Kshatriya87
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2014
- Messages
- 10,136
- Likes
- 16,039
Indian Economy: News and Discussion
- Thread starter Tuco
- Start date
Advaidhya Tiwari
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2018
- Messages
- 1,579
- Likes
- 1,443
First of all, Muslims are a pronblem, not a solution. Also, most of the so called jobs of muslims is useless. They hardly contribute anything meaningful. Muslims are not part of society but invaders who should have left India in 1947. It is absurd to say that India will face disaster if they are expelled. In fact, it is the countries who don't maintain sanity which suffers disasters. Expelling muslims will only free up the population and reduce population pressure. Since hardly any menaingful activity is done by muslims, there will be no harm
Also, I don't expect these people to leave in peace. Also, they don't have any strength to fight till death. Also, India will not spare Pakistan either in such scenario. Pakistan will be destroyed first and then these people will be given an option - get out or die. It is impossible to keep peace with any muslims in any circumstance. There never has been peace with muslims and there never will be. So, speaking of peace with muslims is foolishness at best.
Why should India care about minorities? There is only one right in the world and that is based on antural law and natural order, which Indians call Dharma. Those who don't follow Dharma are only existing to cause problems to everyone. Such people must feel very unsafe so as to deter anyone from causing trouble. People like Sikhs, Buddhist, Jain etc are indigenous people, not minorities. These people will not feel unsafe by attacking muslims.
India gives food to 20 crore Indian muslims and can also attack Pakistan and destroy food of another 20 crore. So, when these people are displaced, they will have to go to middle east, then they will need additional food. I never said India gives food to middle east. I only said that India gives food to muslims who are 'agents' of Arabs. So, India does give food.
India did not threaten as India was ruled by congress and had lot of moles left behind by UK. The previous generations were leading highly degraded lives and refusing to change. It was purely due to psychological unwillingness in the past that India did not threaten Arabs/USA or develop its defence technology. But now it has changed and there is anger and awareness. So, the psychology change is the main factor now. Had India threatened in the past, then it would have worked but people simply showed poor character. But that won't be the case henceforth. Henceforth, India will dictate terms.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 14,104
- Likes
- 63,371
White Goods makers to turn champions of Make in India
Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/66743569.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/66743569.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2016
- Messages
- 502
- Likes
- 620
Not just a “Jobless” Growth Story
Over the last few months, there has been a fresh debate on the amount of job creation currently taking place in the economy. The debate regarding job creation assumes much significance as it was a major promise by the current Prime Minister during his campaign for 2014 elections. Moreover, every time there’s an upcoming election, there are different estimates of employment that are tossed around by the Opposition Parties. Given that his government has completed four years and India is gearing up for general elections sometime early in 2019, it is only fitting to evaluate how has the government performed on the job creation front.
In that context, the year of 2017-18 is of particular interest as it was the year after GST and Demonetisation and critics have argued that both these reforms have led to massive loss of jobs in the economy. The important thing to note here is that there is no reliable time series data that is available for the state of employment in the Indian economy. Thus, the critics don’t have sound data to back up these claims and most of them have largely relied upon the CMIE database to provide a bleak picture of job creation for the year 2017-18. The CMIE reports a job gain of 1.8 million against other estimates of 12-15 million for the year 2017-18. This wide divergence makes it imperative that we take a closer look at the labour market to see so as to what is the actual scenario of job creation in the economy.
In figure 1 we represent the data for Growth of Labour Productivity and Real GDP Growth Rate. From the chart, it is apparent that there is indeed some co-movement of both these variables. However, the sharp dip between 2017-18 in the growth of labour productivity while the growth rate witnessed a moderate dip demonstrates that the slowdown in growth rate of labour productivity has been compensated by either increase in productivity of capital or increase in the labour employed in the process of production. Given that capital productivity or capital employed in productive purposes didn’t increase it becomes evident that the resultant growth has to be attributed to an increase in labour employed.
This assertion stems from the fact that a large economy like India cannot grow at 6.74% without an increase in labour input when labour productivity grows at a modest rate. This brings us an important question regarding the situation of employment within the country. From figure 1 what we have is apparent that there is a significant amount of job creation that may have undertaken between 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Another interesting finding comes up when one looks at the real wage growth in the rural economy. This data itself comes from CMIE and it provides a picture which is in contrast with their findings. Alternate source for data on wages is Labor Bureau’s WRRI data. The WRRI data demonstrates how rural wages in nominal terms witnessed an increase from 2007-8 onwards up until 2014-15 after which it declined in 2015-16. However, nominal wages started growing after the second half of 2016-17 and have remained stable over for these two years. This shows that nominal wages have started growing in levels post-2016-17 and this fact substantiates the point that there is significant job creation that’s putting an upward pressure on rural nominal wages.
[https://2]
For most practical purposes, it is real wage which matters and helps better analyze any changes in the labour market. With the real wage increase despite a decline in the growth rate, it is clear that for the year 2017 the labour demand must have actually gone up compared to the year 2016.
