Nigeria: Unemployment Rate Hits 23.9 Per Cent -NBS


The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) has put the figure of unemployed Nigerians in the first half of the year at 23.9 per cent, up from 21.1 per cent in 2010 and 19.7 per cent in 2009.

Dr Yemi Kale, the Statistician General of the Federation and Chief Executive Officer of the NBS, said this when he briefed newsmen on Tuesday in Abuja.

He said that the total number of unemployed Nigerians rose from more than 12 million in 2010 to more than 14 million in 2011, with the figure increasing by 1.8 million between December 2010 and June 2011.

The statistician general said that unemployment was highest among youths aged between 15 and 24, and 25 and 44, adding that the problem was more pronounced in the rural areas.

The NBS data also show that 56.3 percent of the active population which represent 84 million people in the labour force stood at 61.5 million implying that 22.5 million are either unwilling or unable to work for different reasons or they were working for less than 40 hour per week on average.

The NBS boss listed states with the highest unemployment rates as Yobe, 60.6 per cent; Zamfara, 42.6 per cent; and Niger, 39.4 per cent; while Osun, 3.0 per cent; Kwara, 7.1 per cent; and Lagos, 8.3 per cent, recorded the lowest rates by June 2011.

On the performance of some sectors of the economy, Kale said that the Hotels and Restaurants sector employed more than 73,000 people in 2010, with an average monthly emolument of N34,544.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201111161006.html

na wa o!

So it's getting worse.

What kind of bo0lshit statistics is this. So it means that 23.7% of the population is unemployed? Bo0lshit. The statistics is a lot higher than this, a lot fuckiing higher.

Geez,

That's like 1/4 of the population.

And this increase happened within the same period our GDP was recorded to have grown an average of 7% each quarter ooo? Una see Abracadabra??

Kobojunkie:

And this increase happened within the same period our[b] GDP was recorded to have grown an average of 7% each quarter ooo?[/b] Una see Abracadabra??

according to oil earnings.hardly reflects in the real sector

^^^ Nope, not just Oil earnings. Matter of fact, the oil sector is suggested to contribute less than 20% of the growth.

Oil is only 20-30% of Nigeria's GDP. And most of the GDP growth since 1999 has been in the non-oil sector (just google around for various documents describing this.)

Would be nice to see a breakdown over time and by state.

[size=18pt]Oil is only 20-30% of Nigeria's GDP[/size]. And most of the GDP growth since 1999 has been in the non-oil sector (just google around for various documents describing this.)

Would be nice to see a breakdown over time and by state.

Really?


I laugh in Iragbiji

[size=13pt]To put oil revenues in perspective: at an estimated export rate of 1.9 Mbbl/d (300,000 m3/d), with a projected sales price of $65 per barrel in 2011, Nigeria's anticipated revenue from petroleum is about $52.2 billion. This accounts for less than 14% of official GDP figures (and drops to 10% when the informal economy is included in these calculations). Therefore, though the petroleum sector is important, it remains in fact a small part of the country's overall vibrant and diversified economy.[/size]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nigeria


I don't think it is possible to register growth 7 quarter's straight and still not have anything substantial to show for it. If you want to know how this can make sense? Ask @Debosky, He is the one who attempted to fill my head with phooey on why it is possible to report growth, quarter, after quarter and still report no progress. 

_jking!

Yeah it is kind of weird.

Sort of a jobless growth?

Figure 5.1.10 on page 12 of this at first glance is kind of disturbing.

So jobs are being created, but not enough to compensate for the additional populace, I suppose.

Also a state-by-state breakdown on page 13 of the same doc. I haven't been able to find the 2011 version of this doc tha the OP's article mentions. If anyone finds it, let me know.

I guess it sort of makes sense. . . most of these high-growth sectors in the Nigerian economy (e.g., telecoms) don't require that much labor. To really attack unemployment, you need manufacturing. Which requires electricity.

Also, I've seen a report before that suggests that unemployment is decreasing in the south, but increasing in the north. Report on the CBN site by Soludo from a talk he gave a few years ago.

So there are also regional effects coming into play.

um . . .  unemployment numbers were reported to have been at 19% as of the first/second quarter of 2010. During those same quarters and about 5 that followed, the reports also had it that growth was maintained at about 7%.[size=13pt] The same agency claims now that Unemployment has increased from about 19% to 24% during the growth months, and you say it makes sense??[/size]?   When you have Agriculture claimed to provide about 44% of GDP growth

GDP by sector

agriculture: 41.8%;

industry: 29.6%;

services: 28.6% (2009 est.)

