Where are the “bean counting” police?

| 23/05/2011

The following will show that 46% of Caymanians do not have jobs. Last week the ESO (Economics and Statistics Office) released employment figures based on the recent Census 2010, although they claim this is a preliminary report because the final results of the census will not be known until the end of 2011. According to the ESO, the current unemployment rate in Cayman is 6.7%.

That doesn’t sound too bad until you see how they used “creative license” in arriving at this figure. The 6.7% figure just seemed too low and too good to be true, which caused me to do some digging. Here’s what I found:

ESO reported the following numbers (I rounded them off to make this easier):

The total population is 54,400 people.
The total labour forcein Cayman is 35,860 (people ages 15 and up).
The number of unemployed is 2,400.
Therefore the unemployment rate is 6.7% (2400 divided by 35,860 = 6.7%).

This all seems okay at first glance. However, don’t forget that there are 21,000 work permit holders (foreigners) who are wrongfully included in the labour force figures. Remember, the total population figure includes foreign workers (work permit holders) as does the labour force figure. By definition, work permit holders cannot be counted as unemployed when they lose their jobs because they must leave Cayman if they are no longer are permitted to work.

In other words, they are not hanging around to be counted as unemployed. They are gone. Since work permit holders cannot be counted amongst the unemployed, it is only fair not to count them as employed either. It is unfair and dishonest to count them on one side of the employment equation and not on the other. This skews the data in ways that mis-represent the truth and make the unemployment rate look better than it is. Therefore, I propose that to arrive at a realistic unemployment figure we exclude the 21,000 work permit holders, which leaves us with an all Caymanian work force figure of 14,860.

Now let’s calculate the unemployment rate of the Caymanian work force.

Total Caymanian Labour Force = 14,860
The number of unemployed = 2,400
The unemployment rate is (2,400 divided by 14,860) = 16.2%

Also shown in the ESO report was a figure of 8,000 people of working age who were not included in the labour force figures. I eagerly await an explanation as to why people of working age are not considered a part of the labour force when the term “Labour Force” is defined by the ESO only as people greater than 14 years old. It does not say people who chose not to work or are unable to work or gave up looking for work. Therefore, it is only fair to include these 8,000 people of working age in the labour force figure. Look what happens when we include them:

Caymanian Labour Force (14,860) + (8,000) = New total Labour Force of 22,860 people.
Unemployed = the original (2,400) + (8,000) = New unemployed figure of 10,400 people.
Total unemployed Caymanians (10,400 divided by 22,860) = 46%

WOW! Imagine that, 46% of all Caymanians above age 14 do not work. This is a fact!

It doesn’t mean the unemployment rate is 46%, it just shows that 46% are not presently working either by choice or other circumstance. The 16.7% unemployment rate amongst those willing and able to work is reasonable. Another way to justify the exclusion of work permit holders (foreigners) from the employment picture is because they are taking jobs that Caymanians either don’t want or are unqualified to fill. These jobs are not available generally to the local work force. To include these jobs in the labour force picture only gives results in a lower unemployment number. In the ESO report, comparisons were made between 2010 and 2009. Similarly, 2009 figures included foreign labour which should not have been done.

In hindsight, it is beginning to look more like politics as usual rather than giving the public a true picture of how dire the situation is here. I would like to know the reason ESO presented such a rosy figure at this time and who ordered it to be done when the report states that the final 2010 Census figures won’t be finished until the end of this year.

It would be helpful in future reporting to break down the work force figures into detailed sub categories in order to show Caymanians the truest picture of their employment and how the sliding economy is affecting this country.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Viewpoint

Comments (46)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Reality Check says:

    Here is the real statistic 0%.

    Once you take out the convicted criminals and junkies, that is the percentage of Caymanians who want to work that are out of work.


  2. Anonymous says:

    Unemployment in the Cayman Islands? NO NO, Not now NOT NEVER just Unemployability.  The Cayman Islands is the "Third Largest Financial Center" in the ENTIRE WORLD have some sense how can we have over 20 thousand work permits and 2,000 unemployed.  Foolish, simply foolish..  Just ask those work permit holders how easily they were able to find jobs.

    Native Caymanians can always find a job stop being unemployable and allowing the poor foreigners those that came here and built Cayman 30 years ago until last night do your jobs, the jobs that you can get that will pay you a whopping US$2.00 per hour that is $16.00 for 8 hours pay at the end of the day, you will be able to buy one bread, half gallon of milk, 2 cans of tuna fish, 1 bag of generic rice and a pack of chicken back and if you are luck enough you will be able to save $4.00 for your bus fare back to work the next day.  Where is the hope for home ownership for a Caymanian, this is haven for the expat workers but a living Hell for Native Caymanians, do you see the parallel to the Pilgrims and the Native Americans?  I take that back the Pilgrims did give the Native Americans lands called reservations Native Caymanians are not that fortunate.