A positive real rural wage growth represents a rise in real wage rate and that can happen only when the labour demand gets augmented or in other words, when there is job creation taking place. We represent this in figure 2 and 3. These figures illustrate the fact that even in the rural economy there is a persistent demand for labour which is driving up the real wages (in levels). Further, for 8 sectors for which the Labor Ministry maps jobs creation, the data reveals that India added 136,000 workers in July 2017 as against 64,000 workers in the previous quarter. This again reinforces the broad trend of an uptick in the creation of jobs compared to 2016 which makes one seriously question the legitimacy of the 7 million job loss figure reported by CMIE.
[https://4]
Thus, there is no doubt that there is ample evidence of job creation in the economy despite there being a lack of statistic to capture job growth in the economy. This implies that the assertion that EPFO data represents a mere formalization of jobs rather than the creation of fresh jobs is incorrect. Of course, EPFO data may represent jobs switching from the informal to the formal sector but the question is, can the formal sector grow at the expense of the “non-corporate” (or informal) sector? The formal sector is heavily linked to the informal sector of our economy and there is the huge dependence of the formal sector on the non-corporate sector by way of sub-contracting, outsourcing and other economic activities. Given this understanding, it must be the case that if the formal sector is growing, it must be the case that the non-corporate sector also grows and extends employment.
So then why is it that the CMIE database provides such a gloomy outlook on job creation in the economy? I believe it could be due to an error with the participation rate for the age group of 15-24. There is no doubt that there is a greater rate of enrollment across schools and there is significant evidence of a greater number of people attending colleges to obtain at least one degree after completion of schooling in India. The reduction in drop-out rates and a greater enrollment rate must demonstrate that the labour force participation rate among the 15-24 age group must be significantly lower than the historic rate. This is relevant for the CMIE estimate of employment as it showed a 7 million fall in the jobs for the age group of 15-24. For those who’re currently enrolled in an educational institution, they’re already outside the labour market as they’re not participating and they cannot be taken as “unemployed”.
Despite there being robust job creation in the economy, our statistics have not been able to capture them adequately. A major problem behind this is the definition of a “job” which is narrow compared to the globalized economy that is shaping up currently. This assumes much significance as India itself tries to push harder for a self-employment based dynamic and vibrant start-up culture, the question arises whether small household level or single owner-labour based employment opportunities would be characterized by the definition of “job”? While employment statistics consider “self-employment” as a legitimate employment, the question remains if we should consider the creation of self-employment-based opportunities as the creation of a job or not.
The purpose of a job is to provide a secure livelihood and I am of the opinion that while we are arriving at an official statistic of job creation in the country, it is imperative that we look at access to a source of secure livelihood as an important indicator for jobs being created. The Mudra Scheme is in itself an example of how these single owner-labour based small firms are an important and integral part of our economic ecosystem. SKOCH group had presented a report that stated that over 5 million jobs were generated in just over two years out of which 3.7 million were direct jobs and 1.6 million were indirect jobs. This demonstrates that self-employment not only provides direct employment to the self-employed but also leads to a substantial extension of employment over time. For all practical purposes, when we consider them as employed so we might as well consider the creation of such opportunities a part of jobs being created in an economy.
Thus, there does exist a gap in having an official statistic that could measure and capture employment and job creation in the economy over a period of time. In the absence of such an official statistic, one can only arrive at a guesstimate regarding an official number of job creation in the economy. However, looking at the broad trends, one cannot dispute the fact that there has been a significant amount of job creation in the economy for the year 2017-18. These jobs were created despite the structural reforms, economic shocks and disruptions which means that for the years preceding to 2017-18 either the job creation would have been more if not at the same level. As far as an official figure is concerned, my guess of job creation for 2017-18 based on EPFO, QES, SKOCH and CMIE would be anywhere between 8-12 million jobs. Therefore, it would be safe to say that the Indian Growth Story is not just a Jobless Growth Story!
Karan Bhasin is an economist by academic training and he undertakes research in the field of macroeconomics, political economy, law and economics and institutional economics. Views Personal. He tweets at @karanbhasin95
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk
Over the last few months, there has been a fresh debate on the amount of job creation currently taking place in the economy. The debate regarding job creation assumes much significance as it was a major promise by the current Prime Minister during his campaign for 2014 elections. Moreover, every time there’s an upcoming election, there are different estimates of employment that are tossed around by the Opposition Parties. Given that his government has completed four years and India is gearing up for general elections sometime early in 2019, it is only fitting to evaluate how has the government performed on the job creation front.
In that context, the year of 2017-18 is of particular interest as it was the year after GST and Demonetisation and critics have argued that both these reforms have led to massive loss of jobs in the economy. The important thing to note here is that there is no reliable time series data that is available for the state of employment in the Indian economy. Thus, the critics don’t have sound data to back up these claims and most of them have largely relied upon the CMIE database to provide a bleak picture of job creation for the year 2017-18. The CMIE reports a job gain of 1.8 million against other estimates of 12-15 million for the year 2017-18. This wide divergence makes it imperative that we take a closer look at the labour market to see so as to what is the actual scenario of job creation in the economy.
