What's new

Claims of jobless growth during modi regime bogus

Nilgiri

BANNED
Aug 4, 2015
24,793
81
46,818
Country
India
Location
Canada
https://www.financialexpress.com/op...ansport-sector-alone-in-just-4-years/1450930/

Claims of jobless growth during Modi regime bogus; 18 million jobs in professional and transport sector alone in just 4 years



By TV Mohandas Pai & Yash Baid

It is an undisputed fact that India’s economy has been growing fast over the past years, with India taking the title of ‘fastest growing large economy’ in 2018. What is more commendable is that this growth, lately, has been achieved with low inflation. This has been the crucial achievement of the government over the past 4.75 years, that of having sustained India’s pace of growth while reigning in high levels of inflation that wrecked havoc during the term of the previous government.

Further, the addition to the GDP, at current market prices, during 2014-19 (2019 numbers are estimates) is over 28% higher than 2009-14. India’s nominal GDP grew by `59 lakh crore in total during 2009-14, with high inflation. In contrast, nominal GDP grew by `76 lakh crore between 2014-19, but with low inflation—demonstrating much higher quality growth. For an economy of the size of India, growing at such a pace cannot possibly imply jobless growth. In the UPA II era, too, large-scale jobs creation would have taken place. But, the UPA seems to have forgotten how to count these jobs and fell prey to the bogus theory of jobless growth. To support our stance of healthy job growth, it is necessary for us to look at the key drivers of the nation’s economy which create jobs. We had previously looked at the transportation sector (bit.ly/2FtPrSS), wherein we had estimated that this sector alone had added nearly 14 million jobs from April 2014 to December 2018. Another large sector which creates jobs is the professional sector, much of which is non-corporate and outside the social security network.

Professionals who start their own practices also create a significant number of jobs every year and these need to be an integral part of our calculations. Job creation is high among professionals like chartered accountants, company secretaries, management accountants, lawyers, fashion designers, doctors, architects, project managers, financial advisors, insurance agents, real estate brokers, stock market brokers and intermediaries, and myriad other professional service providers.

1-620.jpg


The total jobs created by this segment of the economy is also a function of the rich human capital graduating from our universities and professional entities. There is consistent data available in the income tax (I-T) department’s annual Income Tax Return Statistics Reports that provide a total of non-corporate professionals who are taxpayers. Non-corporate taxpayers declaring their income under the head, income from professions, implies that they are not paid salary for themselves but pay salary to people employed by them. Most non-corporate professionals will have lower than 20 employees outside the purview of social security payments and can be counted separately. Based on the latest report for FY17, there is a total stock of 2 million such taxpayers as of March 31, 2017. Taking the average growth of around 150,000 new taxpayers per year, we can estimate the stock of non-corporate professional taxpayers at 2.4 million by March 2019. Of course, there will be more professionals working who may not be taxpayers but they will reflect as taxpayers in future years.

Taking an extremely conservative estimate of each taxpayer employing 5 individuals on an average, we can estimate that there is a total current stock of a minimum of 12 million people employed in this sector alone. We further estimate that three professions—chartered accountants, lawyers, medical professionals—together could be employing around 10 million people because a majority of these professionals, who have been practicing for 5+ years, would employ over 5 individuals. This is demonstrated in detail from our study which was published in the Yojana magazine in August 2018. The increase in total non-corporate professional taxpayers on a y-o-y basis helps us estimate the number of new practices being added every year. Using the same estimate of 5 jobs per practice, we can estimate from the attached graphic that 8 lakh jobs are added from the professional sector every year.

The attached graphic shows the incremental increase in taxpayers every year. It is possible that they were working earlier and they then came into the tax bracket this year. However, this is an annual feature with a continuing pipeline and, hence, it normalises over time. We estimate that the professional sector alone has created around 4 million jobs from 2014-15 to 2018-19 (last year numbers are estimated). Taking the jobs that we estimate from the transport sector—14 million over a similar time period—we can easily estimate a total of 18 million jobs were created in this period. We also cross-verified the annual flow of professional talent from our universities and professional entities to make sure that there was adequate talent joining the job market every year. Of course, very many will join corporate employers and come into the social security net, but large numbers will join professions too.

