Datastream
One Year In: How the Pandemic Impacted Employment Around the World
The Briefing
- The global pandemic had a significant impact on average working hours across the globe
- In 2020, 8.8% of global working hours were lost compared to Q4’2019
- The amount of working hours lost in 2020 is equal to 255 million full-time jobs
How the Pandemic Impacted Employment Around the World
One year in, the global pandemic has impacted employment and changed the nature of work in a multitude of ways.
As job loss rose across the globe, many countries introduced job retention schemes to steady unemployment rates. At the same time, working hours for many who held on to their jobs were reduced.
To put it in perspective, COVID-19’s negative impact on working hours globally has been around 4x more than that caused by the Global Financial Crisis in 2009.
Working Hard or Hardly Working?
As of January 2021, an estimated 93% of the world’s workforce lives in a country with some type of workplace closure restrictions still in place.
While profits were slashed across many industries, a majority of companies actually avoided firing people. However, 64% of firms either reduced wages, hours, or furloughed workers temporarily.
Compared to Q4’2019, total global working hours were reduced 8.8% in 2020. This is equivalent to approximately 255 million jobs.
Here’s a look at the working hour losses in a number of different countries.
| Country | 2020 Work Hour Losses Compared to Q4'2019 |
|---|---|
| Peru | 27.5% |
| Honduras | 24.3% |
| Panama | 23.5% |
| Argentina | 21.0% |
| Colombia | 20.9% |
| Bolivia | 20.5% |
| El Salvador | 19.4% |
| Ecuador | 17.6% |
| Costa Rica | 17.5% |
| Nepal | 17.4% |
| Armenia | 16.8% |
| Chile | 16.7% |
| Guatemala | 16.4% |
| Kuwait | 16.4% |
| Dominican Republic | 15.5% |
| Brazil | 14.9% |
| Bahamas | 14.8% |
| Eritrea | 14.7% |
| Turkey | 14.7% |
| Cyprus | 14.6% |
| Azerbaijan | 14.1% |
| Morocco | 14.1% |
| North Macedonia | 13.8% |
| India | 13.7% |
| Venezuela | 13.7% |
| Philippines | 13.6% |
| South Africa | 13.6% |
| Italy | 13.5% |
| Myanmar | 13.4% |
| Portugal | 13.4% |
| Cape Verde | 13.3% |
| Spain | 13.2% |
| Georgia | 13.1% |
| Oman | 13.1% |
| United States Virgin Islands | 13.0% |
| Moldova | 12.9% |
| Slovakia | 12.8% |
| United Kingdom | 12.8% |
| Greece | 12.6% |
| Cuba | 12.5% |
| Guyana | 12.5% |
| Ireland | 12.5% |
| Mexico | 12.5% |
| Bangladesh | 12.2% |
| Uganda | 12.2% |
| Bhutan | 11.9% |
| Suriname | 11.8% |
| Kyrgyzstan | 11.7% |
| Algeria | 11.6% |
| Kazakhstan | 11.5% |
| Maldives | 11.4% |
| Paraguay | 11.4% |
| Jamaica | 11.3% |
| Trinidad and Tobago | 11.3% |
| Uruguay | 11.2% |
| Belize | 11.1% |
| Malaysia | 11.1% |
| Iraq | 10.8% |
| Malta | 10.6% |
| Austria | 10.5% |
| Barbados | 10.4% |
| Jordan | 10.4% |
| Lebanon | 10.3% |
| Eswatini | 9.9% |
| Sri Lanka | 9.9% |
| Saint Lucia | 9.8% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 9.7% |
| Guam | 9.6% |
| Egypt | 9.5% |
| Ethiopia | 9.5% |
| Kenya | 9.5% |