In figure 1 we represent the data for Growth of Labour Productivity and Real GDP Growth Rate. From the chart, it is apparent that there is indeed some co-movement of both these variables. However, the sharp dip between 2017-18 in the growth of labour productivity while the growth rate witnessed a moderate dip demonstrates that the slowdown in growth rate of labour productivity has been compensated by either increase in productivity of capital or increase in the labour employed in the process of production. Given that capital productivity or capital employed in productive purposes didn’t increase it becomes evident that the resultant growth has to be attributed to an increase in labour employed.
This assertion stems from the fact that a large economy like India cannot grow at 6.74% without an increase in labour input when labour productivity grows at a modest rate. This brings us an important question regarding the situation of employment within the country. From figure 1 what we have is apparent that there is a significant amount of job creation that may have undertaken between 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Another interesting finding comes up when one looks at the real wage growth in the rural economy. This data itself comes from CMIE and it provides a picture which is in contrast with their findings. Alternate source for data on wages is Labor Bureau’s WRRI data. The WRRI data demonstrates how rural wages in nominal terms witnessed an increase from 2007-8 onwards up until 2014-15 after which it declined in 2015-16. However, nominal wages started growing after the second half of 2016-17 and have remained stable over for these two years. This shows that nominal wages have started growing in levels post-2016-17 and this fact substantiates the point that there is significant job creation that’s putting an upward pressure on rural nominal wages.
[https://2]
For most practical purposes, it is real wage which matters and helps better analyze any changes in the labour market. With the real wage increase despite a decline in the growth rate, it is clear that for the year 2017 the labour demand must have actually gone up compared to the year 2016.
A positive real rural wage growth represents a rise in real wage rate and that can happen only when the labour demand gets augmented or in other words, when there is job creation taking place. We represent this in figure 2 and 3. These figures illustrate the fact that even in the rural economy there is a persistent demand for labour which is driving up the real wages (in levels). Further, for 8 sectors for which the Labor Ministry maps jobs creation, the data reveals that India added 136,000 workers in July 2017 as against 64,000 workers in the previous quarter. This again reinforces the broad trend of an uptick in the creation of jobs compared to 2016 which makes one seriously question the legitimacy of the 7 million job loss figure reported by CMIE.
[https://4]
Thus, there is no doubt that there is ample evidence of job creation in the economy despite there being a lack of statistic to capture job growth in the economy. This implies that the assertion that EPFO data represents a mere formalization of jobs rather than the creation of fresh jobs is incorrect. Of course, EPFO data may represent jobs switching from the informal to the formal sector but the question is, can the formal sector grow at the expense of the “non-corporate” (or informal) sector? The formal sector is heavily linked to the informal sector of our economy and there is the huge dependence of the formal sector on the non-corporate sector by way of sub-contracting, outsourcing and other economic activities. Given this understanding, it must be the case that if the formal sector is growing, it must be the case that the non-corporate sector also grows and extends employment.
So then why is it that the CMIE database provides such a gloomy outlook on job creation in the economy? I believe it could be due to an error with the participation rate for the age group of 15-24. There is no doubt that there is a greater rate of enrollment across schools and there is significant evidence of a greater number of people attending colleges to obtain at least one degree after completion of schooling in India. The reduction in drop-out rates and a greater enrollment rate must demonstrate that the labour force participation rate among the 15-24 age group must be significantly lower than the historic rate. This is relevant for the CMIE estimate of employment as it showed a 7 million fall in the jobs for the age group of 15-24. For those who’re currently enrolled in an educational institution, they’re already outside the labour market as they’re not participating and they cannot be taken as “unemployed”.
Despite there being robust job creation in the economy, our statistics have not been able to capture them adequately. A major problem behind this is the definition of a “job” which is narrow compared to the globalized economy that is shaping up currently. This assumes much significance as India itself tries to push harder for a self-employment based dynamic and vibrant start-up culture, the question arises whether small household level or single owner-labour based employment opportunities would be characterized by the definition of “job”? While employment statistics consider “self-employment” as a legitimate employment, the question remains if we should consider the creation of self-employment-based opportunities as the creation of a job or not.
The purpose of a job is to provide a secure livelihood and I am of the opinion that while we are arriving at an official statistic of job creation in the country, it is imperative that we look at access to a source of secure livelihood as an important indicator for jobs being created. The Mudra Scheme is in itself an example of how these single owner-labour based small firms are an important and integral part of our economic ecosystem. SKOCH group had presented a report that stated that over 5 million jobs were generated in just over two years out of which 3.7 million were direct jobs and 1.6 million were indirect jobs. This demonstrates that self-employment not only provides direct employment to the self-employed but also leads to a substantial extension of employment over time. For all practical purposes, when we consider them as employed so we might as well consider the creation of such opportunities a part of jobs being created in an economy.
