Charlie Ball
@lmicharlie.bsky.social
Jisc's Head of Labour Market Intelligence, based in Manchester. Specialist on the labour market for post-18 learners in the UK, posts about work, study, regional labour markets, county cricket. Find my work (mostly) at https://luminate.prospects.ac.uk/
astonished the ECB haven't sent your lads to the Oval first match in, I expect they don't want you ending Surrey's title hopes straight away.
November 27, 2025 at 10:37 AM
astonished the ECB haven't sent your lads to the Oval first match in, I expect they don't want you ending Surrey's title hopes straight away.
are you telling us Simon Harmer is good? this is entirely new information.
November 26, 2025 at 7:30 AM
are you telling us Simon Harmer is good? this is entirely new information.
Pretty much my entire career is repeating obviously, provable true statements that people try to ignore because they're inconvenient.
Going to university is very likely to give you more and better career options and most people opt to take those options over maximising their salary.
Going to university is very likely to give you more and better career options and most people opt to take those options over maximising their salary.
November 25, 2025 at 2:24 PM
Pretty much my entire career is repeating obviously, provable true statements that people try to ignore because they're inconvenient.
Going to university is very likely to give you more and better career options and most people opt to take those options over maximising their salary.
Going to university is very likely to give you more and better career options and most people opt to take those options over maximising their salary.
"Lancashire: Surrey (a)"
of course, how could I not have seen that coming?
of course, how could I not have seen that coming?
November 25, 2025 at 12:35 PM
"Lancashire: Surrey (a)"
of course, how could I not have seen that coming?
of course, how could I not have seen that coming?
It's more accurate, particularly for creatives and techies with more than one source of earnings, but harder to collect, to work with and to parse. As a nerd, I like it, as someone who then has to explain it to lay audiences who then need to use it, it's trickier.
November 24, 2025 at 11:14 AM
It's more accurate, particularly for creatives and techies with more than one source of earnings, but harder to collect, to work with and to parse. As a nerd, I like it, as someone who then has to explain it to lay audiences who then need to use it, it's trickier.
Hourly earnings data is interesting. We know from ASHE that many of the well-paid non-graduate jobs are on a par with graduate earnings because they work longer hours (the late lamented LMI4All was very good at making that plain). But most people aren't used to looking at salary data like that.
November 24, 2025 at 11:03 AM
Hourly earnings data is interesting. We know from ASHE that many of the well-paid non-graduate jobs are on a par with graduate earnings because they work longer hours (the late lamented LMI4All was very good at making that plain). But most people aren't used to looking at salary data like that.
when people see a polar bear standing nobly atop a freshly-hewn mint, they forget the dark side of the industry.
November 21, 2025 at 1:25 PM
when people see a polar bear standing nobly atop a freshly-hewn mint, they forget the dark side of the industry.
Glacier mints are mined there, it's still primary industry.
November 21, 2025 at 1:15 PM
Glacier mints are mined there, it's still primary industry.
If neither side plays their home games at Chelmsford, it isn't really that important.
November 21, 2025 at 9:42 AM
If neither side plays their home games at Chelmsford, it isn't really that important.
I want this yesterday.
November 20, 2025 at 7:10 PM
I want this yesterday.
Ah, yes, that tracks.
Alternatively, the fae run on Python.
Alternatively, the fae run on Python.
November 20, 2025 at 10:02 AM
Ah, yes, that tracks.
Alternatively, the fae run on Python.
Alternatively, the fae run on Python.
I'd have thought the queen would care *a lot* about THEN. THEN is very much the point of all the fae IFs
November 20, 2025 at 9:55 AM
I'd have thought the queen would care *a lot* about THEN. THEN is very much the point of all the fae IFs
Also an entirely correct and appropriate attitude towards Congleton
November 18, 2025 at 12:35 PM
Also an entirely correct and appropriate attitude towards Congleton
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
No lifetime earnings figures are reliable.
I'm of the view, tbh, that they're essentially unknowable. I don't think it's possible to calculate returns to a qualification in any way other than with hindsight and you have to trust your judgement.
No lifetime earnings figures are reliable.
I'm of the view, tbh, that they're essentially unknowable. I don't think it's possible to calculate returns to a qualification in any way other than with hindsight and you have to trust your judgement.
September 16, 2025 at 8:42 AM
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
No lifetime earnings figures are reliable.
I'm of the view, tbh, that they're essentially unknowable. I don't think it's possible to calculate returns to a qualification in any way other than with hindsight and you have to trust your judgement.
No lifetime earnings figures are reliable.
I'm of the view, tbh, that they're essentially unknowable. I don't think it's possible to calculate returns to a qualification in any way other than with hindsight and you have to trust your judgement.
If the answers to any of those questions are 'lifetime earnings peak earlier than we thought' or 'they leave the labour market some time before state pension age', then almost all of that wage advantage disappears (if you're lucky).
September 16, 2025 at 8:39 AM
If the answers to any of those questions are 'lifetime earnings peak earlier than we thought' or 'they leave the labour market some time before state pension age', then almost all of that wage advantage disappears (if you're lucky).
One of the biggest is this: yes, skilled trades workers can earn a lot (although it's in part by working longer hours), but for how long? When do their lifetime earnings peak? When do they leave the labour market? Can you continue laying bricks or plastering when you're 67?
