UK: Study reveals jobs plight of Muslims

[parijataka]

Old article but interesting stats. In terms of employment, Indian Hindus do better than Indian Muslims who do better than Indian Sikhs. Pakistani Muslims three time more likely to be unemployed than Hindus and Indian Muslims two times more likely than Hindus. Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims have the highest unemployment. More than a third of Bangladeshi men employed as cooks or waiters. 20% of Bangladeshi women employed vs 80% of Caribbean women. Read on.

Study reveals jobs plight of Muslims20 February 2002 16.59 GMT

Muslim men of Pakistani and Bangladeshi background are disproportionately unemployed relative to other Asians, according to a Cabinet Office report commissioned by Tony Blair. Even after allowances for education and residential area, Pakistani Muslims are three times more likely to be jobless than Hindus are. Indian Muslims are twice as likely to be unemployed than Indian Hindus are.
Downing Street commissioned the study from the Performance and Innovation Unit, whose brief was to come up with ways of improving the economic performance of ethnic minorities. But the findings on religion may embarrass a government that has gone ahead with a controversial plan to allow more "faith schools". Yet the study warns against concluding that religion necessarily causes economic disadvantage, but notes that "the odds of being unemployed do vary significantly with religion". Hindus, for example, are significantly more successful in the jobs market than Sikhs.

"Far more is in play than just religious effects," the report says. Among South Asians, Indian Muslims do better than Muslims from Pakistani or Bangladeshi backgrounds - and better than Sikhs.

The prime minister asked for the 220-page dossier in March last year, before the riots in Oldham and Burnley and the September 11 terrorist attacks made integration and religion charged subjects.

Today's document is an interim report and makes no recommendations - that will come later in the spring. But religion, including the influence of Islam, seems to be one of the "unidentified factors which need to be considered" by ministers. The report, which labels fluency in English another influential factor, may add to calls from the home secretary, David Blunkett, for compulsory English classes for new immigrants.

Ethnic minorities form 6.7% of Britain's population of working age - 2.4m out of 33m. Among them are 690,000 black people and 1.1m South Asians. Theirs "is a depressing story of continuing disadvantage," said Anthony Heath, the Oxford sociologist who wrote papers for the study showing that the educational qualifications gained by ethnic minorities should have led to better jobs.

Shamit Saggar of Queen Mary and Westfield College, London, who led the research, said that after adjusting for age, language fluency, education and a host of other possible explanations for under-performance at work, he kept coming back to an "X factor" - racial discrimination in the workplace.

The report concludes: "Racial harassment and discrimination have negatively influenced the achievements of both first- and second-generation ethnic minorities in the labour market."

A principal finding is how different the ethnic minorities are from each other. Black Caribbean women are an economic success story. Despite high levels of single parenthood, they get and keep jobs. They are more professionalised than white women. Yet black Caribbean men remain "marginal". In 1966, one in 12 West Indian men was in a white collar job; by the 1990s, one in three. In the same period, white-collar employment among whites rose from one in three to one in two.

The Chinese have also leapt ahead of whites in terms of professional positions and success at school. But a larger proportion of Chinese live in poor households than whites do, and Chinese men's average weekly pay is well below that of whites, Indians and black Africans.

The chances of ethnic minorities being jobless in 2000, when the labour market was tight, were still higher than they were for whites 10 years previously, when the economy was in much worse shape. One reason was the continuing concentration of Pakistani and Bangladeshi men in such declining sectors as clothing and textiles.

After adjustments for training and family circumstances, ethnic minority men earn less than white workers. For women, the picture is different. Pakistani women earn £34 a week less than white women, but Indian and Caribbean women earn more - £14 and £30 respectively. This may reflect the fact that minority women are more likely than white women to work full time outside their homes. There are variations between the minorities. One-fifth of Bangladeshi women work or want to work in paid jobs, compared with four-fifths of black women.

