Connect with us

Datastream

One Year In: How the Pandemic Impacted Employment Around the World

Published

on

How the Pandemic Impacted Employment Around the World

Can I share this graphic?
Yes. Visualizations are free to share and post in their original form across the web—even for publishers. Please link back to this page and attribute Visual Capitalist.
When do I need a license?
Licenses are required for some commercial uses, translations, or layout modifications. You can even whitelabel our visualizations. Explore your options.
Interested in this piece?
Click here to license this visualization.

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.

Country2020 Work Hour Losses Compared to Q4'2019
Peru27.5%
Honduras24.3%
Panama23.5%
Argentina21.0%
Colombia20.9%
Bolivia20.5%
El Salvador19.4%
Ecuador17.6%
Costa Rica17.5%
Nepal17.4%
Armenia16.8%
Chile16.7%
Guatemala16.4%
Kuwait16.4%
Dominican Republic15.5%
Brazil14.9%
Bahamas14.8%
Eritrea14.7%
Turkey14.7%
Cyprus14.6%
Azerbaijan14.1%
Morocco14.1%
North Macedonia13.8%
India13.7%
Venezuela13.7%
Philippines13.6%
South Africa13.6%
Italy13.5%
Myanmar13.4%
Portugal13.4%
Cape Verde13.3%
Spain13.2%
Georgia13.1%
Oman13.1%
United States Virgin Islands13.0%
Moldova12.9%
Slovakia12.8%
United Kingdom12.8%
Greece12.6%
Cuba12.5%
Guyana12.5%
Ireland12.5%
Mexico12.5%
Bangladesh12.2%
Uganda12.2%
Bhutan11.9%
Suriname11.8%
Kyrgyzstan11.7%
Algeria11.6%
Kazakhstan11.5%
Maldives11.4%
Paraguay11.4%
Jamaica11.3%
Trinidad and Tobago11.3%
Uruguay11.2%
Belize11.1%
Malaysia11.1%
Iraq10.8%
Malta10.6%
Austria10.5%
Barbados10.4%
Jordan10.4%
Lebanon10.3%
Eswatini9.9%
Sri Lanka9.9%
Saint Lucia9.8%
Bosnia and Herzegovina9.7%
Guam9.6%
Egypt9.5%
Ethiopia9.5%
Kenya9.5%
Qatar9.5%
Rwanda9.4%
Canada9.3%
Congo9.3%
Libya9.3%
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines9.3%
United Arab Emirates9.3%
Israel9.2%
Pakistan9.2%
United States9.2%
Sudan9.1%
Zimbabwe9.1%
Bahrain9.0%
Liberia9.0%
Guinea-Bissau8.9%
Nigeria8.9%
Sao Tome and Principe8.9%
Romania8.8%
Ukraine8.8%
South Sudan8.7%
Angola8.6%
Hong Kong8.6%
Puerto Rico8.6%
Equatorial Guinea8.5%
Russia8.5%
Uzbekistan8.5%
Chad8.4%
France8.4%
Gabon8.3%
Saudi Arabia8.3%
Indonesia8.2%
Western Sahara8.2%
Slovenia8.0%
Montenegro7.8%
Singapore7.8%
Syria7.8%
Gambia7.7%
Guinea7.6%
Haiti7.6%
Serbia7.5%
Lesotho7.4%
Tonga7.4%
Belgium7.3%
Comoros7.1%
Madagascar6.9%
Djibouti6.8%
Mauritius6.7%
Democratic Republic of the Congo6.6%
Afghanistan6.5%
Botswana6.4%
Fiji6.3%
Germany6.3%
Iceland6.3%
Senegal6.3%
Lithuania6.1%
Bulgaria6.0%
Tunisia6.0%
Channel Islands5.9%
Iran5.9%
Namibia5.9%
French Polynesia5.7%
Croatia5.5%
Japan5.4%
Mauritania5.3%
Vanuatu5.3%
Hungary5.2%
Mozambique5.2%
Sweden5.2%
Vietnam5.2%
Malawi5.1%
Central African Republic5.0%
Togo4.9%
Cambodia4.8%
Samoa4.8%
Australia4.7%
Ghana4.7%
Estonia4.5%
Thailand4.5%
Brunei Darussalam4.4%
North Korea4.4%
Czech Republic4.3%
Laos4.3%
Netherlands4.3%
Cameroon4.2%
Côte d'Ivoire4.2%
China4.1%
Albania3.9%
Taiwan3.9%
Sierra Leone3.8%
Switzerland3.8%
Turkmenistan3.8%
South Korea3.7%
Luxembourg3.7%
Nicaragua3.7%
New Caledonia3.5%
Poland3.5%
Denmark3.3%
Latvia3.3%
Mali3.3%
Benin3.2%
Tajikistan3.2%
Timor-Leste2.7%
Burkina Faso2.6%
Zambia2.6%
Mongolia2.5%
Norway2.5%
Somalia2.5%
Macau1.9%
Papua New Guinea1.8%
Solomon Islands1.8%
Tanzania1.8%
Belarus1.3%
Finland1.3%
Yemen1.3%
Niger1.1%
New Zealand0.8%
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.