Thus, there does exist a gap in having an official statistic that could measure and capture employment and job creation in the economy over a period of time. In the absence of such an official statistic, one can only arrive at a guesstimate regarding an official number of job creation in the economy. However, looking at the broad trends, one cannot dispute the fact that there has been a significant amount of job creation in the economy for the year 2017-18. These jobs were created despite the structural reforms, economic shocks and disruptions which means that for the years preceding to 2017-18 either the job creation would have been more if not at the same level. As far as an official figure is concerned, my guess of job creation for 2017-18 based on EPFO, QES, SKOCH and CMIE would be anywhere between 8-12 million jobs. Therefore, it would be safe to say that the Indian Growth Story is not just a Jobless Growth Story!
Karan Bhasin is an economist by academic training and he undertakes research in the field of macroeconomics, political economy, law and economics and institutional economics. Views Personal. He tweets at @karanbhasin95
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2016
- Messages
- 502
- Likes
- 620
Not just a “Jobless” Growth Story
Over the last few months, there has been a fresh debate on the amount of job creation currently taking place in the economy. The debate regarding job creation assumes much significance as it was a major promise by the current Prime Minister during his campaign for 2014 elections. Moreover, every time there’s an upcoming election, there are different estimates of employment that are tossed around by the Opposition Parties. Given that his government has completed four years and India is gearing up for general elections sometime early in 2019, it is only fitting to evaluate how has the government performed on the job creation front.
In that context, the year of 2017-18 is of particular interest as it was the year after GST and Demonetisation and critics have argued that both these reforms have led to massive loss of jobs in the economy. The important thing to note here is that there is no reliable time series data that is available for the state of employment in the Indian economy. Thus, the critics don’t have sound data to back up these claims and most of them have largely relied upon the CMIE database to provide a bleak picture of job creation for the year 2017-18. The CMIE reports a job gain of 1.8 million against other estimates of 12-15 million for the year 2017-18. This wide divergence makes it imperative that we take a closer look at the labour market to see so as to what is the actual scenario of job creation in the economy.
In figure 1 we represent the data for Growth of Labour Productivity and Real GDP Growth Rate. From the chart, it is apparent that there is indeed some co-movement of both these variables. However, the sharp dip between 2017-18 in the growth of labour productivity while the growth rate witnessed a moderate dip demonstrates that the slowdown in growth rate of labour productivity has been compensated by either increase in productivity of capital or increase in the labour employed in the process of production. Given that capital productivity or capital employed in productive purposes didn’t increase it becomes evident that the resultant growth has to be attributed to an increase in labour employed.
This assertion stems from the fact that a large economy like India cannot grow at 6.74% without an increase in labour input when labour productivity grows at a modest rate. This brings us an important question regarding the situation of employment within the country. From figure 1 what we have is apparent that there is a significant amount of job creation that may have undertaken between 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Another interesting finding comes up when one looks at the real wage growth in the rural economy. This data itself comes from CMIE and it provides a picture which is in contrast with their findings. Alternate source for data on wages is Labor Bureau’s WRRI data. The WRRI data demonstrates how rural wages in nominal terms witnessed an increase from 2007-8 onwards up until 2014-15 after which it declined in 2015-16. However, nominal wages started growing after the second half of 2016-17 and have remained stable over for these two years. This shows that nominal wages have started growing in levels post-2016-17 and this fact substantiates the point that there is significant job creation that’s putting an upward pressure on rural nominal wages.
[https://2]
For most practical purposes, it is real wage which matters and helps better analyze any changes in the labour market. With the real wage increase despite a decline in the growth rate, it is clear that for the year 2017 the labour demand must have actually gone up compared to the year 2016.
A positive real rural wage growth represents a rise in real wage rate and that can happen only when the labour demand gets augmented or in other words, when there is job creation taking place. We represent this in figure 2 and 3. These figures illustrate the fact that even in the rural economy there is a persistent demand for labour which is driving up the real wages (in levels). Further, for 8 sectors for which the Labor Ministry maps jobs creation, the data reveals that India added 136,000 workers in July 2017 as against 64,000 workers in the previous quarter. This again reinforces the broad trend of an uptick in the creation of jobs compared to 2016 which makes one seriously question the legitimacy of the 7 million job loss figure reported by CMIE.
[https://4]
Thus, there is no doubt that there is ample evidence of job creation in the economy despite there being a lack of statistic to capture job growth in the economy. This implies that the assertion that EPFO data represents a mere formalization of jobs rather than the creation of fresh jobs is incorrect. Of course, EPFO data may represent jobs switching from the informal to the formal sector but the question is, can the formal sector grow at the expense of the “non-corporate” (or informal) sector? The formal sector is heavily linked to the informal sector of our economy and there is the huge dependence of the formal sector on the non-corporate sector by way of sub-contracting, outsourcing and other economic activities. Given this understanding, it must be the case that if the formal sector is growing, it must be the case that the non-corporate sector also grows and extends employment.