    I suggest that  Foreigners are allowed to be MP maybe we will get more employable personnel.



  3. bean counter says:

    A blanket resonse to your comments:

    I would like to address some of the comments in response to this article  that seem to need correcting.

    Some say that it is incorrect to exclude foreign work permit holders from the unemployment stats. Foreign permit holders are indeed a part of the labour force and should be counted as was properly done by ESO. Page 4 of the ESO Preliminary Report shows a table with a title of "LABOUR FORCE INDICATORS".  This is a fine title but it includes several goups that are not counted in the Labour Force. It lists children age 0 to 14. It lists the total population of Cayman which is not used to calculate the 6.7 % unemployment figure. It lists 8,000 people of working age that are not used in calculating the unelmployment percentage and states this clearly.  The children age 0 to 14  are clearly excluded from the labor force figures while the 8,000 people of working age who are not counted in the unemployment figure are shown in the LABOUR FORCE part of the table. They rightfully should have been listed at the top  near the listing for children and the total population figure so as  not to include them in the labour force part of the table as was incorrectly done.

    I wrote that work permit holders are and should be counted as part of the Labour Force Figures but they have no right to be counted amonst the unemployed which was shown by ESO to be 6.7%.

    Here is a simple test to see how this works. If the entire country were employed with only foreign workers on permits and all available jobs were filled this way and no Caymanians were allowed to work, then how would ESO report unemployment. Would it be 0% unemployment since all of the foreign permit workers are employed and all jobs are filled or would it be 100% unemployment because not a single person in the labor force is Caymanian? This sounds ridiculous at first but what we have here in reality is a mixture of this scenario only to a lesser degree by virtue of a mix of permit workers and locals in the work force. Similarly if all jobs available were for Caymanians only and no foreign permits were allowed and all Caymanians who are employable are working then you would say we have 0% unemployment which would be correct. It does not matter how the rest of the world calculates their figures. The Unites States does not count the unemployed who have given up searching for work yet they are still unemployed and counting them gives a much truer picture of the economy. I suspect that some of the 8,000 who are not in ESO's calculations will fall into this category. When figures like these are collected and published, they should represent something of real use that shows the way things really are. Caymanians and permanent residents and those who make a life here on a permanent basis would like to know how many of us are unemployed. The work permit holders will leave and find work elsewhere. They cannnot and should not be counted among those of us who liver here and cannot go elsewhere to look for work. If this were done, I submit as my figures show that our unemployment rate is more realistic at 17%. I did not use the 8,000 non workers in this figure as one commenter suggested. Another useful statistic would be the number of jobs compared to last year etc. with a breakdown of jobs held by locals and those filled by permit holders. When a financial firm leaves Cayman we lose mostly work permit held positions. When a local mom & pop store closes we lose mostly local job positions. Thbis would be enlightening to both our leaders and the public and will hopefully be looked at for future reporting.


  4. noname says:

    If more Caymanians were employable (skilled, experianced,good work ethic, etc.) then you could have true value for your statistics.  Until then it is just numbers that can be used for or against anyones wishes.  Is there any statistcs available showing percentage of employable/nonemployable or is this the elephant in the room still?

    O.K. bad example as most of don't know what that means.  You have ten open jobs for say carpet layers.  You don't want guys that say they can lay carpet you want guys  that have laid carpet professionally.  In Cayman you have hundreds of the first and only a few on the latter.  Get it? No?  Never mind.

    • Barb Bodden says:

      Wow! Could you be any more condesending???  My Father Bertram Ellington Bodden was born and raised in Cayman and his siblings included Elise Parsons Bodden and William "Billy" Bodden. Look it up. My Dad and my Uncle started the first newspaper on Cayman! My great-great grandfather was a governer in the 1800's. With that said, Do Not put down the Great and Wonderful People of Cayman. I got my hard work ethic from my father, my uncles, my aunts, and yeah Miss Annie! She ended up raising my dad and uncle. Look her up! 

      Oh and more thing I forgot to say that my Father and Uncle never made it past the 8th grade! So… FU!

