollars per year get spent for benefits provided to illegal immigrants. Not legal immigrants. ILLEGAL immigrants. There is much anger over it, yet the liberal morons in the state keep electing people like Gov. Patrick. Who now wants to spend an additional $100 million a year on more benefits for illegal immigrants.

I highly doubt the questionable economic benefits touted on this web site, one of many on the topic, provide enough tax revenue in the state of Massachusetts to cover that bill.

Oh, by the way, just days before the November 2011 election a report quietly came out that as many as 2,000 illegal immigrants in 1 Massachusetts city are registered to vote.

So I guess the spending did one thing. It bought votes.

http://benefitof.net/benefits-of-illegal-immigration-in-the-united-states/

This How to Arrive and Thrive web site promoting welfare immigration to the UK is part of why the UK is slowly drowning in the cost of its welfare state.

http://www.ukimmigrate.co.uk/

Globally the TAKERS will soon outnumber the GIVERS.

The ultimate in unsustainable policies, yet so many people love the ideals of it.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 22nd Jan
+4 Votes
+ -
Hater
Yes, Jesus said to hate the poor, just as Rush Limbaugh tells us. Except the top 100 billionaires have become so rich they could stop world poverty four times over. And they've Bought all the politicians so they get all the breaks. That's where government money really goes, you rightwing fool. We have a twenty first century science that is producing so much there are not enough jobs to go around. But instead of sharing the wealth we push it all to the top one percent, who can't use as much as we produce, you stupid hater. We have an eighteenth century economic system that doesn't recognize this, but the right stays in the Hate and Judgement past. They stink.
Posted by James Mooney
22nd Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
Typical response I expected.
Name calling and not one counter point made toward an adult discussion of the issue. Very mature of you.

Your weak attempt at an argument ranting about the top wealthy and where government money is spent are both unsubstantiated hyperbole.

My guess is you fall into one of two categories of people who support the welfare state.

One being the perfectly healthy people who live off my tax dollars because of a system so flawed that you are able to game the system. They are weak people incapable of taking responsibility for their own happiest. The people who feel they are entitled to the American Dream with no effort on their part. To quote Obamas aunt Zeituni during an interview about her being an illegal alien collecting welfare in the US: 'It is a free country under God. I want my free stuff.'

Or you are worse than that. You are one of the parasites who work for the government or private agencies that make a living off the maintenance and support of a government dependent class of citizens.

The Presidents desire to see the expansion of the government dependent class is job security for you. I like to call those dirt bags limonene liberals.

Massachusetts is full of them. You talk in lofty ideals, but in the end you support the welfare state system because you profit from other peoples misery. As long as people are dependent on the system you make a living being part of that system.

You do not want a better life for these people because it would put you out of work. The simple act of asking for solutions to the peoples problems, and not just providing ongoing and endless 'aid' sets off a rage unseen in polite company, but seen frequently on this site.

If I had to guess which of the two types of people who vigorously defend the welfare state you were, I would guess you are the latter. A parasite.

I was raised to believe: 'give a man a fish he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish he eats for life.'
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 22nd Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
Welfare System
I saw a homeless guy with a sign asking what I would do if I was broke and hungry. I was in a situation where I had enough money to buy gas for my car so that I could get to work and earn money, or I could buy food to eat. My choice was to endure the hunger and buy gas and be careful with my money. I would have told that young man that I did not have the choice or desire to lay down and beg.

Being destitute sucks big time. I support the welfare system to be a safety net that helps people in need. I also support the idea of being on welfare for as short a time as can be done. I have many skills that make me employable and prefer the dignity of working over having to spend all of the pittance I would get on welfare.

I remember a cartoon that I can relate to. The cartoon was a worker facing a destitute man, the destitute man tells the worker "I am too proud to beg for money, I will have to take that quarter from you by force". I don't give beggers money as a rule unless there is special circumstance.
Posted by sboverie
Updated - 22nd Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
So what can governments do? If you start with the wrong question,
chances are that, things will get much worse.