We need to next look at the EPFO, ESI, and the NPS data to get a good estimate of the overall jobs across these three big job sectors. But the inescapable conclusion is that India is producing a large number of jobs and there is no evidence for the bogus claim of jobless growth.

Pai is chairman, Aarin Capital Partners and Baid is head of research, 3one4 Capital
 
Brilliant piece of fiction!!! but not as good as Ghosh and Ghosh,
https://thewire.in/business/seven-m...nnually-misplaced-debate-epfo-data-employment

I would really suggest a trip down to India mate , ground realities are far different from these puff pieces.
The liar article is not giving any proof. It is just saying that EPFO data is not correct to estimate jobs.

It does not give any logical reasons why it is so
It does not give any other better data source

It just says that the authors got some privilaged access to this data and its conclusion is not what we want so it is wrong.

And one of the most fascinating thing

The study chooses just two time periods – FY 2017 and FY 2018, exactly when the Indian economy was subject to massive external shocks of demonetisation and GST.

The authors deliberately chose a period of economic shock. If the authors did not choose that period they would complain why not a period of downturn. now they have chosen that period even now they are complaining.

The Wire does not have any substantial or logical argument against the Ghosh and Ghosh study. For that matter neither do you have any logical argument against Pai and Baid study. I would love to have a logical debate with you on why you feel the OP is wrong. Just don't give perception answers. Give data and logic related points and I would respond.
 
Brilliant piece of fiction!!! but not as good as Ghosh and Ghosh,
https://thewire.in/business/seven-m...nnually-misplaced-debate-epfo-data-employment

I would really suggest a trip down to India mate , ground realities are far different from these puff pieces.

My good friend, its not just puff piece.

What is a trip (of which I have had plenty and will have plenty) going to do as far as ground reality perception?

How would 0 job creation on paper look like "on the ground" compared to 10 million or 20, or X million job creation on paper etc? Trust me I was in India frequently when NSSO (or someone) came up with the ludicrous claim of the early "massive" job creation in 2000s...which now is clearly artefact of transient rural job programs of NDA and then NREGA (yet still journalists use that data to apply to job/investment ratio arguments). That's not much of the kind of jobs I would compare in apples to apples way with larger broader scope of jobs....neither is it stuff that anyone can really perceive on the ground (given the size of India and transience/non-sustainability of that kind of thing).

India employment data gathering process needs to be much much better than say the QES sampling of a tiny superficial slice (which only kicks in at 4-5 times the level of median size of enterprise in India....5 times the median....thats ridiculous!). Thats like looking at consumption norms of either tail (just because its much easier to measure only there) of the distribution and applying them to the whole.

Definitely more data streams need to be used, be it provident funds or tax data like this article mentions. Everything needs to be cross correlated and researched more thoroughly over time (as the final last ending argument talks about)....rather than just dismissed out of hand.

Is the tax data right or is it wrong? Is it growth or is it formalisation? If its not growth, then it has to come from somewhere right (and then that enters the realm of formalisation and you cannot then simply dismiss demonetisation). If its not formalisation, it has to be growth. Have to pick one or give me the alternative yourself.

Or is the issue the ratio of about 5 jobs created per professional job? That is pretty conservative one if you ask me...but I agree that needs more research into as well....hence the need to cross correlate with other data streams.

Or is the issue underemployment? Which I would agree with 100%, but we need some larger reference on raw jobs, quality jobs and everything in between first....before we can start applying that argument willy nilly to try deflate the numbers.