      • noname says:

        I see telling it like it is is still not culturally acceptable yet.  What does talking about unemployment issues have to do with your ancestors?  Just wondering why I hit a nerve.  I do see by your current choice of leadership that education is not neccesary to be succesful at personal wealth building but can they really lay carpet?

        • Anonymous says:

          You are seriously the biggest loser!

        • Anonymous says:

          What is your occupation?  And talking about our countries rulers has nothing to do with the people of the Cayman Islands.  If it were truly up to the majority of us it would not be run like this politically.

          You obviously are a foreigner so you don't know what Barb is even talking about and if you read what you wrote you would truly understand her response.



          • Anonymous says:

            Still amazes me that anyone in this day and age that obviously knows nothing about somone or something will state their opinion as obvious truth.  I am beginning to think this is obviously a Cultural thing here because it is so widespread. Or obviously the word obviously has a different meaning in Cayman speak.  That fact that you don't think your rulers/leadership has anything to do with the people of Cayman islands explains a lot.  Dweeb and FU must mean "premeir" in Cayman talk right?  I know we have a different meaning for it in my country where our leadership is all about the people.  Thank you for clearing things up for me.  And my "Occupation" is none of your business so just make something up to suit you.

      • Turtle's Head says:

        The Caymanian people are reknowned for their friendliness.  This is the driver for the new "Cayman Friendly" campaign.  Here we see that what we sell tourists is a myth that is not reflected in reality.

    • Anonymous says:

      Mr sophisticated does not have a good command of the English language -can't spell

      • Anonymous says:

        I would never call myself Mr sophistcated and if it weren't for spell check my spelling would be much worst.  I understand why you need to try and put me down.  I hope it makes you feel betta.

  5. Anonymous says:

    To quote a famous Victorian Politician "There are 3 kinds of lies, lies, damned lies and statistics".

  6. Jack Sloper says:

    Response to bean counter :

    Your viewpoint is an interesting twist, but surely it is a twist  of a political  rather than of an economic nature? It does not make much economic sense to exclude permit holders from the national employment figures. If one did that  one could just as well exclude their income contribution to the Gross National Income figures and in so doing greatlyreduce the size of the Cayman economy. It is the contribution of all workers to the total economy that counts in any meaningful way,surely?

    Imagine a situation (reductio ad absurdum) whereby all redhead workers would have to leave Cayman if they became unemployed. If unemployment figures now excludes gingers, where would that leave us, apart from being"hairist"?

    Nevertheless it is a sad state if 17 per cent of the Caymanian work -force is out of work .Let us just determine whether  it is the old story of "lies, damn lies and statistics" before action is taken.

    • bean counter says:

      Response to Jack Sloper

      Jack, there is nothing twister going on here. When a permit holder's permit expires another permit holder is hired to fill the job thus no unemployment took place as far as that job slot is concerned. The original permit holder is no longer here to be counted as unemployed.

      If however a Cayman worker is dismissed, they are still here and that is what is counted in the unemployment figure. We are talking purely about people who live here permanently who are defined as unemployed, not their contribution to the GDP.


      • Anonymous says:

        Not saying you are purposely trying to twist anything, but how did you come to the conclusion that all 8,000 not included were Caymanian?  I don't know if there is a break down of that in the report, but I'd guess that vast majority are like my wife who are non-caymanian and retired.  Like all ex-pats who are permanent residents without right to work.  I have no numbers to back that up, but I'd be shocked if all 8,000 as you state are Caymanian.  I'd guess it is a tiny number if there are any included in there.

        • bean counter says:

          Reply to anonymous,

          I do not claim the 8000 omitted are Caymanian. The report states that the 8000 are of working age. This means local residents and Caymanians as opposed to permit holders. Your retired wife is not included in the 8000. I do believe that with the data obtained in the Census that it is possible to ascertain the actual number of working age Caymanians who are truly unemployed and hope that government would see fit to supply that data to us.


          • Anonymous says:

            "Unemployed = the original (2,400) + (8,000) = New unemployed figure of 10,400 people.
            Total unemployed Caymanians (10,400 divided by 22,860) = 46%"

            It sure looks like you are adding the entire 8,000 to reach your 10,400 "total unemployed Caymanians".


            • bean counter says:

              It is a confusion of terms. I did not say that 46% are unemployed. I Sait 46% do not work. That does not mean they are unemployed. To qualify as unemployed, a person must be employable and seeking for wanting work.

              • Anonymous says:

                Terminology aside, you are adding all 8,000 as Caymanians who aren't working.  I don't see how that is a defensible assumption.