It's not the job of governments to create jobs, nor is it the job of government to train people for those jobs. If that is the plan, then plan on many decades of stupidity and uncertainty and much more joblessness.
Posted by adornoe
22nd Jan
+4 Votes
+ -
The real problem
Maybe we just need fewer hours since there is more Productivity due to science. Oddly, that was predicted to happen decades ago. We now have the increased productivity but have More hours. So what happened? (And don't give me that Rush Regurgitation about the welfare state. Think! If we are producing Too Much, yet people are Getting Poorer, what is the problem? Where is the extra money going?)
Posted by James Mooney
22nd Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
The root of the issue is a drastic change in our environment as a species..
Our socio-political-economic system relies upon a condition which existed for millenia, but which no longer exists--scarcity of resources.

In particular, energy and control limit what life can do in any environment, and until the past century, we were quite limited in both, control limited by trained people, energy limited by available human, animal and mechanical force available.

We have not had, nor needed 'full' employment for decades, many people are redundant (which causes job dissatisfaction,) less than 20% of the ADULT population is required to support our society, and that percentage shrinks daily. Increasingly, manufacturing, growing and processing facilities are workplaces for robots.

Since we achieved the capability to visit space and return, our energy resources have been effectively limited to the sunshine passing through our Earth-Luna double planetary system...several million times our annual usage of energy every day.

Since that time, all resource scarcities have been CREATED FOR PROFIT. Profit which, in an abundant universe is irrelevant. As is hoarding.

We use almost no Earth resources (though we pollute most of the surface of the planet,) and Earth represents a tiny fraction of the Solar System resources.

Freely available energy makes many things like recycling minute amounts of rare earths and other materials feasible. It makes providing necessities for all species possible.

Most importantly, sharing resources in abundance leads to much greater leaps in quality of life--just as the unemployed today have many nicities which the kings of old could never have, everyone in a shared universe of abundance lives better than the wealthiest of our current population.

The value of a life, plant, animal, human or whatever, is not dependent upon their work output (or we'd not have any super-wealthy at all.)

The world is changing. By 2025-30 our society will have drastically changed our values and our entire structure into something based upon abundance rather than scarcity, sharing rather than hoarding, wealth rather than poverty.

Few or no leaders in the world understand that this is happening and even fewer understand that their current tools of control and power are ineffective under a recognized abundance.

In the not far distant future, less than 1% of adult humans will be NEEDED to keep society running, the rest will be free (in theory) to do whatever they wish (though many will chose to do productive activities, and some may even take the place of robotic and automated workers.)

There are more than enough of all resources for all life as we know it to be provided with healthy living environments. The real world is win-win, not win-lose.
Posted by wizoddg
22nd Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
The function of government...
Changes over time.

Currently, in the US, 'the government' is the largest employer and the largest secondary employer (in that they purchase the most custom and off-the-shelf products of the society.

Our government was created to deal with a different kind of society and technology, and has been subverted to a method of the wealthy to control the poor (which is what nearly al governments devolved into.)

As structured, our government is bent to the will and the benefit of those in control, the benefit of the people as a whole running a distant third after those in high places personal agrendization of power and wealth and that of their 'friends.'

It can be argued that the primary purpose of government in the US is to transfer public assets to private ownership at fire sale rates so that the new private owners can sell the resources back to the public at tremendous profit and with minimal expense (clean-up costs being left to 'the government and the People.'