We don't know.
We don't know.
September 16, 2025 at 8:37 AM
One of the biggest is this: yes, skilled trades workers can earn a lot (although it's in part by working longer hours), but for how long? When do their lifetime earnings peak? When do they leave the labour market? Can you continue laying bricks or plastering when you're 67?
We don't know.
We don't know.
(and there are even more problems estimating earnings where self-employment and freelancing are common, eg some trades, the arts, IT, some finance etc)
If you find that some of the basic assumptions of the model used to impute earnings don't hold, all the data becomes unreliable.
If you find that some of the basic assumptions of the model used to impute earnings don't hold, all the data becomes unreliable.
September 16, 2025 at 8:35 AM
(and there are even more problems estimating earnings where self-employment and freelancing are common, eg some trades, the arts, IT, some finance etc)
If you find that some of the basic assumptions of the model used to impute earnings don't hold, all the data becomes unreliable.
If you find that some of the basic assumptions of the model used to impute earnings don't hold, all the data becomes unreliable.
That's for a bunch of reasons but the simplest is: we have no real idea about mid to late career paths in the modern labour market, especially post-COVID (you're citing pre-COVID work), when a lot of over 50s left the labour market on health grounds.
September 16, 2025 at 8:31 AM
That's for a bunch of reasons but the simplest is: we have no real idea about mid to late career paths in the modern labour market, especially post-COVID (you're citing pre-COVID work), when a lot of over 50s left the labour market on health grounds.
The second, more serious mistake, and the more difficult one to explain, is the way you've hung so much of your thesis on lifetime graduate returns.
We don't really have lifetime earnings data for anyone in the labour market. The IFS did their best but had to impute most of it.
We don't really have lifetime earnings data for anyone in the labour market. The IFS did their best but had to impute most of it.
September 16, 2025 at 8:29 AM
The second, more serious mistake, and the more difficult one to explain, is the way you've hung so much of your thesis on lifetime graduate returns.
We don't really have lifetime earnings data for anyone in the labour market. The IFS did their best but had to impute most of it.
We don't really have lifetime earnings data for anyone in the labour market. The IFS did their best but had to impute most of it.
Ultimately this part of your thesis fails by simply asking the question
"If employers don't need graduates, why do we have a NEET epidemic amongst non-graduates?"
The answer is, employers do need and value graduates.
"If employers don't need graduates, why do we have a NEET epidemic amongst non-graduates?"
The answer is, employers do need and value graduates.
September 16, 2025 at 8:28 AM
Ultimately this part of your thesis fails by simply asking the question
"If employers don't need graduates, why do we have a NEET epidemic amongst non-graduates?"
The answer is, employers do need and value graduates.
"If employers don't need graduates, why do we have a NEET epidemic amongst non-graduates?"
The answer is, employers do need and value graduates.
Secondly: that basically means declaring all associate professionals in SOC 3 and most managers in SOC 1 as non-graduate jobs.
This is the pre-Robbins view which was roundly countered in the 60s.
This is the pre-Robbins view which was roundly countered in the 60s.
September 16, 2025 at 8:27 AM
Secondly: that basically means declaring all associate professionals in SOC 3 and most managers in SOC 1 as non-graduate jobs.
This is the pre-Robbins view which was roundly countered in the 60s.
This is the pre-Robbins view which was roundly countered in the 60s.
Sorry, 16.6 and 17.3, there have been some revisions.
Your argument is that 7 million - 40 per cent - of those graduates (many of whom don't have first degrees anyway as they're HND and the like) didn't need to go to university.
Firstly, employers disagree.
Secondly, in practical terms
Your argument is that 7 million - 40 per cent - of those graduates (many of whom don't have first degrees anyway as they're HND and the like) didn't need to go to university.
Firstly, employers disagree.
Secondly, in practical terms
September 16, 2025 at 8:23 AM
Sorry, 16.6 and 17.3, there have been some revisions.
Your argument is that 7 million - 40 per cent - of those graduates (many of whom don't have first degrees anyway as they're HND and the like) didn't need to go to university.
Firstly, employers disagree.
Secondly, in practical terms
Your argument is that 7 million - 40 per cent - of those graduates (many of whom don't have first degrees anyway as they're HND and the like) didn't need to go to university.
Firstly, employers disagree.
Secondly, in practical terms
"So the figure of 20% can be considered to be a lower bound of the over-supply of university places, with a figure of 30% - 40% being a more likely estimate"
The last APS shows that 16.8 million people (ish) in the UK workforce have RQF4+. 17.5 million people (ish) are in SOCs 1 to 3.
The last APS shows that 16.8 million people (ish) in the UK workforce have RQF4+. 17.5 million people (ish) are in SOCs 1 to 3.
September 16, 2025 at 8:17 AM
"So the figure of 20% can be considered to be a lower bound of the over-supply of university places, with a figure of 30% - 40% being a more likely estimate"
The last APS shows that 16.8 million people (ish) in the UK workforce have RQF4+. 17.5 million people (ish) are in SOCs 1 to 3.
The last APS shows that 16.8 million people (ish) in the UK workforce have RQF4+. 17.5 million people (ish) are in SOCs 1 to 3.