KoboJ: It makes sense to me. At least the broad trend.

In a nutshell, given Nigeria's relatively high population growth, we cannot really expect unemployment to decrease substantially without industrialization. For every job you manage to create, probably 3 or 4 people enter the job market (an exaggeration, but I think conveys the point.)

Is agric 44% of the GDP growth? Where are you reading that?

Of this growth, how much is large-scale mechanized farms (that don't require much labor, and thus won't help much with unemployment), and how much is labor-intensive farming (a guy with a hoe and cutlass breaking his back over a plot of land)?

Abegi!!! dem tell you say your country record say Agriculture contributed about 40% of GDP growth and you come back with that question? How many small scale farmers we get sef wey you think fit contribute significant part of that figure

The data is unreliable. Thats Kobo's point.

Kapish.

Glancing again at the 2010 report, it is clear that most of the unemployment seems to be in the north.

Does the poor infrastructure connecting north and south hurt them. . .?

I don't think they are intrinsically lazier or worse human beings than southerners.

But if you are far away from the coast, transportation to the coast is terrible, there is no electricity, no manufacturing, no industry, what exactly is one expected to do for a living?

Not enough to build good infrastructure in your region, you need excellent infrastructure connecting you to the outside world. Otherwise unemployment will remain high (at least, this is my guess.)

What the frell does that ramble to do with this thread? Why are you so keen on turning this into another DIVIDE-NIGERIA thread ? If they openly announce to all that they choose laziness, what in the world has that to do with the figures in the pages and how it does not make sense when you consider what you have in EVERYWHERE Nigeria?

Kobojunkie:

Abegi!!! dem tell you say your country record say Agriculture contributed about 40% of GDP growth and you come back with that question? How many small scale farmers we get sef wey you think fit contribute significant part of that figure  

1.  Where are you seeing that 40% of GDP growth is agric?
2. I have no clue what your second question is asking. So you are saying that you think large farmers are more responsible for the growth in agric rather than small farmers? Personally I have no clue what the answer is (big farmers or small). If you think one or the other, what is your reasoning?

Kobojunkie:

What the frell does that ramble to do with this thread? Why are you so keen on turning this into another DIVIDE-NIGERIA thread ?[size=18pt] If they openly announce to all that they choose laziness[/size], what in the world has that to do with the figures in the pages and how it does not make sense when you consider what you have in EVERYWHERE Nigeria?

ROTFL.

Kobojunkie:

What the frell does that ramble to do with this thread? Why are you so keen on turning this into another DIVIDE-NIGERIA thread ? If they openly announce to all that they choose laziness, what in the world has that to do with the figures in the pages and how it does not make sense when you consider what you have in EVERYWHERE Nigeria?

1. We see that unemployment is high.
2. Most of us think that high unemployment is bad.
3. We also see that unemployment is far higher in one part of the country than the other.

If your goal is to reduce unemployment, don't you have to figure out why #3 is happening? Or is there a way to do this without dealing with #3?

Thinking to myself, who is more psycho? Ekt_Bear or KoboJ?

I think Ekt_Bear is in the lead, at least on this thread. So out of touch. lol

Kobo, are you basically assuming that because agric is roughly 40% of GDP, it also contributed roughly 40% to GDP growth?

This isn't necessarily true, of course. Some sectors grow faster than others.

Anyway, even if agric contributed 100% to GDP growth (i.e., agric is growing at X% and non-agric is growing at 0%), it doesn't at all suggest that many jobs would be created. It depends on what type of jobs are being added, in what manner agric is growing, etc.

^^^ I think you need to STOP . . . just zip it! If you don't even understand what is being said or what the numbers really mean, then let those who do come explain it instead.

ROTFL




I think I am having a seizure

Lol.

KoboJ doing another KoboDodge. Rather than admitting her mistake and owning up to her illogical reasoning about agric's contribution to GDP growth and employment, it is someone else who is misinterpreting the #s.

Anyway, thanks for your advice. But perhaps best if you apply the medicine you are prescribing for others to yourself.

ekt_bear:

Lol.

KoboJ doing another KoboDodge. Rather than admitting her mistake and owning up to her illogical reasoning about agric's contribution to GDP growth and employment, it is someone else who is misinterpreting the #s.

Anyway, thanks for your advice. But perhaps best if you apply the medicine you are prescribing for others to yourself.

