South Africa's unemployment rate is catastrophic, 42%. The official rate is 32%, the remainder being discouraged jobseekers having given up looking for work (because there is none) and, by definition, not unemployed.
Unemployment, though, is not discussed for the disaster it is but treated as a meme or political point scoring or as a consequence of growth. There is a direct link between unemployment and poverty but these are discussed as separate things.
So when this month Tim Cohen wrote in his Daily Maverick column "Are we ready for a big debate about SA's unemployment rate?", I was encouraged. Instead, I was disappointed. His effort was worse than no discussion at all.
His opening sentence "South Africa’s unemployment rate, the highest in the world, … blah, blah blah [is] worrying, irritating, demeaning and, I’m willing to bet, totally wrong [sic]" stated his intention to debunk the facts.
Cohen's argument, if one can call it that - not an original one but quoting three sources only one of whom was credible, a researcher at HSRC - was that the unemployment rate is exaggerated because the informal - township - economy, and thus (self) employment, is larger than everyone thinks.
What followed misrepresented and contradicted established facts, promoted a quasi-political agenda and untested theories from questionable sources. The alt-facts and denialism was odd from a leftwing publication that prides itself on exposing falsehoods. (One of its editors, Heather Robertson, is a member of the Press Council. She once wrote that when they get it wrong, they apologise.)
Perhaps Cohen was being polemical for its own sake - opinion writers must get people talking; that's the job description. But when talking and writing about the world, one must use facts as a start otherwise it's just whistling in the wind, casual hypothesizing.
Libertarian denialism - that jobs are available for those who want it and who will work hard - is the first time I've it encountered it in a mainstream - or any - SA publication. Whatever their political position, no-one doubts the crisis or says, as Cohen did quoting one unverified source, that the unemployed are lying to StatsSA, which compile quarterly labour statistics, about their employment status in order to hide income from SARS.
I'm not sure what he was trying to prove.
I've been long-term unemployment twice. One doesn't have to look hard to find people who are out of work (perhaps the should hustle as he suggested the unemployed do, and if they dont, it's their fault). So I find glib discussions about unemployment and poverty by those who are not, never have been or are affluent laughable at best and offensive at worst - offensive to the lasting indignity and psychological impact it has, which is real.
In my previous post I wrote how stories are changed when the facts are not deemed suitable. Last month Cohen said SA's economy isn't monopolistic, based on a single source and very small sample.
So, again with unemployment and the unprovable size of the informal economy (unsuccessful attempts have been made to establish its size, spread and contribution to the GDP), he used a single source (see below) and speculative data to arrive at an absolutist conclusion that national unemployment figures, excluding (unknown) informal employment, compiled over decades and confirmed by independent, credible sources are "totally wrong". He leaves no room for doubt when the size of the informal economy is educated guesswork.
The size of the informal economy is unknown and unemployment data are based on surveys which includes township residents. It's true that among those who declare themselves unemployed might have a job. But if so, it's at a subsistence level and not the 41% Cohen's single source say earn up to R15,000 a month.
His sources are very limited and he has confirmation bias - cherry-picking the data to support the conclusion he wants. The HSRC's Miriam Altman was the only credible reference he cites. Capitec's informal, limited survey of its township and informal settlement customers and GG Alcock's surveys are anecdotal and limited in scope to accept at face value, but Cohen does anyway. They're OK for an opinion piece but not to determine the factual, real extent of unemployment and for policy.
I'm also sceptical of Alcock and Capitec, as a journalist ought to be, because both are in the business of selling a product - Capitec to make its marketing and reach into that sector appear good or better than it is (PR to government and annual report it provides banking to the poor) and Alcock his books and ikasi model. Neither are credible as academically sound sources.
What's left are Altman's one study against StatsSA's numerous surveys, including labour absorption surveys - a dismal picture too - which everyone accepts as rigorous and representative of reality, and other institutions' labour studies. Which would the reasonable person choose?
Also, his definition of expanded unemployment is wrong: "SA has two measures: a strict definition, which, as is normal in international practice, excludes people who have given up looking for work. We also have a broad definition [of unemployment] that tries to take into account the general working-age population (emphasis). Both of these measures are parlous and both have been increasing [sic]."
The broad definition does exclude people who have given up - StatsSA uses ILO's definition of unemployment of respondents working at the time of the survey. But because unemployment is such a serious problem in SA, StatsSA includes the expanded definition. (I don't know if other countries use it, though, probably not, and for good reason: it's a SA thing.) Both measures accounts for working-age people - 15 to 64 - so it's not one or the other.
Another way of looking at it is if township (including informal settlement) - where most of the poor and working class live - economic activity is as your sources claim - R15,000 a month for 41% - why is poverty still so high? 50% of South Africans live below the upper bound poverty line. Poverty in SA is not in dispute - confirmed by repeated studies and surveys over time and by experience and inspection.
If almost half of township people earn R15,000, why are 26-28 million people receiving grants including about 8 million emergency R350 grant? Go to any Sassa office and witness the queues, the visible signs and often desperation that indicate poor living circumstances and tell me no, they're earners.
The problem I have with academic social researchers and many media commentators and politicians when talking about poverty and unemployment is they don't know their subjects and their subjects' communities and experiences very well, which is key to any kind of human research. It appears they "research" from their desktops and subjects are data sets, not people.
Perhaps Cohen should have a "serious debate" about the DA's claim they "created" hundreds of thousands of "new jobs" in the WC since 2009, an unprovable claim based on an incorrect interpretation of StatsSA unemployment data. Or the myth SA has a skills shortage, the excuse employers use not to hire even local graduates but will hire foreigners. This is ever topical as the DA and business always complain about visas.
*
I worked at one of the NGOs involved in basic education and vocational skills training for disadvantaged youth (early school going to 18+) that developed a programme lauded by EU and US donors of training plus experience at partner companies.
From the numerous youth that passed through the NGO while I was there, not counting the dozens each year since its inception early 90s, the poor circumstances of the households they came from were mainly due to unemployment and limited opportunities.
Comments
Post a Comment