Filipino workers past and present
LABOR DAY having been observed last weekend, I thought I’d examine how the situation of the Filipino worker has changed—or has not—over the past decades.
In 1987, or nearly three decades ago, we had 20.8 million workers employed; now we have nearly double that, or 40 million. This means that domestic job generation grew by 92 percent over the past 29 years. Meanwhile, our population grew 78 percent over that period (from 57 million to 102 million), implying that jobs growth well outstripped labor force growth, which is good. The unemployment rate has correspondingly gone down over the years, from more than 9 percent in 1987 to just 5.8 percent now. Back then, about 449,000 overseas Filipino workers were deployed; last year, the number was 2.33 million—a 419-percent increase over the past 29 years. Based on these figures, Filipino workers had been leaving to work abroad about 4.5 times faster than domestic employment had been growing. This tells us that the domestic employment situation would have been far worse if not for the much faster pace at which our workers had found jobs elsewhere.
What are Filipino workers like, and how have they changed over the years? Based on latest labor and employment statistics, we know that for every 100 employed Filipinos:
- 63 are earning wages and salaries, 26 are self-employed, 3 are operating a business that employs others, and 8 are unpaid family workers. Ten years ago, the breakdown was 50, 33, 5 and 13, respectively. There is good news in how the share of wage and salaried jobs, reflecting formal employment, has significantly risen, while that of unpaid family workers has dropped. However, entrepreneurship appears to have declined, as seen in the falling share of those operating a business that employs others.
- 67 work full time (meaning, at least 40 hours a week) while 33 work part time. Ten years ago, only 62 had full-time jobs, while 38 worked part time. Again, this reflects improving quality of jobs in the labor market.
- 56 work in services, 27 in agriculture, and the remaining 17 in industrial jobs. Ten years ago, the composition was 48, 36 and 15, respectively. By worker category, 32 are unskilled laborers, representing the single largest group; 11 are farmers, fishers, or forest workers; 17 are managers in government or a private firm; 13 are service workers, including sales; 7 are in trade and related work; 5 are production workers or equipment operators; 7 are clerks; and 8 are professionals and technicians. Ten years ago, the breakdown was 31 unskilled laborers; 20 farmers, fishers and forest workers; 12 managers; 9 service and sales workers; 9 in trade and related work; 8 production workers and equipment operators; 4 clerks; and 7 professionals and technicians.
The most dramatic changes have been in the sectoral composition of workers. Three decades ago, we could still be accurately described as an agricultural economy, with almost half our workers in the farming sector then. Now, well over half of our workers are in services, and only 27 percent in agriculture. While industrial employment had improved somewhat, from 15 to 17 percent, the increase happened only within the last 10 years (it was still 15 percent in 2006, just as it was in 1987). Another notable change is the increased share of unskilled laborers from less than 20 percent in 1987 to the current 32 percent. The 1987 figures lumped laborers and transport equipment operators (i.e., drivers) together at 20 percent; the comparable figure now is 40 percent. Also noteworthy is the rise in proportion of managers from 12 to 17 percent.
Three key implications come out of these numbers: One, our weak agricultural sector had pushed rural workers into nonfarm work, primarily in informal services (vendors, pedicab/tricycle/jeepney drivers, etc.), and more recently, into industrial jobs. Two, much more workers are now in jobs requiring little education and skills, which may be a sad reflection of an overall decline in the state of education in the country. Three, the rising share of managers could either mean there are now more enterprises to manage, or that enterprises are now much bigger requiring more extensive management structures. But as noted earlier, entrepreneurship appears to have declined, so it’s more likely the latter. If this reflects a more skewed economy with greater dominance of big business, then the trend is not as positive as it looks at first blush.
All these refer to those who had jobs. What about the jobless Filipinos? The data tell us that for every 100 Filipino workers who are jobless, 48 are 15-24 years old, 31 are 25-34 years old, and 21 are 35 or older. As to education, 45 had gone to high school, with 33 having graduated; 34 had gone to college, with 20 having graduated; 8 went into technical-vocational education, with 6 having finished the course; and 13 reached only elementary school, only 6 of whom graduated. For every 100 workers who are underemployed—that is, have jobs but feel the need to work more—52 are working part time, and 48 are working full time. Of these, 37 are farm workers, 45 are service sector workers, and 18 are industrial workers.
The primary challenge that hasn’t changed much over the years remains how to employ millions of undereducated youth who make up the bulk of the 2.5 million jobless Filipinos, and most of whom are in the countryside. Our strategy for jobs creation must be deliberate about addressing these trends. We need much greater entrepreneurship, and more job-creating investments, large or small, and we need to make overseas employment only a choice, rather than a necessity.
* * *