              • Anonymous says:

                Original claim in the article:

                "Total unemployed Caymanians (10,400 divided by 22,860) = 46%"

                Current claim now:

                "I did not say that 46% are unemployed"

                I'm so confused 🙂

          • Anonymous says:

            An attempt at clarity.  The ESO report doesn't directly specify what is included in the 8,050 "not in labor force", but it does state the report is in accordance with International Labor Organization guidelines which would lead me to believe the standard definition applies.  That definition is as follows:

            The not currently active population or, equivalently, persons not in the labour force, comprises all persons who were neither employed or unemployed during the short reference period used to measure current activity.

            They may, according to reason for not being currently active, be classified in any of the following groups:

            – attending an educational institution;

            – performing household duties;

            – retiring on pension or capital income;

            – other reasons, including disability or impairment. 


            So with the best information we have today, that 8,000 consists of people of working age still attending school, are retired, choose to stay at home to raise a family, etc.  I just thought this was useful information to add to the discussion.

    • Bean Counter says:

      Additionally Jack 

      I would like to point out two things to clarify. First of all, I am not a political animal. I do not belong to any political party and am not registered to vote. My concern is purely for an honest representation of the employment picture in Cayman.

       Secondly, to make my perspective clearer I will equate it to the following. A shepherd has a herd of sheep and goats grazing in a pasture. his herd has 20 sheep and 80 goats for a total of 100 animals. 10 of the sheep are sleeping under a tree. The Shepherd wants to know what percentage of the sheep are asleep. The answer is 50%, He knows that 10 sheep represent only 10% of the herd but that is not the question. He wants to know about the sheep. 

      Further to your analogy, the red head people should indeed be include in the "employment" picture because they are counted as employees but they cannot  EVER be counted  as "unemployed" because their jobs are only avilable to red headed foreigners who must leave when not working and are replaced by another red headed worker because that is what the job requires.

      • Anonymous says:

        ..not what the job requires but rather what the job wants — if not ared head, then definitely not a Caymanian.  Too many expats are just plain anti-Caymanian.

        • Anonymous says:

          I think you mean anti-uneducated and unemployable but its painfully easy to see why your confused.  Or maybe you meant too many expats are employable?  Everyone (employable)gets it.

      • Anonymous says:

        It is not what the job requires; it is what they want.  They don't even want qualified, dedicated Caymanians.

  7. Alan Nivia says:

    The only reason anyone is unemployed here is because they want to be unemployed or they like crack more than working. 

    • Anonymous says:

      So I, a Caymanian, come back from abroad with an education looking without tire for a job for almost a whole year. I find a job, which has nothing to do with my education but I take it anyways because it pays the bills and "apparently" there is no one hiring in my area of expertise. The reason I couldn't find a job: every single firm I went to, foreigners such as (but not limited to) Europeans, North Americans and Filipinos were already filling the spots. There's alot of talk about qualified Caymanians getting first pick but that's a load of garbage. So for close to a year, would you label me as someone who did not want to be employed or who liked crack?

      I would like to point out that I am not against foreigners working here, as I think they are an integral part of this island to fill the void or deficit that is here in the work force. However, that void is not being offered to qualified Caymanians first. I am against people like Alan Nivia who generalize and stereotype a whole nation for the lack of knowing or wanting to know the truth.

  8. Anonymous says:

    The difference between unemployment including work permits holders and unemployment excluding work permit holders, over time, helps to determine the effect of two factors in Caymanian unemployment – structural and frictional. Tracking both figures, which should be done in every census as well as spot surveys on a more regular basis, should indicate the directions government should take to reduce overall Caymanian unemployment. If the issue seems primarily structural (where the supply of Caymanian labour for various sectors of the economy exceeds the demand), the solution would require more emphasis on specialised training/education as well as retraining unemployed Caymanians who seek work in a sector with relative overabundance of Caymanian workers. If the issue is more frictional, regulation of wage structure is one method by which Caymanian "perceived" friction can be overcome. However, that's not necessarily an ideal scenario, as higher wages, whilst encouraging Caymanian employment in sectors traditionally avoided by most Caymanians of adequate skills (e.g. the service and retail sectors), might discourage overall growth in the sector and deny to higher-skilled Caymanians the opportunity of middle management positions associated with said growth. The second factor (frictional) is tricky, because it largely relates to perception of employment and personal worth. Part of the difference between 6.7% overall unemployment and 16.2% Caymanian-specific workforce unemployment will be comprised of Caymanians willing to work, but unwilling to work in certain jobs because they view it as underemployment for their perceived skill set. In some cases, this will certainly be true (and often overlaps with structural unemployment), but in other cases it is only the result of skewed perception of reality (high school graduates seeking solely professional work).