Overall, ethnic minorities form 6% of public sector workers (348,000 out of 5.8m) and 10% of paid workers in the voluntary sector. That is surprising, since public sector jobs were a way by which black Caribbean and Indian women entered professional and managerial ranks.

But one in 20 Indian men is a doctor, a ratio 10 times higher than for whites. Professor Heath suggests that "bureaucracy" may be fairer than private sector firms in offering access to senior positions.

The study notes that racist attitudes are "prevalent" across the UK, though they are concentrated in the north and among older, poorer and less educated white people - Old Labour's constituency.

The Cabinet Office would not be drawn on possible policy changes, but the report notes how "extensive" government intervention in the labour market already is. Possible recommendations include new programmes for ethnic minority small businesses, positive discrimination in government purchasing and pressure on private employers.

The figures

· One in 20 Indian men is a doctor compared with one in 200 white men

· One third of black women in work are in health or social services, compared with one fifth of white women

· Hindus are four times less likely to be unemployed than Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims

· Black Caribbean men earn £115 a week less than white men; Pakistani and Bangladeshi men £150 less

· Black Caribbean women earn £30 more than white women; Pakistani and Bangladeshi women £34 less

· Ethnic minorities will account for half the growth in population of working age over the next 10 years

· 45% of Chinese men are in professional or managerial jobs compared with 25% of white and Indian men

· 25% of Pakistani men are self-employed compared with 11% of white men

· Ethnic minorities form 6% of public sector workers

· One third of Bangladeshi men work as cooks or waiters

· 7% of small businesses are in ethnic minority ownership

· 20% of Bangladeshi women work or want to work in paid jobs compared with 80% of black women

 

[sob]

Are we talking about discrimination here or apathy from the Government?

 

[parijataka]

^^^
Various factors are listed -

• Religion i.e. Islam, to some extent as Indian Muslims have lesser unempolyment than Indian Sikhs.
• Pakistanis and Bangladeshis continuing to be in sectors that were declining i.e. textiles and clothing
• Cultural, few BD women working in paid jobs outside the home.
• Racial discrimination in some areas

However, black women despite large proportion being single mothers, did very well and earned more than white women and Indian women.

 

[Bangalorean]

^^ As far as Sikhs are concerned, the problem is that there are too many Khalistani type useless people in the UK. Otherwise, in all other nations, Sikhs do as well as their Hindu counterparts, and certainly much better than Paki and BD Muslims.

 

[Ray]

A rather revealing statistics.

They may have had a Thacher, but they could have called Sachar for an in depth study and bring out the injustice.

 

[farhan_9909]

might only be because of higher literacy rate of indians

indians literacy rate is better than both pakistani and Bengali

 

[Ray]

might only be because of higher literacy rate of indians

indians literacy rate is better than both pakistani and Bengali

But literacy is not a God given gft.

It is acquired through desire to be educated and intelligent, capable of facing the world and life head on.

I am a Bengali and I am not an illiterate compared to any other Indian.

So, what is this about Bengalis?

 

[farhan_9909]

But literacy is not a God given gft.

It is acquired through desire to be educated and intelligent, capable of facing the world and life head on.

I am a Bengali and I am not an illiterate compared to any other Indian.

So, what is this about Bengalis?

Sorry i meant the Bangladeshi

India has invested more into education than Pakistan and Bangladesh hence a better literacy rate than both

which in turn into better jobs when compared with less or uneducated pakistani or Bangladeshis

 

[Singh]

Old article but interesting stats. In terms of employment, Indian Hindus do better than Indian Muslims who do better than Indian Sikhs. Pakistani Muslims three time more likely to be unemployed than Hindus and Indian Muslims two times more likely than Hindus. Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims have the highest unemployment. More than a third of Bangladeshi men employed as cooks or waiters. 20% of Bangladeshi women employed vs 80% of Caribbean women. Read on.

