Interpreting a Census Table for a Mining Town
A learner is given a table for a copper-mining town of 48,000 people. Employment: mine 14,000; government 4,000; trade and services 6,000; subsistence farming 3,000; unemployed 9,000; not in labour force 12,000. Of the mine jobs, 11,000 are held by men and 3,000 by women; 60% of mine workers come from outside the district. Copper prices fell 18% last year and the mine announced that 2,500 jobs will go. Local shops report that a third of their customers are mine employees. The learner concludes: 'Unemployment is 9,000 out of 48,000, so nearly one in five people is unemployed, and the mine employs most of the town.'
1. Check the learner's unemployment figure and statement about the mine. Show the correct calculations.
Read the worked answer
Unemployment rate. The denominator must be the labour force, not the whole population. Labour force = employed + unemployed = (14,000 + 4,000 + 6,000 + 3,000) + 9,000 = 27,000 + 9,000 = 36,000. Rate = 9,000 ÷ 36,000 = 25%, not one in five. The learner's 9,000 ÷ 48,000 = 18.75% wrongly includes 12,000 people not in the labour force (children, retirees, full-time carers).
Mine share. Mine jobs are 14,000 of 27,000 employed = about 52% of employment. So 'most of the town' is imprecise: the mine employs just over half of workers, not of residents (14,000 ÷ 48,000 ≈ 29%).
Both errors point the same way - they understate dependence on the mine while overstating nothing. The corrected picture is a town where one in four workers has no job and one in two workers depends on a single copper price.
2. Using the multiplier idea, estimate the wider effect of losing 2,500 mine jobs. State your assumptions.
Read the worked answer
Direct loss: 2,500 jobs. If those workers leave the labour force or the town, measured unemployment rises by up to 2,500 to 11,500, giving 11,500 ÷ 34,000 ≈ 34% (labour force falls to 34,000 if the 2,500 leave). If they stay and seek work, 11,500 ÷ 36,000 ≈ 32%.
Indirect effect: shops say one third of customers are mine employees, so a 2,500 cut is about 18% of the 14,000 mine workforce. If spending falls roughly in proportion, trade and services could lose around 18% of 6,000 ≈ 1,000 jobs over time, though shops may also cut hours rather than posts.
Assumptions to state: (1) each lost mine job removes one job-holder's spending; (2) shops respond proportionally; (3) no new mine or government spending offsets the loss; (4) out-migration removes some workers from the labour force entirely. A sound answer gives a range - roughly 2,500 direct plus up to 1,000 indirect - and says the multiplier is smaller in a small town where wages are sent home to other districts by the 60% migrant workforce.