So then why is it that the CMIE database provides such a gloomy outlook on job creation in the economy? I believe it could be due to an error with the participation rate for the age group of 15-24. There is no doubt that there is a greater rate of enrollment across schools and there is significant evidence of a greater number of people attending colleges to obtain at least one degree after completion of schooling in India. The reduction in drop-out rates and a greater enrollment rate must demonstrate that the labour force participation rate among the 15-24 age group must be significantly lower than the historic rate. This is relevant for the CMIE estimate of employment as it showed a 7 million fall in the jobs for the age group of 15-24. For those who’re currently enrolled in an educational institution, they’re already outside the labour market as they’re not participating and they cannot be taken as “unemployed”.
Despite there being robust job creation in the economy, our statistics have not been able to capture them adequately. A major problem behind this is the definition of a “job” which is narrow compared to the globalized economy that is shaping up currently. This assumes much significance as India itself tries to push harder for a self-employment based dynamic and vibrant start-up culture, the question arises whether small household level or single owner-labour based employment opportunities would be characterized by the definition of “job”? While employment statistics consider “self-employment” as a legitimate employment, the question remains if we should consider the creation of self-employment-based opportunities as the creation of a job or not.
The purpose of a job is to provide a secure livelihood and I am of the opinion that while we are arriving at an official statistic of job creation in the country, it is imperative that we look at access to a source of secure livelihood as an important indicator for jobs being created. The Mudra Scheme is in itself an example of how these single owner-labour based small firms are an important and integral part of our economic ecosystem. SKOCH group had presented a report that stated that over 5 million jobs were generated in just over two years out of which 3.7 million were direct jobs and 1.6 million were indirect jobs. This demonstrates that self-employment not only provides direct employment to the self-employed but also leads to a substantial extension of employment over time. For all practical purposes, when we consider them as employed so we might as well consider the creation of such opportunities a part of jobs being created in an economy.
Thus, there does exist a gap in having an official statistic that could measure and capture employment and job creation in the economy over a period of time. In the absence of such an official statistic, one can only arrive at a guesstimate regarding an official number of job creation in the economy. However, looking at the broad trends, one cannot dispute the fact that there has been a significant amount of job creation in the economy for the year 2017-18. These jobs were created despite the structural reforms, economic shocks and disruptions which means that for the years preceding to 2017-18 either the job creation would have been more if not at the same level. As far as an official figure is concerned, my guess of job creation for 2017-18 based on EPFO, QES, SKOCH and CMIE would be anywhere between 8-12 million jobs. Therefore, it would be safe to say that the Indian Growth Story is not just a Jobless Growth Story!
Karan Bhasin is an economist by academic training and he undertakes research in the field of macroeconomics, political economy, law and economics and institutional economics. Views Personal. He tweets at @karanbhasin95
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk
Over the last few months, there has been a fresh debate on the amount of job creation currently taking place in the economy. The debate regarding job creation assumes much significance as it was a major promise by the current Prime Minister during his campaign for 2014 elections. Moreover, every time there’s an upcoming election, there are different estimates of employment that are tossed around by the Opposition Parties. Given that his government has completed four years and India is gearing up for general elections sometime early in 2019, it is only fitting to evaluate how has the government performed on the job creation front.
In that context, the year of 2017-18 is of particular interest as it was the year after GST and Demonetisation and critics have argued that both these reforms have led to massive loss of jobs in the economy. The important thing to note here is that there is no reliable time series data that is available for the state of employment in the Indian economy. Thus, the critics don’t have sound data to back up these claims and most of them have largely relied upon the CMIE database to provide a bleak picture of job creation for the year 2017-18. The CMIE reports a job gain of 1.8 million against other estimates of 12-15 million for the year 2017-18. This wide divergence makes it imperative that we take a closer look at the labour market to see so as to what is the actual scenario of job creation in the economy.
In figure 1 we represent the data for Growth of Labour Productivity and Real GDP Growth Rate. From the chart, it is apparent that there is indeed some co-movement of both these variables. However, the sharp dip between 2017-18 in the growth of labour productivity while the growth rate witnessed a moderate dip demonstrates that the slowdown in growth rate of labour productivity has been compensated by either increase in productivity of capital or increase in the labour employed in the process of production. Given that capital productivity or capital employed in productive purposes didn’t increase it becomes evident that the resultant growth has to be attributed to an increase in labour employed.
This assertion stems from the fact that a large economy like India cannot grow at 6.74% without an increase in labour input when labour productivity grows at a modest rate. This brings us an important question regarding the situation of employment within the country. From figure 1 what we have is apparent that there is a significant amount of job creation that may have undertaken between 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Another interesting finding comes up when one looks at the real wage growth in the rural economy. This data itself comes from CMIE and it provides a picture which is in contrast with their findings. Alternate source for data on wages is Labor Bureau’s WRRI data. The WRRI data demonstrates how rural wages in nominal terms witnessed an increase from 2007-8 onwards up until 2014-15 after which it declined in 2015-16. However, nominal wages started growing after the second half of 2016-17 and have remained stable over for these two years. This shows that nominal wages have started growing in levels post-2016-17 and this fact substantiates the point that there is significant job creation that’s putting an upward pressure on rural nominal wages.