What we cannot do is simply stick with the old processes, India is far too complicated and diverse for that....and becoming more so each passing year. If UPA chose not to improve on the data collection (just like they let the NPAs balloon because of hot money flow and no reforms), thats on them. Its high time whip is cracked on better job data collection in India across the full spectrum available.....that too in this era of big data.

https://www.niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Task Force on Improving Employment Data - Report for Public Comments.pdf

https://www.financialexpress.com/op...-than-5-million-says-surjit-s-bhalla/1433891/
 
My good friend, its not just puff piece.

What is a trip (of which I have had plenty and will have plenty) going to do as far as ground reality perception?

How would 0 job creation on paper look like "on the ground" compared to 10 million or 20, or X million job creation on paper etc? Trust me I was in India frequently when NSSO (or someone) came up with the ludicrous claim of the early "massive" job creation in 2000s...which now is clearly artefact of transient rural job programs of NDA and then NREGA (yet still journalists use that data to apply to job/investment ratio arguments). That's not much of the kind of jobs I would compare in apples to apples way with larger broader scope of jobs....neither is it stuff that anyone can really perceive on the ground (given the size of India and transience/non-sustainability of that kind of thing).

India employment data gathering process needs to be much much better than say the QES sampling of a tiny superficial slice (which only kicks in at 4-5 times the level of median size of enterprise in India....5 times the median....thats ridiculous!). Thats like looking at consumption norms of either tail (just because its much easier to measure only there) of the distribution and applying them to the whole.

Definitely more data streams need to be used, be it provident funds or tax data like this article mentions. Everything needs to be cross correlated and researched more thoroughly over time (as the final last ending argument talks about)....rather than just dismissed out of hand.

Is the tax data right or is it wrong? Is it growth or is it formalisation? If its not growth, then it has to come from somewhere right (and then that enters the realm of formalisation and you cannot then simply dismiss demonetisation). If its not formalisation, it has to be growth. Have to pick one or give me the alternative yourself.

Or is the issue the ratio of about 5 jobs created per professional job? That is pretty conservative one if you ask me...but I agree that needs more research into as well....hence the need to cross correlate with other data streams.

Or is the issue underemployment? Which I would agree with 100%, but we need some larger reference on raw jobs, quality jobs and everything in between first....before we can start applying that argument willy nilly to try deflate the numbers.

What we cannot do is simply stick with the old processes, India is far too complicated and diverse for that....and becoming more so each passing year. If UPA chose not to improve on the data collection (just like they let the NPAs balloon because of hot money flow and no reforms), thats on them. Its high time whip is cracked on better job data collection in India across the full spectrum available.....that too in this era of big data.

https://www.niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Task Force on Improving Employment Data - Report for Public Comments.pdf

https://www.financialexpress.com/op...-than-5-million-says-surjit-s-bhalla/1433891/
One more point I would like to add is that old methods do not count new job types especially in the service sector. An Ola Driver or Swiggy delivery boy is also a job is also a job but it won't be counted - even under EPFO and Income Tax data.
If it can't be counted is it not a job created?
Job creation is not just sarkaari naukri or working in big manufacturing company.
When the PM talked about pakoda wallahs he meant small entrepreneurs but our elite liberals dismissed it as pakodanomics.
I myself have seen a pani puri wala growing from a single person managing the stall to employing 3 helpers (not his wife and kids) in the last 2 years. Will @jbgt90 consider it as 4 jobs created or not? And how exactly does he expect these type of jobs to be counted?
 
An Ola Driver or Swiggy delivery boy is also a job is also a job but it won't be counted - even under EPFO and Income Tax data.

Yes exactly what I mean, we need better formalisation and accounting of what constitutes as informal sector right now...at least for the data purposes initially...fiscal purposes can come over time more organically.

But likewise we should not get into political game of comparing the jobs result numbers compared to before given this kind of thing would have also been going on during jobless growth period of UPA-II etc....just it was not looked into by them. But its better late than never, we need more data on the full pyramid as much as possible rather than just apex.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Back
Top Bottom