| Qatar | 9.5% |
| Rwanda | 9.4% |
| Canada | 9.3% |
| Congo | 9.3% |
| Libya | 9.3% |
| Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | 9.3% |
| United Arab Emirates | 9.3% |
| Israel | 9.2% |
| Pakistan | 9.2% |
| United States | 9.2% |
| Sudan | 9.1% |
| Zimbabwe | 9.1% |
| Bahrain | 9.0% |
| Liberia | 9.0% |
| Guinea-Bissau | 8.9% |
| Nigeria | 8.9% |
| Sao Tome and Principe | 8.9% |
| Romania | 8.8% |
| Ukraine | 8.8% |
| South Sudan | 8.7% |
| Angola | 8.6% |
| Hong Kong | 8.6% |
| Puerto Rico | 8.6% |
| Equatorial Guinea | 8.5% |
| Russia | 8.5% |
| Uzbekistan | 8.5% |
| Chad | 8.4% |
| France | 8.4% |
| Gabon | 8.3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 8.3% |
| Indonesia | 8.2% |
| Western Sahara | 8.2% |
| Slovenia | 8.0% |
| Montenegro | 7.8% |
| Singapore | 7.8% |
| Syria | 7.8% |
| Gambia | 7.7% |
| Guinea | 7.6% |
| Haiti | 7.6% |
| Serbia | 7.5% |
| Lesotho | 7.4% |
| Tonga | 7.4% |
| Belgium | 7.3% |
| Comoros | 7.1% |
| Madagascar | 6.9% |
| Djibouti | 6.8% |
| Mauritius | 6.7% |
| Democratic Republic of the Congo | 6.6% |
| Afghanistan | 6.5% |
| Botswana | 6.4% |
| Fiji | 6.3% |
| Germany | 6.3% |
| Iceland | 6.3% |
| Senegal | 6.3% |
| Lithuania | 6.1% |
| Bulgaria | 6.0% |
| Tunisia | 6.0% |
| Channel Islands | 5.9% |
| Iran | 5.9% |
| Namibia | 5.9% |
| French Polynesia | 5.7% |
| Croatia | 5.5% |
| Japan | 5.4% |
| Mauritania | 5.3% |
| Vanuatu | 5.3% |
| Hungary | 5.2% |
| Mozambique | 5.2% |
| Sweden | 5.2% |
| Vietnam | 5.2% |
| Malawi | 5.1% |
| Central African Republic | 5.0% |
| Togo | 4.9% |
| Cambodia | 4.8% |
| Samoa | 4.8% |
| Australia | 4.7% |
| Ghana | 4.7% |
| Estonia | 4.5% |
| Thailand | 4.5% |
| Brunei Darussalam | 4.4% |
| North Korea | 4.4% |
| Czech Republic | 4.3% |
| Laos | 4.3% |
| Netherlands | 4.3% |
| Cameroon | 4.2% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 4.2% |
| China | 4.1% |
| Albania | 3.9% |
| Taiwan | 3.9% |
| Sierra Leone | 3.8% |
| Switzerland | 3.8% |
| Turkmenistan | 3.8% |
| South Korea | 3.7% |
| Luxembourg | 3.7% |
| Nicaragua | 3.7% |
| New Caledonia | 3.5% |
| Poland | 3.5% |
| Denmark | 3.3% |
| Latvia | 3.3% |
| Mali | 3.3% |
| Benin | 3.2% |
| Tajikistan | 3.2% |
| Timor-Leste | 2.7% |
| Burkina Faso | 2.6% |
| Zambia | 2.6% |
| Mongolia | 2.5% |
| Norway | 2.5% |
| Somalia | 2.5% |
| Macau | 1.9% |
| Papua New Guinea | 1.8% |
| Solomon Islands | 1.8% |
| Tanzania | 1.8% |
| Belarus | 1.3% |
| Finland | 1.3% |
| Yemen | 1.3% |
| Niger | 1.1% |
| New Zealand | 0.8% |
| Burundi | -0.1% |
The loss of working hours has impacted Southern Europe, South Asia, the Americas, and the Caribbean most significantly. Not surprisingly, these regions are all heavily reliant on tourism and hospitality to fuel their economies.
Job Losses and the Future of Work
Working hour losses, however, do not just come from reductions in hours. The ILO approximates that the blame for working hour losses can be shared equally, with around half due to job losses and half due to a reduction in working hours.