    The reality is, that although Bean Counter makes an interesting point for the "true" rate of Caymanian unemployment relative to the workforce to be 16.2%, actual Caymanian unemployment might be somewhat higher (depending on the accuracy of the census and Bean Counter's approach to the math) or lower (depending on skewed perceptions of what constitutes underemployment).

  9. noname says:

    As usual you are much more qualified and skilled and don't forget that you have more access to info then those who have the job and are getting paid to do it.  Scarey.  Now please tell us what percent of Caymanians areemployable by your standards?

  10. Anonymous says:

    I don't really see a problem with how the report was compiled. 

    If the report is designed to represent a picture of the entire Cayman economy it must include permit holders because they are part of the Cayman economy, even if they are just "guest workers". An economy consists of all of the people that are participating in it, hence permit holders would have to be included otherwise the numbers would not have reflected the overall Cayman economy and the report would have failed in its intended purpose.

    I do agree that perhaps the report could have gone into a discussion of how this reflects on the Caymanian-only portion of the workforce (i.e. take out the permit holders to focus on the employment numbers for Caymanians).  You make an interesting point there, but it would not have been correct to take out the permit holders entirely.

    I am not sure why you are starting to play numbers with the group of 8,000 people, when even you admit that you do not know who these people are. My guess (and it's also only a guess) would be that this group is made up mainly of students (since the working age is considered as of 15 years, when many kids are still in school), the elderly/pensioners, stay-at-home parents and yes, some people that have simply stopped looking for work. If this assumption is correct, most of these would not really ever be in the workforce anyway, so merrily adding them to the unemployed later on seems a bit disingenious.  Also, if dependents of permit holders are included in that number (which I assume they are) – they must be excluded from that number, following your own logic of excluding permit holders from economic figures. 

    I do agree with your last paragraph, and thank you for taking the time to do this analysis. 






    • Bean Counter says:

      I belive you are misunderstanding the difference between employment figures ( available jobs) and the unemployment rate. Yes it is valuable to know the total number of people employed in an economy, Hoevever, when it comes to unemployemnt rates we are discussing how many Caymanians (not work permit holders) are unable to find work. By definition, a permit holder cannot be classified as unemployed because they cannotremain here when dismissed. There is a good chance that even when they leave that their job still exists. It will most likely be filled by another permit holder. If a Caymanian was able fill the position there would be no need to import the permit holder in the first place. So it is on ly fair to exlude permit holders from the calculations. The total number of jobs available is another subject entirely. I am not playing with the group of 8000. That was a number issued by ESO as people of working age who do not work. They are not part of my 17% unemployment calculation. They are however part of the 49 percent of the poplulation that does not work.

      • Anonymous says:

        Those of you who think that an expat manager will not hire an expat if he can find a qualified Caymanian, you are wrong.  Many of you know this is happening but choose to lie, knowing full well that fighting like soldier crabs for a mango (Cayman) is rampant.  Not too many places to find jobs right now, so they are going to fight off Caymanians until they can find something better.

        Maybe one day Caymanians will get sick and tired of it!

        • Anonymous says:

          ……and when we Native Caymanians get fed up the only thing left is to beg the social services for vouchers because there are grater or equal to 8000 receiving help now.

          • Frank says:

            Or you could get one of the many jobs that are available. . . the bars, the hotels, the restaurants, the office services providers, they all have jobs for any Caymanian that wants them regardless of qualifications (with the exception of being willing to turn up and not having a criminal record).

            Every unemployed Caymanian is a Caymanian who is unemployed through choice orpast life choices.


  11. William Verhoeven says:

    Interesting assessment but it is definitely not accurate to include the persons not in the labour force in your figures. According the 2009 labour force survey, the reasons for not including people in the labour force are as follows:

    In School (34.3%)

    Retired/Elderly (37.1%)

    Home/Family duties (11.6%)

    Other (17%)

    I expect the 2010 report will show similar figures. Besides "other", I think these are prefectly valid reasons to not include these people in the survey. Also in the 2009 survey it states that 18% of the unemployed are Non-Caymanian. I'm not sure what the explanation could be for this figure.

    Does anyone know how many Caymanians work in the civil service? I would love to see the figure for the number of Caymanians that work in the private sector.