Study reveals jobs plight of Muslims20 February 2002 16.59 GMT

This is over a decade old article. Sikhs are the second richest community in the UK after the Jews. There is already a thread on this topic with fairly recent studies.

==

^^ As far as Sikhs are concerned, the problem is that there are too many Khalistani type useless people in the UK. Otherwise, in all other nations, Sikhs do as well as their Hindu counterparts, and certainly much better than Paki and BD Muslims.

Are you suggesting there is a link between radicalization and wealth ? I haven't seen any proof ?

 

[mayfair]

Are you suggesting there is a link between radicalization and wealth ? I haven't seen any proof ?

I believe what he may be trying to say is that most of the relatively impoverished Sikhs in UK maybe those who sought asylum there in the name of Khalistan and they continue to peddle Khalistani activism for their livelihood, with dimisnishing returns. Though, to be honest I am not sure there is enough evidence to that effect.

 

[Ray]

Actually, what it maybe just my observation, but when there was emigration at its peak in India, I had to visit the airport in Delhi for work.

What I saw was a huge amount of people leaving for the UK and of them, the Punjabis were a largest and even uncontrollable numbers.

Since the flights were at night to the UK, mostly by Syrian Arab, the airport floor had these people sleeping on the floor like one sees at the railway stations at night.

Interesting was the sight where not only repeated announcements were made for the passengers, but also the airline staff used to go around the sleeping people, waking them up to check if they were their passengers and hoarding them off as enmass!

And most of those who were emigrating were of the lower strata of society.

Therefore, to expect such people to be hot shots at the 3Rs is expecting too much!

Likewise, there offsprings may too have had that type of an attitude since those I saw were not the type who thought education was essential for earning the bread and instead it was physical labour that did the trick of earning money and which was guaranteed whereas education was chancy.

Even at Heathrow, you would find Asians were the hygiene workers, if you understand what I mean.

I maybe totally wrong, but that was my observations.

Nowadays, when I see Indian origin people interacting on British TV as bystanders etc, you can distinctly make out from their accent that they are not of the better classes.

 

[Armand2REP]

Chinese are very successful when they migrate. They start their own business either selling cheap Chinese fried food, that really isn't Chinese, or they sell cheap knock-off products they get from their supplier. These people are entrepreneurs selling cheap stuff, how can you beat a personal Walmart with direct connections to the supplier?

That article seems like a hierarchy of religion. If you are Christian you make more than anyone, everything else in the middle and Muslims at the bottom. It is an interesting debate the Chinese are having. Many in the Politburo are saying that adopting Christianity is the religion of wealth and consumerism. Stomping out poor Islam with Christian missionaries is a policy that seems supported by the government. Islam just seems to support ignorance, especially towards women. But then you look at countries like Iran where women are highly educated, but then that might be the difference between Sunni and Shia. It is tough to figure out but interesting.

 

[parijataka]

This is over a decade old article. Sikhs are the second richest community in the UK after the Jews. There is already a thread on this topic with fairly recent studies.

==


Are you suggesting there is a link between radicalization and wealth ? I haven't seen any proof ?

Singh ji, many of the South Asians who migrated to UK were blue collar workers rather than professionals - across faiths. Compared them to the class of Indians who migrate to US they are definitely less educated. Again, like you said the study is more than a decade old. This does not seem to be about faith or colour as Indian Muslims do better than Pakistani or Bangladeshi while black Caribbean are the most successful women doing even better than white women.

 

[parijataka]

Chinese are very successful when they migrate. They start their own business either selling cheap Chinese fried food, that really isn't Chinese, or they sell cheap knock-off products they get from their supplier. These people are entrepreneurs selling cheap stuff, how can you beat a personal Walmart with direct connections to the supplier?