Admitting what mistake? You choose to dance around the numbers -- even attempt to bring up some ethnic divide by claiming some groups are lazy. , when it has absolutely nothing to do with this, yet you have the audacity I am dodging something here? What the heck do you think you have said so far? You accuse me of being mistaken? Mistaken for believing that when someone says Agriculture contributes about 40% of our GDP, the person means it contributes about 40% of our GDP?

ekt_bear:

Kobo,[size=13pt] are you basically assuming that because agric is roughly 40% of GDP, it also contributed roughly 40% to GDP growth?
This isn't necessarily true, of course. Some sectors grow faster than others.[/size]

Anyway, even if agric contributed 100% to GDP growth (i.e., agric is growing at X% and non-agric is growing at 0%), it doesn't at all suggest that many jobs would be created. It depends on what type of jobs are being added, in what manner agric is growing, etc.

I am used to people like you on here . . . . never able to admit that they must have gotten it wrong, and may need to review the information they have. Imagine the thing trying to push this off on me like the 1000's of other numbskulls on here do each day, never understanding why they continue getting shortchanged by the 1% morons in power.

Nimrod, you are told that Agricultural sector contributes about 40%, yet you dey ask me if I assume agriculture contributes about 40 %?? Which kind yeye question be that one? Again, if you do not know, don't assume we are all as ignorant as you are. Better yet, let those who are knowledgable in the area come explain it to you.

Kobojunkie:

Admitting what mistake? You choose to dance around the numbers -- even attempt to bring up some ethnic divide by claiming some groups are lazy. , when it has absolutely n othing to do with this.



I am used to people like you on here . . . . never able to admit that they must have gotten it wrong, and may need to review the information they have. Imagine the thing trying to push this off on me like the 1000's of other numbskulls on here do each day, never understanding why they continue getting shortchanged by the 1% morons in power.

[size=20pt]Nimrod[/size], you are told that Agricultural sector contributes about 40%, yet you dey ask me if I assume agriculture contributes about 40 %?? Which kind yeye question be that one? Again, if you do not know, don't assume we are all as ignorant as you are. Better yet, let those who are knowledgable in the area come explain it to you.

2. A slow-witted person.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nimrod


KoboJ, you badt gaaaan. You should be banned for calling our reigning poster of the year, a dimwit.

I am gonna report you to the mods.

Kobo. Agric contrbutes roughly 40% to GDP, yes. But this doesn't mean that it has contributed 40% to GDP growth.

We are talking about the impact of GDP growth on unemployment, right? That Nigeria has recorded high GDP growth, yet unemployment doesn't seem to be improving (and to completely avoid any possibility of confusion, by improving I mean decreasing)?

If so, then why do you keep bringing up agric's share of the economy, rather than how quickly it is growing?

Do you get that there is a difference between GDP and GDP growth rate? And how the latter is more relevant for this particular discussion than the former?

Regarding "ethnic divide", I am in fact claiming that I don't believe that they are lazier. The point was to diagnose the problem (vastly higher unemployment in the north, and an unemployment rate there that seems to get worse even with growing gdp across Nigeria) and propose a solution (better connectivity between north and south.) Granted, maybe my solution is a bad one. But it appears that you didn't even understand the point being made.

Kobojunkie:

Nimrod, you are told that Agricultural sector contributes about 40%, yet you dey ask me if I assume agriculture contributes about 40 %?? Which kind yeye question be that one? Again, if you do not know, don't assume we are all as ignorant as you are. Better yet, let those who are knowledgable in the area come explain it to you.

There are TWO different ways any sector of the economy can contribute. It can contribute to aggregate GDP, and it can also contribute to GDP growth.

Telecoms is probably what, 5 or 6% of the GDP of Nigeria. But contributes higher to GDP growth since it is growing much more rapidly than the other sectors of the economy.

Do you get this point, or not? This is why your post here (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-805178.0.html#msg9573983) made absolutely no sense.

If 20% of my stock portfolio is Motorola, but Motorola went up 40% for the year while the rest of my portfolio went up only 5%, then it is obvious that Motorola is contributing more to my portfolio's growth than the other stocks, right? In fact, using the #s in this example, Motorola is contributing roughly 67% of my growth despite being only 20% of my portfolio.

Is the point absolutely, crystal clear now?

Dude, before you go lecturing someone else., I suggest you first find yourself a good lecture for to help you. Now, I did not ask you to TEACH/LECTURE me in anything. . .  NO, so spare the thread, and spare me too! Jeezz!!!!