[https://2]
For most practical purposes, it is real wage which matters and helps better analyze any changes in the labour market. With the real wage increase despite a decline in the growth rate, it is clear that for the year 2017 the labour demand must have actually gone up compared to the year 2016.
A positive real rural wage growth represents a rise in real wage rate and that can happen only when the labour demand gets augmented or in other words, when there is job creation taking place. We represent this in figure 2 and 3. These figures illustrate the fact that even in the rural economy there is a persistent demand for labour which is driving up the real wages (in levels). Further, for 8 sectors for which the Labor Ministry maps jobs creation, the data reveals that India added 136,000 workers in July 2017 as against 64,000 workers in the previous quarter. This again reinforces the broad trend of an uptick in the creation of jobs compared to 2016 which makes one seriously question the legitimacy of the 7 million job loss figure reported by CMIE.
[https://4]
Thus, there is no doubt that there is ample evidence of job creation in the economy despite there being a lack of statistic to capture job growth in the economy. This implies that the assertion that EPFO data represents a mere formalization of jobs rather than the creation of fresh jobs is incorrect. Of course, EPFO data may represent jobs switching from the informal to the formal sector but the question is, can the formal sector grow at the expense of the “non-corporate” (or informal) sector? The formal sector is heavily linked to the informal sector of our economy and there is the huge dependence of the formal sector on the non-corporate sector by way of sub-contracting, outsourcing and other economic activities. Given this understanding, it must be the case that if the formal sector is growing, it must be the case that the non-corporate sector also grows and extends employment.
So then why is it that the CMIE database provides such a gloomy outlook on job creation in the economy? I believe it could be due to an error with the participation rate for the age group of 15-24. There is no doubt that there is a greater rate of enrollment across schools and there is significant evidence of a greater number of people attending colleges to obtain at least one degree after completion of schooling in India. The reduction in drop-out rates and a greater enrollment rate must demonstrate that the labour force participation rate among the 15-24 age group must be significantly lower than the historic rate. This is relevant for the CMIE estimate of employment as it showed a 7 million fall in the jobs for the age group of 15-24. For those who’re currently enrolled in an educational institution, they’re already outside the labour market as they’re not participating and they cannot be taken as “unemployed”.
Despite there being robust job creation in the economy, our statistics have not been able to capture them adequately. A major problem behind this is the definition of a “job” which is narrow compared to the globalized economy that is shaping up currently. This assumes much significance as India itself tries to push harder for a self-employment based dynamic and vibrant start-up culture, the question arises whether small household level or single owner-labour based employment opportunities would be characterized by the definition of “job”? While employment statistics consider “self-employment” as a legitimate employment, the question remains if we should consider the creation of self-employment-based opportunities as the creation of a job or not.
The purpose of a job is to provide a secure livelihood and I am of the opinion that while we are arriving at an official statistic of job creation in the country, it is imperative that we look at access to a source of secure livelihood as an important indicator for jobs being created. The Mudra Scheme is in itself an example of how these single owner-labour based small firms are an important and integral part of our economic ecosystem. SKOCH group had presented a report that stated that over 5 million jobs were generated in just over two years out of which 3.7 million were direct jobs and 1.6 million were indirect jobs. This demonstrates that self-employment not only provides direct employment to the self-employed but also leads to a substantial extension of employment over time. For all practical purposes, when we consider them as employed so we might as well consider the creation of such opportunities a part of jobs being created in an economy.
Thus, there does exist a gap in having an official statistic that could measure and capture employment and job creation in the economy over a period of time. In the absence of such an official statistic, one can only arrive at a guesstimate regarding an official number of job creation in the economy. However, looking at the broad trends, one cannot dispute the fact that there has been a significant amount of job creation in the economy for the year 2017-18. These jobs were created despite the structural reforms, economic shocks and disruptions which means that for the years preceding to 2017-18 either the job creation would have been more if not at the same level. As far as an official figure is concerned, my guess of job creation for 2017-18 based on EPFO, QES, SKOCH and CMIE would be anywhere between 8-12 million jobs. Therefore, it would be safe to say that the Indian Growth Story is not just a Jobless Growth Story!
Karan Bhasin is an economist by academic training and he undertakes research in the field of macroeconomics, political economy, law and economics and institutional economics. Views Personal. He tweets at @karanbhasin95
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 18,287
- Likes
- 56,238
₹ at 70.84, two year high against CNY.
If goes on, GDP this year may stay around $2.75-2.8 trillions.
Means $3 trillions again for next year knocking down UK from its spot, Germany in 3-4 years.
If goes on, GDP this year may stay around $2.75-2.8 trillions.
Means $3 trillions again for next year knocking down UK from its spot, Germany in 3-4 years.
Kshatriya87
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2014
- Messages
- 10,136
- Likes
- 16,039
PM Narendra Modi to launch city gas projects to cover India’s 50% population
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will lay the foundation stone here on Thursday for city gas distribution (CGD) projects across 129 districts which won under the ninth CGD bidding round held recently, the Petroleum Ministry said.
