Unemployment Doesn't Look So Bad On a Graph

angelavdavis

PasturesNew wrote: »

I don't show on the statistics, but I am looking for work.

I have a few bob coming in from here and there (thank goodness it has gone up again this month, Dec was dire!), but I am still a jobseeker.... off the stats. Not signing on, no benefits... I'm classed as self-employed.

I do bits/bobs between jobs, so I always have a self-employed streak running, with an annual tax return. There are a lot of people like me I bet.

Yep! I'm another one!

PasturesNew

angelavdavis wrote: »

... or to Wales.

News quoted tonight that Wales has 95,000 unemployed and 20,000 jobs (mostly in care work and call centres).

angelavdavis

Yes, the tax offices all shipped to Wales last year. It sounds similar in that most of our jobs are care work or call centre (one call centre - Hastings Direct) here.

Wales has the benefit of a national voice though with their assembly. I think a lot of people down here feel they don't have any voice nationally.

Quite difficult to find comparison unemployment figures but I will search a bit more and post back if I find anything. Only 84,000 people in Hastings and surrounding villages and nearly 25% are over 60.

Datasafe_2

The key to that graph is that it gives a fiqure for 2008 and at the bottom it says: Updated August 2008, so is that a projected fiqure? If so it doesn't reflect the recent glut of job losses over the last 6 months and more.

angelavdavis

Generali wrote: »

It is hard to follow the change in numbers as the data series used keep changing. I believe that the number of claimants has doubled since 1997 however to 2,800,000 (Edit: clearly the 1997 bit is wrong from the graph shown, The Economist wrote about this a while back, I'll try to find the piece)

Yes its obvious that the Government(s) keep slicing the figures different ways, it's commonly known as "Smoke and Mirrors" in any other business

Had a chat about this today with a friend who is also unemployed and living locally to me. We reckon that at least 30% of the people we know down here are unemployed, of those people, probably half of those are self-employed people who simply can't get any work so don't claim. We also think there are a further 30% on permanent sickness benefits of one form or another. Not officially representative sure, but it gives a feel for the general situation.

janey_uk

loaner wrote: »

This shows the huge increase in the number of working women. I'm willing to bet money that it's only a matter of time before the tories start banging on about maintaining 'traditional roles' to free up women's jobs for men. Maybe I'm just cynical :rotfl:

wigglebeena

loaner wrote: »

So the figures only look good because households can't survive on one wage anymore, women go out to work and it pumps up the employment statistics...? Is there a graph for economically inactive households?

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

It is hard to follow the change in numbers as the data series used keep changing. I believe that the number of claimants has doubled since 1997 however to 2,800,000 (Edit: clearly the 1997 bit is wrong from the graph shown, The Economist wrote about this a while back, I'll try to find the piece)

Sickness / Incapacity Benefit / Disability Living allowance / , and the statistics, seen to provide cranks (not you G.) from all side to be at their most devious in their use of numbers.
In 1979 there were 790k claimants of Invalidity Benefit, the ntional insurance based forerunner to Incapacity Benefit. Go back further and in 1970, Invalidity Benefit was claimed by about 400k

In 1997 the number of people on incapacity benefit was over 2.7 million.
"incapacity benefit" is actually three benefits (lower case to catch everything, upper case when it is an actual government benefit - ie it say IB on the tin).

1) NI based Incapacity Benefit which has about 1.3 million recipients now despite a 220% increase in the number of people paying the necessary NI contributions (so probably fairly analogous to the number in 1979 or 1970 for that matter).

2) Severe Disablement Allowance about 300,000 claimants

3) non contribution based Income Support "by reason of incapacity" claimants. Id imagne its these people who most right wingers want to kick seven shades of sh*te out of.

I think the above numbers are fairly reliable. I strongly think that the Spectator article takes Incapacity Benefit 1997 1.3m and compares it with incapacity benefit (the catch all) now - and hey presto it has doubled.

In 1979 if you had not paid enough stamp you could not get Invalidity Benefit but would get Supplementary Benefit.

You could argue that Incapacity Benefit (NI contributions based) at least encourages self reliance - to scrap it and replace with means tested benefits arguably entrenches the Nanny State even more.

I think something like 70% of Incapacity Benefit claimants come off it within 2 years (contrary to what politicians from both side say). Only 16% stay on until retirement or death. (2005/2006 figures - may have changed).

I've started to confuse myself now - but in short, I don't think there has been much change between now and 1997.

It is however a complete mess.

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Sickness / Incapacity Benefit / Disability Living allowance / , and the statistics, seen to provide cranks (not you G.) from all side to be at their most devious in their use of numbers.
In 1979 there were 790k claimants of Invalidity Benefit, the ntional insurance based forerunner to Incapacity Benefit. Go back further and in 1970, Invalidity Benefit was claimed by about 400k

In 1997 the number of people on incapacity benefit was over 2.7 million.
"incapacity benefit" is actually three benefits (lower case to catch everything, upper case when it is an actual government benefit - ie it say IB on the tin).

1) NI based Incapacity Benefit which has about 1.3 million recipients now despite a 220% increase in the number of people paying the necessary NI contributions (so probably fairly analogous to the number in 1979 or 1970 for that matter).

2) Severe Disablement Allowance about 300,000 claimants

3) non contribution based Income Support "by reason of incapacity" claimants. Id imagne its these people who most right wingers want to kick seven shades of sh*te out of.

I think the above numbers are fairly reliable. I strongly think that the Spectator article takes Incapacity Benefit 1997 1.3m and compares it with incapacity benefit (the catch all) now - and hey presto it has doubled.

In 1979 if you had not paid enough stamp you could not get Invalidity Benefit but would get Supplementary Benefit.

You could argue that Incapacity Benefit (NI contributions based) at least encourages self reliance - to scrap it and replace with means tested benefits arguably entrenches the Nanny State even more.

I think something like 70% of Incapacity Benefit claimants come off it within 2 years (contrary to what politicians from both side say). Only 16% stay on until retirement or death. (2005/2006 figures - may have changed).

I've started to confuse myself now - but in short, I don't think there has been much change between now and 1997.

It is however a complete mess.

From having a bit of a search through articles on The Economist website, I think this is more a problem unaddressed rather than a problem created by New Labour. I guess it suits Labour as much as it did the Tories to keep people defined as sick who are in reality unemployed for whatever reason (unable to get work, unable to hold down a job or unwilling to hold down a job). It makes sense for the claimant as they get more money (AIUI) and don't get hassled to find a job all the time.

The trouble with any welfare state is that it will be abused, history tells us that. The choice is whether you want a system generous to the needy that will be expensive and abused more or one that is mean to the needy and abused less. My opinion is the UK system is too generous but I understand too that by scaling back the welfare state others in genuine need will suffer too.

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

I think this is more a problem unaddressed rather than a problem created by New Labour. I guess it suits Labour as much as it did the Tories to keep people defined as sick who are in reality unemployed for whatever reason (unable to get work, unable to hold down a job or unwilling to hold down a job). It makes sense for the claimant as they get more money (AIUI) and don't get hassled to find a job all the time.

The "unaddressing" bit cuts to the crux of the problem.

Politicians only ever seem to look at this when fiscal needs mean they have to. Sadly this coincides with unemployment skyrocketing. Maybe a bit more effort was required a few years ago rather than importing huge amounts of labour.