ℹ️ Economic inactivity describes a situation wherein a person is either unable to work or is not actively seeking employment.

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.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist
Click for Comments

Economy

Charted: Public Trust in the Federal Reserve

Public trust in the Federal Reserve chair has hit its lowest point in 20 years. Get the details in this infographic.

Published

on

The Briefing

  • Gallup conducts an annual poll to gauge the U.S. public’s trust in the Federal Reserve
  • After rising during the COVID-19 pandemic, public trust has fallen to a 20-year low

 

Charted: Public Trust in the Federal Reserve

Each year, Gallup conducts a survey of American adults on various economic topics, including the country’s central bank, the Federal Reserve.

More specifically, respondents are asked how much confidence they have in the current Fed chairman to do or recommend the right thing for the U.S. economy. We’ve visualized these results from 2001 to 2023 to see how confidence levels have changed over time.

Methodology and Results

The data used in this infographic is also listed in the table below. Percentages reflect the share of respondents that have either a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence.

YearFed chair% Great deal or Fair amount
2023Jerome Powell36%
2022Jerome Powell43%
2021Jerome Powell55%
2020Jerome Powell58%
2019Jerome Powell50%
2018Jerome Powell45%
2017Janet Yellen45%
2016Janet Yellen38%
2015Janet Yellen42%
2014Janet Yellen37%
2013Ben Bernanke42%
2012Ben Bernanke39%
2011Ben Bernanke41%
2010Ben Bernanke44%
2009Ben Bernanke49%
2008Ben Bernanke47%
2007Ben Bernanke50%
2006Ben Bernanke41%
2005Alan Greenspan56%
2004Alan Greenspan61%
2003Alan Greenspan65%
2002Alan Greenspan69%
2001Alan Greenspan74%

Data for 2023 collected April 3-25, with this statement put to respondents: “Please tell me how much confidence you have [in the Fed chair] to recommend the right thing for the economy.”

We can see that trust in the Federal Reserve has fluctuated significantly in recent years.

For example, under Alan Greenspan, trust was initially high due to the relative stability of the economy. The burst of the dotcom bubble—which some attribute to Greenspan’s easy credit policies—resulted in a sharp decline.

On the flip side, public confidence spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was likely due to Jerome Powell’s decisive actions to provide support to the U.S. economy throughout the crisis.

Measures implemented by the Fed include bringing interest rates to near zero, quantitative easing (buying government bonds with newly-printed money), and emergency lending programs to businesses.

Confidence Now on the Decline

After peaking at 58%, those with a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the Fed chair have tumbled to 36%, the lowest number in 20 years.

This is likely due to Powell’s hard stance on fighting post-pandemic inflation, which has involved raising interest rates at an incredible speed. While these rate hikes may be necessary, they also have many adverse effects:

  • Negative impact on the stock market
  • Increases the burden for those with variable-rate debts
  • Makes mortgages and home buying less affordable

Higher rates have also prompted many U.S. tech companies to shrink their workforces, and have been a factor in the regional banking crisis, including the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.

Where does this data come from?

Source: Gallup (2023)

Data Notes: Results are based on telephone interviews conducted April 3-25, 2023, with a random sample of –1,013—adults, ages 18+, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on this sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. See source for details.

Continue Reading

Subscribe

Popular