The project has covered 96 cities and districts covering 46.5 lakh households and 32 lakh CNG vehicles so far.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will lay the foundation stone here on Thursday for city gas distribution (CGD) projects across 129 districts which won under the ninth CGD bidding round held recently, the Petroleum Ministry said. At each of the geographical areas (GA) across 19 states in India, the authorised entities would also hold their event locally, a Ministry release said.
It said the projects, recently awarded by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB), would cover 65 GAs to bring gas to around half of the country’s population in 26 states and union territories (UTs).
“During the event, the Prime Minister would also launch the tenth CGD bidding round in 50 GAs spread over 124 districts in 14 states,” the statement said.
As part of a larger plan to shift towards an environment friendlier gas-based economy, the development of CGD networks will increase the availability of clean cooking fuel or piped natural gas (PNG) and transportation fuel compressed natural gas (CNG) for consumers, it said.
The project has covered 96 cities and districts covering 46.5 lakh households and 32 lakh CNG vehicles so far. PNGRB launched the ninth CGD bidding round in April for 86 GAs covering 174 districts in 22 states and UTs. The government has authorised bidders to develop projects in 84 of these GAs.
“Based on the commitment made by various entities in this bidding round, around 2 crore domestic PNG connections and 4,600 CNG stations are expected to be installed in the next eight years. This has expanded the potential coverage of CGDs to about 50 per cent of the country’s population spread over 35 per cent of India’s area,” the statement said.
Moreover, PNGRB has initiated the process of tenth CGD bidding round for another 50 GAs covering 124 districts in 14 states to increase the potential coverage to about 53 per cent of the country’s area covering 70 per cent of the population, it said.
The e-bidding process was initiated on November 8, a pre-bid conference is scheduled on December 6 and bids can be submitted by February 5, 2019. Thereafter, the technical bids would be opened during February 7-9 and the Letters of Intent are expected to be issued by end-February, it added.
According to the government, while CNG is 60 per cent cheaper as compared to petrol and costs 45 per cent less than diesel, PNG is 40 per cent cheaper than the market price of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) used for cooking. The government provides each consuming household 12 LPG cylinders per year at subsidised rates.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will lay the foundation stone here on Thursday for city gas distribution (CGD) projects across 129 districts which won under the ninth CGD bidding round held recently, the Petroleum Ministry said.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will lay the foundation stone here on Thursday for city gas distribution (CGD) projects across 129 districts which won under the ninth CGD bidding round held recently, the Petroleum Ministry said. At each of the geographical areas (GA) across 19 states in India, the authorised entities would also hold their event locally, a Ministry release said.
It said the projects, recently awarded by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB), would cover 65 GAs to bring gas to around half of the country’s population in 26 states and union territories (UTs).
“During the event, the Prime Minister would also launch the tenth CGD bidding round in 50 GAs spread over 124 districts in 14 states,” the statement said.
As part of a larger plan to shift towards an environment friendlier gas-based economy, the development of CGD networks will increase the availability of clean cooking fuel or piped natural gas (PNG) and transportation fuel compressed natural gas (CNG) for consumers, it said.
The project has covered 96 cities and districts covering 46.5 lakh households and 32 lakh CNG vehicles so far. PNGRB launched the ninth CGD bidding round in April for 86 GAs covering 174 districts in 22 states and UTs. The government has authorised bidders to develop projects in 84 of these GAs.
“Based on the commitment made by various entities in this bidding round, around 2 crore domestic PNG connections and 4,600 CNG stations are expected to be installed in the next eight years. This has expanded the potential coverage of CGDs to about 50 per cent of the country’s population spread over 35 per cent of India’s area,” the statement said.
Moreover, PNGRB has initiated the process of tenth CGD bidding round for another 50 GAs covering 124 districts in 14 states to increase the potential coverage to about 53 per cent of the country’s area covering 70 per cent of the population, it said.
The e-bidding process was initiated on November 8, a pre-bid conference is scheduled on December 6 and bids can be submitted by February 5, 2019. Thereafter, the technical bids would be opened during February 7-9 and the Letters of Intent are expected to be issued by end-February, it added.
According to the government, while CNG is 60 per cent cheaper as compared to petrol and costs 45 per cent less than diesel, PNG is 40 per cent cheaper than the market price of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) used for cooking. The government provides each consuming household 12 LPG cylinders per year at subsidised rates.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 18,287
- Likes
- 56,238
₹ has again started appreciating today.
$1 = ₹70.46 right now.
$1 = ₹70.46 right now.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 18,287
- Likes
- 56,238
So, the currency depreciation which reached 14% earlier nulifying entire growth has been reduced to 6.6%.
If ₹ sustain itself at 70, Indian GDP for 2018 is going to be $2.77 trillions and not $2.69 trillions.
If ₹ sustain itself at 70, Indian GDP for 2018 is going to be $2.77 trillions and not $2.69 trillions.