Money, while conveint as a tool, has no intrinsic value--it's worth what you can trade it for. NO CURRENCY in use has any significant intrinsic value, nor is any needed so long as the public accepts the stuff. But little money is currency any more, and within computerized accounting systems, money rapidly expands in volume in proportion to the difficulty in acquiring the material upon which it is based--in our case, vacuum & electrons.
Posted by wizoddg
22nd Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
Confusing graph
Can we get a figure caption?
Posted by dmm99
22nd Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
No NEws
You think the world is growing? This will continue to happen as long as the population continues to grow. Er!!!
Posted by Juanalberto33
22nd Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
Unemployment
Do a survey of your home. 80% of the stuff, from the computer to the artificial flowers, from the microwave to the doorbell, is made in China. Furniture. Lightbulbs. Rugs. So we're surprised that people don't have jobs when fewer and fewer items are manufactured here. I challenge you to go out and buy a telephone, a camera, a flashlight, an item of clothing etc. etc. etc that was manufactured in North America. As a result the middle class is vanishing. There are the very wealthy (the American dream) and the very poor (the American nightmare) and not much in the middle
Same as Russia prior to 1917...
Nuff said... The recent demonstrations and riots in Europe and in Canada, the unrest in the Muslim world --- nothing much in the US so far --- could be the beginning of another pivotal social upheaval.
Posted by rps@...
Updated - 22nd Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
Change
When are people going to figure out that we must Completely change our ancient economic system to match modern science and productivity. Heck, Buckminster Fuller figured that out fifty years ago.
Posted by James Mooney
22nd Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
We have seen the result of changing banking laws and practices.
Glass/Steagall was repealed under the Clinton administration because it was deemed outdated for modern banking. The modern banking rules that replaced it directly led to the banking system collapse.

Glass/Steagall was written by people smarter than you or me after the banking collapse of 1929. It successfully prevented another banking collapse until its repeal.

You probably have figured out what I think you can do with your modern banking rules. Trash them. They are more worthless than Enron stock.

You should note that for all the hoopla, Dodd/Frank did nothing to correct the root problems behind the banking collapse.

The only thing standing between the US banking system and another collapse are a collection of flimsy federal regulations that can be changed in a heartbeat by an unelected bureaucrat.

Good luck with that.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 22nd Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
China is irrelevant...
...even the Chinese factories are increasingly automated, if their food production system were as automated as ours, thee Chinese would be severely underemployed too. Bring back the jobs we shipped overseas, and only about 10% still exist, because we can and have automated the rest.

We need new economics, not attempts to blame our current constant rearrangement of workforce. If the need declines every year, then reshuffling will not solve the problem (though it will create useless jobs.)
Posted by wizoddg
22nd Jan
+6 Votes
+ -
Buckminster Fuller, Polymath Genius, said it best
We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living. -Buckminster Fuller
Posted by James Mooney
22nd Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
Very good points...
But it should still be good if everybody had something to work. Lots of jobs could be done remotely, from home, in shorter hours, employing more people. Unfortunatelly, for many companies, they want to 'see a body', and when you get contracted for a 'forty-hours/per week' job it is just a guideline, as most of the bosses do expect you to work longer than that, and if you lose ten hours of your life in traffic, that could be avoided by working remotely, it is not their problems. I agree, we really need to re-think our working relations and make that increase of productivity to be shared by all, not just by the business owners.
Posted by FuzzyIce
22nd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Socialist tripe.
Math genius is ok, but how does that qualify him to speak on social matters of what is a functional society?

If no one "earns a living", how does one survive?

Who is supposed to pay for this nirvana?

It is a simple fact of human nature. When the takers start to outnumber the makers you will have resentment and fighting. It has been repeated over and over throughout history.

If the takers win the short term fight, be it political or physical, the society eventually collapse under its own weakness. ala Greece.

The makers eventually prevail because the takers do not know or have the desire to succeed.
Posted by Hates Idiots
22nd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Wells knew more than Fuller
Just watch "The Time Machine". Not the new one, the one from the sixties. You will see what happens to a society where a few people work and most just sit around and pick flowers. When we get there, I'd rather be a Moorlock than a flower picker.
Posted by Tranman123
23rd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Good service and good care
Education and entertainment....Does anyone understand that places can be too crowdy for the land to feed the people properly....
Posted by Elrandy
23rd Jan
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!