    • Bean Counter says:

      If you read my article more carefully you will see that I DID NOT include the 8000 as part of those workers who are unemployed. The ESO report excludes them as did I in  my calculations that show an umemployment rate of 16.7% . The ESO report also classifies these 8000 people as being of working age not as elderly. These people still exist and when taken into account, show that the number of total souls living in Cayman  of WORKING AGE that do not work adds up to 49% of the total population here. This is not an unemployment rate it is a figure showing how many people in total live here (me, women, children and foreigners who do not work. One has nothing to do with the other. These  numbers are gotten directly from the report which is available for public viewing on Cayman27.com.ky. I Contend that the figure I showed of 16.7% is accurate based on this report and if we knew the acutal number of employable Caymanians, the rate would excede 17%.

      • Name changed by moderator says:

        The ESO was not trying to hide or mistrue any facts, this was simply a preliminary report and doesn't contain all the information that the final report will have. The 2009 report does in fact contain a breakdown of unemployment by Caymanian or non-Caymanian status, but I hope they do take your recommmendation and have a Caymanian-only unemployment rate prominently featured. They are reporting the unemployment rate in the same way that everyone else in the world reports it. To my knowledge, no one excludes all other nationalities in their overall unemployment rate.

        I like your 16.2% figure. I think it is a valuable figure for the analysis of Cayman's economy and society. The only problem is your assumption  that non-Caymanians have a 0% unemployment rate and should not be included in the unemployment rate. According to the 2009 Labour Force Survey, 392 non-Caymanians were unemployed. Not sure what the explanation is for these people, but they do exist.

        The big problem is with the 49% figure which is the centerpiece of your viewpoint and is a classic example of misleading statistics. These non-working people have valid excuses not to work. They are in school, retired (working age is 15+, not 15-65), or taking care of children. I'm sure if we analyzed any country we would come up with a simliar percentage for people "not working". So what is the point of reporting a number that is completely trivial and adds no real value to any discussion or argument? Politics can be the only answer.

        So just as you are accusing the ESO of misleading the public with their figures and I am accusing you of the same. Unfortunately, the ESO is following thesame standards that are followed everywhere else in the world. You could have easily brought this 16.2% figure and had an intelligent discussion about what this means and what we can do about it. Instead, you implied the ESO was biased and threw a misleading trivial figure into your analysis which only serves to confuse the public even more.

        CNS: If the name that you used is your own could you register using the log in box at the bottom of the LHS column or the link below the comment box. Thanks!

        • Bean Counter says:

          I thank you for your thoughts on this. I purposely showed the 49% figure as a way to catch attention. It has no value other than to show how many people on our island do not work. It is not to suggest that they should be working. In the USA, the unemployment rate is around 9%. However, it is a fact that if you take into account those people who are unemployed and have stopped searching for work the figure approaches 21%. Can a person really not be counted as unemployed because he or she has given up hope of finding a job?

  12. Anonymous says:

    Where do the non-employed dependents of work permit holders fit in? In the 21,000 or in the 8,000?

  13. Cohort says:

    Bean Counter:  "Where are the bean counting police?" 


    • Bean Counter says:


      I checked with the police station and they said there were no "bean counting police" there due to budget cuts and that they were going to leave it up to the government to police itself.


  14. Karyll Iton says:

    Very interesting perspective. 

  15. Anonymous says:

    You are correct to exclude the 21,000 Work Permit adults, if that figure is accurate.  (But what about their dependents aged 15 and over?)  You should also exclude the number of expats working for government, and their adult dependents.  They don't need Work Permits.  The Caymanian labour force may be much lower than the figure you used.

    • Bean Counter says:

      Thank you.

      You understand the problem clearly. I am not counting the 8,000 in my figures as being part of the 6.7%. I am certain that 8,000 people were excluded for very good reasons. But even with 8,000 exclusions, my premis of excluding permit holders results in about a 17% realistic unemployment rate among working age Caymanians who are unable to find jobs. We already know that there are 2,400 Caymanians out of work. Now weneed to know the real number of the CAYMANIAN WORK FORCE in order to calculate a more realistic figure than the one proposed by government. Can anyone out there supply this actual number of the Caymanian work force? I agree with you that my figures were genrous and it is indeed probably less than 14, 860 which would cause an increase above the 17% that I showed.

      Another aspect of this article is to ask why these figures were presented to the public at this time in the first place and who ordered them to be made public and for what purpose. The office of Economics and Statistics is not a public relations department. It exists to supply government with important data in order to run help our leaders make decisions. Dispensing this low-ball figure of 6.7% appears to be politcal propoganda intended to distract us from the major budget problem facing us.