Haldiram
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2018
- Messages
- 5,708
- Likes
- 28,648
These entitled rats just want to parasite on middle class taxpayer's hard earned money.More tax compared to the tax they currently pay (0), sure.
The % of direct tax payers in India is an abysmal single digit number. The middle class is bearing the burden of the poor while the poor don't feel obligated. And the "poor" are poor only on paper. The middle class ends up paying because TDS gets deducted compulsorily. Starting IT salaries in mass recruiting companies are ~3.5L, roughly 30k/pm. This guy is "middle class" and ends up paying tax. And a maid who charges 1.5k/pm and works in 10-15 households earns all her money in cash so she is "poor". The "poor" maid's children get free subsidized education, and roam around with Pulsars and iPhones while the middle class person is stuck in education loans and home loans. The "poor" maid squats on public land and demands regularization of slums and gets a free home in slum-rehabilitation scheme. The middle class person is charged on a "per square feet" basis. Never heard them complain about this injustice which is in their favor.
If they are going to be taxed more, let them pay more, or they can choose not to buy things that are not necessary.
The "poor" farmers get 100% tax waiver, on top of that they get farming subsidy, on top of that, if there is bad yield, they get loan bailouts, and these assholes, when the urban middle class requests for a 2 rupee reduction in milk rates, do this :
We are a socialist country in letter and spirit. Criticizing the poor is not fashionable. Poor people are chors. They have the money, they just know how to evade taxes to remain "poor".
Modi has rightly taunted after Jan Dhan success "Bharat ke gareebon ki ameeri toh dekho...humne toh 0 balance account khulwaya tha, par desh ke gareebon ne XXX thousand crores deposit kar diye".
The ultra rich believe in socialism because it allows them to get the unproductive "poor" people addicted to doles at the expense of the middle class and keep the latter from growing too big/ starting enterprises and challenging the rich. It ensures that the middle class are always stuck in the rut of paying for the expenses of others and the "poor" remain subservient to the rich in return.
Farmers stop repaying loans after Rahul Gandhi’s waiver promise.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2017
- Messages
- 16,330
- Likes
- 70,174
The solution is simple the middle class needs to be expanded.
Too many farmers in our country.
We need to be manufacturing hub while the farming needs to be modernized so that work force in farming is reduced.
Haldiram
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2018
- Messages
- 5,708
- Likes
- 28,648
The farmers are squatting on land. They can't afford modern mechanized farming, and they wont sell their land to "evil corporations" who have the resources to undertake industrial scale farming. We could become the bread basket of the world if mechanized farming is undertaken on a large scale.
The story of India is basically the middle class putting their aspirations on hold so that the slackers can be accommodated. Every time we take up an ambitious project, with our own tax money, be it the bullet train or a cryogenic engine, or a moon mission, questions are asked about how many "poor" could have been fed with that money instead. It's not fashionable to hold poor people accountable. Decades of socialism has made them entitled.
Here they are throwing away tomatoes because the markets didn't agree to their price blackmail.
They could have simply appointed one among them to take their produce directly to the city and sell it at free market rates by cutting out the middle man, or set up a processing unit to turn their surplus produce into pickles or sauce to increase its shelf life. Instead, they throw it away like a small child throwing a tantrum. Their brain can't think beyond selling raw material. No value addition.
"Just give us what we demand otherwise we will throw it all away and then beg for subsidies to pay off the loans taken to cultivate the tomatoes we just threw away."
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 31,927
- Likes
- 148,110
Have noticed this since Obama days.
How come CNN guys are unhappy when oil prices drop and very happy when oil prices rise?
Same thing with any tomahawk missile attacks. CNN guys are always happy when any president orders missile strikes.
High oil prices are good for American businesses is it?
How come CNN guys are unhappy when oil prices drop and very happy when oil prices rise?
Same thing with any tomahawk missile attacks. CNN guys are always happy when any president orders missile strikes.
High oil prices are good for American businesses is it?
Rs will be 63-65 range in year
Advaidhya Tiwari
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2018
- Messages
- 1,579
- Likes
- 1,443
USA is an oil consumer and net importer of oil. USA consumes 20.7 million barrels per day (mbpd) of liquid fuel of which it produces only 18 mbpd. Why will USA become happy when oil prices rise? Trump is shouting regularly that he wants oil prices down.
CNN is funded by Qatar and it is not pro USA. Whenever USA interest coincides with the funder's interest, they cheer. Otherwise, they jeer.
68-70 seems more likely target for rupee for FY19
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 18,287
- Likes
- 56,238
₹68 at best, above that will halt exports.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 18,287
- Likes
- 56,238
Employability of Indian Engineers is now 63.05%.
'India Skills Report 2019': employability increases from 37% to 47.38% in 5 years
'India Skills Report 2019': employability increases from 37% to 47.38% in 5 years
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 18,287
- Likes
- 56,238
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 18,287
- Likes
- 56,238
OECD expects India’s economy to grow close to 7.5% in 2019, 2020
OECD lauded the Reserve Bank’s credibility in targeting inflation and said: “the projected marginal increases in policy rates will help anchor inflation”.