Worldwide employment losses in 2020 were equal to 114 million jobs.
However, a large number of people have notably been deemed ‘inactive,’ rather than unemployed, reducing the global labor force participation rate overall.
Although a rebound in working hours and jobs is expected in 2021, the pandemic’s effects on how we work, and the kinds jobs that are available will have a deeper long-term effect on the global labor force participation.
» Want to learn more? Check out our COVID-19 information hub to help put the past year into perspective
Where does this data come from?
Source: ILO
Details: The source defines workers as individuals aged 15-64. Full time jobs are defined using a 40 hour or 48 hour work week depending on the country. Additionally, the ILO used a multitude of national data sources on unemployment, furlough schemes, etc. to calculate working hour losses. Their methodology can be explored further here.
Datastream
Bitcoin is the Fastest Asset to Reach a $1 Trillion Market Cap
Bitcoin is now part of a select very few assets that hold a market cap greater than $1 trillion. How long did it take to get there?
Datastream
What The Data Says About Wealth Inequality
Over the past decade, the top 1% of U.S. households’ portion of wealth has gone from 28.6% to 31.2%.
The Briefing
- Today, the top 1% of U.S. households own 31.2% of total wealth
- Data going back over 200 years suggests that wealth inequality in both the U.S. and Europe reached its peak in the early 1900s
What The Data Says About Wealth Inequality
Wealth inequality has gone through peaks and troughs throughout history.
Most recently, in the decade between 2010 and 2020, the top 1% of U.S. households’ portion of wealth has gone from 28.6% to 31.2%.
However, when expressed in raw dollars, things begin to look different. Wealth during the same period for the 1% went from approximately $17.5 trillion to $35 trillion. Meanwhile, the total wealth pool rose from $60 trillion to $112 trillion.
In other words, all households by category have amassed wealth during the same period, albeit at different rates.
| Household Wealth Percentile | Annual Growth in Wealth (CAGR) |
|---|---|
| Top 1% | 6.54% |
| 90-99% | 5.75% |
| 50-90% | 4.97% |
| Bottom 50% | 3.30% |
Source: The Federal Reserve
Drivers Of Wealth Inequality
The longest bull market in history, which went from March 2009 to February 2020, has been a big driver for the recent divergence. The U.S. composition of wealth for the top 1% of households skews towards corporate equities and mutual funds, of which they collectively own $14 trillion. By contrast, the bottom 50% of households own $0.16 trillion.
It’s often said a stock market correction is long overdue. Since the top 1% of households clearly have the most skin in the game, if one were to transpire, wealth inequality would likely retract.
A Longer Term Look
Although the inequality of wealth is heavily discussed in today’s climate, the numbers have been higher before.
Wealth inequality, measured by the top 1% of U.S. households’ portion of wealth, was at its peak at the start of the 20th century. Back then, a harsh and more concrete class divide with lower rates of upward mobility were common themes.
At its peak in 1910, the top 1% of U.S. households owned well over 40% of all wealth. Major world wars and the Great Depression seemed to be catalysts against this, and the years after WWII brought about some of the lowest levels of inequality seen in the modern era.
Wealth inequality has ebbed and flowed throughout history, but it has steadily crept back up in the last few decades. Today, its adverse effects continue to garner the attention of more people—including policy makers who are facing immense pressure to find a solution.
Where does this data come from?
Source: The Fed
Notes: This data covers Q2’2010-Q2’2020
-
Money1 month agoThe Richest People in the World in 2021
-
Green2 months agoMapped: The Greenest Countries in the World
-
Markets2 months agoWorld Beer Index 2021: What’s the Beer Price in Your Country?
-
Markets2 months agoThe Population of China in Perspective
-
Money2 months agoRanked: The World’s Black Billionaires in 2021
-
Sponsored2 months agoThe Carbon Footprint of Trucking: Driving Toward A Cleaner Future
-
Markets2 months agoThe Buffett Indicator at All-Time Highs: Is This Cause for Concern?
-
Misc2 months agoSlices of the Pie: Mapping Territorial Claims in Antarctica