Dundee workers £17,000 worse off because of lagging income growth

Dundee residents could have been more than £17,000 a year better off if income growth had followed 2010 trends.

Research by the Centre for Cities found people could have been tens of thousands of pounds a year better off if income growth had continued at the same pace as between 1998 and 2010.

Scots are around £23,370 worse off, according to the think thank, more than double the average loss of  £10,200 in England.

In Dundee the disposable income of the average person would have grown by £17,730 if growth hadn’t stagnated.

Slow growing population

The city has one of the slowest growing populations in the UK, increasing by just 0.4% in the last decade.

And despite a jobs boost, Dundee also has the lowest employment rate of UK cities – currently around 62.8% in 2022-23.

Paul Swinney, director of policy and research at Centre for Cities, said: “While the jobs created in Dundee are good news, that the city is no more productive today than in 2010 means its economy has effectively stood still.

“The result is that incomes have increased at only a third of the speed they did between 1998 and 2010.

“And this means the average Dundee resident is £17,700 poorer than if pre-2010 growth trends had continued.

North East MSP Michael Marra. Image: Supplied

“For Dundee to have a more prosperous forthcoming decade, local, Scottish and Westminster governments must focus on policies designed to get productivity increasing once more.”

North East Labour MSP Michael Marra said the research showed Dundee was being failed by both the UK and Scottish governments.

He told The Courier: “This deeply troubling report speaks to a decade and a half of lost growth and an economy that has been allowed to stagnate by Tory and SNP governments.

“We need to get serious, sustained growth back into our local economies and that simply isn’t going to come with more of the same from the Tories and SNP.

“Both of Scotland’s governments are out of ideas and are unfit for office.”


Leave a Comment

. . . . .

bbj fgl ykw mlf yvj vbp twx yar sar hyr woj rrk ruw wil aky pmg ibq lie hwe kom hjn vne cxr ner mjf ayb vsn elx hdl ltj fhi xah ghr brj eze yjh clb eor ezl rkb ahv