Unemployment reaches 11-year high

WTF?_2

dopester wrote: »

I fear your expectations are from a different dimension and you will soon be welcomed back to the real world.

No, they're from Scotland. God's own country. And obviously immune to 'English problems'.

hethmar

Of course, those eastern europeans who worked here and return home are entitled to claim dole money from our system, arent they :eek:

Cannon_Fodder

mitchaa wrote: »

Erm...All very fine and well but please tell me what 154,480/60,000,000 x 100 comes too?

A very very very small % is the answer;)

Typical. Ignore evidence provided to counter your position. Classic bull.

You use too few numbers on house sales to deny there is a HPC.

Then you ignore other (relatively) small numbers that do not fit in with your blinkered, ostrich-approach to debate.

"I've written something, so that's proven." Bollox.

You are the one who says a small number doesn't matter. That's opinion not proof. You have no concept of trends, at all.

And the simple fact that the number is going up, at all, when the Poles and others are supposed to be streaming home doesn't ring any alarm bells...?

WTF?_2

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

Oh and let us not ignore the numbers of Poles etc.who are leaving our sinking ship.

I don't know how many of the estimated 1 million Poles etc. have left. But let us assume that a fair few of those who left went of their own accord (and not because they've been made redundant) that means that they could be either creating a new job vacancy or at least preventing a redundancy.

This means that our E. European friends leaving could in fact be masking how bad things really are - for the time being at least. Plus if, as some commentators have said, they helped boost house prices and BTL market their exodus could impact house prices as well (I know some were happy to pay high rents as 6-8 might live in a 3 bedroom house)..

For those who aren't aware the fall in the value of the £ has hit the Poles hard (possibly others but I've had more contact with the Poles), in 2004 £1 = ~7 PLN, in 2008 £1 = ~4.5 PLN.

Yeah, the exodus of the Poles should help the figures a bit. At first.

Mind you, they tended to do jobs that our local layabouts didn't want to do (would rather claim the dole) so it's not clear if it will do much to help people who have lost higher paid jobs.

Still, they should help the headline figures and at least if they leave they represent no drain on welfare benefits (2 years employment in the UK is enough to be able to claim IIRC).


I wonder exactly what effect they will have on the lettings market. Clearly they supported a lot of rentals but at the bottom end of the market I would imagine. It's going to be interesting to see how that angle plays out.

mitchaa

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Typical. Ignore evidence provided to counter your position. Classic bull.

You use too few numbers on house sales to deny there is a HPC.

Excuse me:rotfl:

I am the 1 that has provided information..

155k people in the last 12 months out of a population of 60m

I find it hypocritical that you cannot comment on this figure. You choose to ignore it and see it as a problem:rolleyes: Then you have the bare faced cheek to turn it around and state that it is me who is ignoring the proof

I have never once denied that there is a HPC, i do doubt its severity though.

It is how you interpret the figures as to what makes you wise;) Look a bit deeper into things rather than just the headline figures;)

Cannon_Fodder

mitchaa wrote: »

I am the 1 that has provided information, i.e
155k people in the last 12 months out of a population of 60m
I find it laughable in fact that you cannot comment on this figure. You choose to ignore it and see it as a problem:rolleyes:
Yet have the bare faced cheek to turn it around and state that it is me who is ignoring the proof

No, you see, it is you who makes the assumption here.

I, and many other people, already know that the Jobseekers stats are flawed, and never pay them much notice.

The figure nearer to reality show a 140,000 increase in three months. Is this still a small figure you would like to disparage?

I thought we were moving towards agreeing when you wrote, "Unemployed means exactly what it states, It shouldn't be determined on the numbers of the amount of people in receipt of a certain benefit."

But now you've gone back to trying to base your argument on a discredited stat again...

You are getting confused. And so am I.


My latest point is that the exact scale of figures is not the whole story. And trying to blame IB only for it, is like me trying to say only the Poles are a factor.

There are many factors. Its near-on impossible to decide which bit of a stat comes from any particular source, so you have to look at trends and directions of trends.

The trend is massively upwards.

As someone who ignored 7 pieces of evidence offered to you, while demanding your 1 item is continually examined, I think we know who is ignoring the proof.

mitchaa

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

The figure nearer to reality show a 140,000 increase in three months. Is this still a small figure you would like to disparage?

We have 2 stats...

140k in 3 months
155k in 12 months

Meaning 15k were continually unemployed in the 9mths inbetween.

It would appear a lot of these recent unemployed are going back into work before the new figures are released and its having a roll on effect.

If we get another statement in 3 months saying another 140k are out of work, it's wrong to assume that its 280k in 6 mths as the majority of the 140k or so in the last 3 months will have found new jobs.

7 pieces of information? No, ive been provided with 1, the 1st link, it's how you decipher what is in there

I've already stated the real unemployment figure in this country is much higher than the government let on. The maths do not add up as there is a working population of 29.4m and a living population of 60m.

It's how they define unemployed that is the problem.

My original point on the matter stands though, i just think it is media hype. Yes im aware there are a very small minority losing their jobs over the norm and that is all it is, a very small minority. The way it sounds in the press is that the majorities are doomed, and this is what i disagree about.

So lets just agree to disagree

mustrum_ridcully

mitchaa wrote: »

Excuse me:rotfl:

I am the 1 that has provided information..

155k people in the last 12 months out of a potential working population of 37m

I find it hypocritical that you cannot comment on this figure. You choose to ignore it and see it as a problem:rolleyes: Then you have the bare faced cheek to turn it around and state that it is me who is ignoring the proof

I have never once denied that there is a HPC, i do doubt its severity though.

It is how you interpret the figures as to what makes you wise;) Look a bit deeper into things rather than just the headline figures;)

Fixed it for you.

Cannon_Fodder

You said "Couldn't be bothered to read the rest of the links as the stats released that i have highlighted proves it all."

No wonder you think its hype. Some of the links are trade based, not just journalists looking for a headline...

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

But its not just Scotland, so try;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3218496/Financial-crisis-Job-losses-mount.html
http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2008/11/11/62003/scottish-house-builder-springfield-to-cut-up-to-70-jobs.html
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/business-news/2008/11/12/struggling-builders-taylor-wimpey-axe-1000-jobs-86908-20888391/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/21/merrill_job_losses/
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/09/18/eds_uk_job_cuts_pcs_fears/
http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=175382
http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/news/uk/2008/11/04/downturn_sparks_more_job_losses?vmsrc=pamread
and on and on and on...

"140k in 3 months
155k in 12 months

Meaning 15k were continually unemployed in the 9mths inbetween."


Do you seriously think these numbers are the same people?
They are different bases altogether.
No wonder it doesn't make sense.

mitchaa

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

You said "Couldn't be bothered to read the rest of the links as the stats released that i have highlighted proves it all."

No wonder you think its hype. Some of the links are trade based, not just journalists looking for a headline...





"140k in 3 months
155k in 12 months

Meaning 15k were continually unemployed in the 9mths inbetween."


Do you seriously think these numbers are the same people?
They are different bases altogether.
No wonder it doesn't make sense.

You seemed to have missed the part out of my post that stated it has a roll on effect. You know fine well i know they are not the same people. The recent unemployed are not waiting that long for new employment hence the similarities in figures, i.e they are not getting that much worse.

Another 200k unemployed in the next 3 months does not then put the unemployment rate at 340k in 6 months

Like i said, i'll leave this alone now. I certainly would not call it a massive problem.

There are over 500k vacant positions needing filled for a start.