That article seems like a hierarchy of religion. If you are Christian you make more than anyone, everything else in the middle and Muslims at the bottom. It is an interesting debate the Chinese are having. Many in the Politburo are saying that adopting Christianity is the religion of wealth and consumerism. Stomping out poor Islam with Christian missionaries is a policy that seems supported by the government. Islam just seems to support ignorance, especially towards women. But then you look at countries like Iran where women are highly educated, but then that might be the difference between Sunni and Shia. It is tough to figure out but interesting.

Chinese have always been successful through history few thousand years before Jesus Christ was even born - their Buddhist-Confucian roots gave them a pragmatic outlook to life IMO. Europe blossomed only when it threw off the yoke of religion in the Middle Ages. Galileo having to recant his Earth revolving around the Sun by the Catholic church is well known. USA was settled by Christians who were not allowed to practise their brand of the Christian faith. Christianity was neither tolerant nor given to not interfering in secular matters such as scientific research. Lot of Africans have been converted to Christianity in the past 100-200 years by European missionaries. If Christianity was a such a boon then African countries and not China should have been super powers.

This is what the Japanese monk Shaku Soen, a Buddhist, had to say at the turn of the century regarding Abrahaimic religions -
..there was a tiger in the form of Christianity at the front door and a fox in the form of Islam at the back door, which gave no hope for Buddhists in Asia.

 

[Armand2REP]

Chinese have always been successful through history few thousand years before Jesus Christ was even born - their Buddhist-Confucian roots gave them a pragmatic outlook to life IMO. Europe blossomed only when it threw off the yoke of religion in the Middle Ages. Galileo having to recant his Earth revolving around the Sun by the Catholic church is well known. USA was settled by Christians who were not allowed to practise their brand of the Christian faith. Christianity was neither tolerant nor given to not interfering in secular matters such as scientific research. Lot of Africans have been converted to Christianity in the past 100-200 years by European missionaries. If Christianity was a such a boon then African countries and not China should have been super powers.

This is what the Japanese monk Shaku Soen, a Buddhist, had to say at the turn of the century regarding Abrahaimic religions -
..there was a tiger in the form of Christianity at the front door and a fox in the form of Islam at the back door, which gave no hope for Buddhists in Asia.

It was the Reformation that allowed Christianity to become more open minded to science and the Enlightenment that advanced its acceptance. It is a religion that evolves rather than devolves that breeds success which is why Christianity has become the religion of the wealthiest and technologically advanced society. China embraced the philosophy of Confucianism for many centuries which stunted its development. They had a treasure fleet that ruled the seas from the bottom of Africa to the Far East. They had information flow from all corners of the known world and Confucius xenophobia ended it all sending China back into retardation. Christian Europe embraced those connections and knowledge which advanced it to its current dominance.

South Korea embraced Christianity which saw a meteoric rise among developed nations. China is converting faster than any country on Earth and it grows at astounding rates. Brazil grows by leaps and bounds becoming a major economic force. Russia tried doing without Christianity and watched its empire collapse, now it grows with its embrace. Africa is unable to achieve what these countries have because they are intertwined with Islamic terrorists that won't let the nations stablise. South Africa is far enough away to steer clear of this and they grow at a quick pace. If the GDP of Christian nations is compared to all other national religions combined, it dwarfs it. This is not just coincidence.

 

[Tshering22]

That is mainly because Indians when they go out, they are skilled, qualified and hard working while most Pakistani and Bangla migrants use refugee fake status, or some other method to migrate and then live off state benefits.

 

[Ray]

Christianity was neither tolerant nor given to not interfering in secular matters such as scientific research.

That is why Martin Luther revolted and you had Protestants emerging.

Further, even now the Catholic Church is riddled with orthodoxy.

But, of late, they are also seeing Light.

They forget that God said Let there be light and so there was Light.

They are realising that by saying umpteen times Hail Mary is not the sole answer to salvation!

For any religion to flourish, it must be contemporary and not be locked in obscurantism!

If Christians do well, it is because the Christian schools impart quality education.

And Christian hospitals ensure good health amongst Christians.

Education and good health generating mental fertility is what gives one a job!