Unemployment Doesn't Look So Bad On a Graph

janey_uk

mitchaa wrote: »

What do you need backing up? The normal unemployment rate for this country over the last 5yrs or so?

The part where you said

"I would assume, the majority of this 1.6m are the scroungers of the country, the i will not work brigade, the alcoholics, junkies etc that are happy enough signing on.... Out of the 1.92m, you can assume that around 25% of this figure are genuinely looking for work with the rest being down to the countries wasters".

Unsuprisingly plenty of us folks on MSE are not in work (hence the need for even more moneysaving!) and might just find that a tad offensive.

Graham_Devon

janey_uk wrote: »

The part where you said

"I would assume, the majority of this 1.6m are the scroungers of the country, the i will not work brigade, the alcoholics, junkies etc that are happy enough signing on.... Out of the 1.92m, you can assume that around 25% of this figure are genuinely looking for work with the rest being down to the countries wasters".

Unsuprisingly plenty of us folks on MSE are not in work (hence the need for even more moneysaving!) and might just find that a tad offensive.

Whether offensive or not, it's true. Doesnt mean it's aimed at anyone particular on here.

janey_uk

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Whether offensive or not, it's true. Doesnt mean it's aimed at anyone particular on here.

That's my point - there is nothing that shows it is true. It seems to be a stat pulled out of thin air based on prejudice about unemployed people. That is why I asked for a reference, otherwise it is very offensive.

beaujolais-nouveau

PasturesNew wrote: »

Just found this and looking back comparing now to my working life, it doesn't look that bad really now does it

From another forum, I gather that at the moment anyone 60-65 registering unemployed is put onto Pension Credit - and, bingo, never appears on the unemployment graph.

Generali

janey_uk wrote: »

It's a fair assumption to make, but in actual fact it is the people who need it least who are accessing the NHS the most. There is mountains of research on healthcare inequalities and it is part of the remit of the Health Observatories around the UK to study this. Those who are poorest, with the worst general health, least educated and literate etc are far less likely to access services, so much so that all Trusts and PCTs have to demonstrate how they are trying to reach them. This ultimately costs the taxpayer even more money as inequality means the most vulnerable people are referred later than average, requireing more intervention and ultimately taking up more bed space for longer.

The 'squeaky wheel gets oiled' - i.e. the comparatively rich educated people write to MPs, badger medical secretaries, complain etc and get their voices heard (or simply pay for private consultation and then jump the NHS queue), and those without a voice get stuck, getting sicker in the process.

It is true and that's in part what I mean - people are getting lots of trivial 'problems' addressed (e.g. popping down to the GP every time they have a head cold, getting OTC drugs prescribed if it's cheaper). If something is 'free' then the only disincentive to use is how much hassle it is.

PasturesNew

beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »

From another forum, I gather that at the moment anyone 60-65 registering unemployed is put onto Pension Credit - and, bingo, never appears on the unemployment graph.

At the moment, women of 60 and men of 65 are officially retired though.

PasturesNew

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Whether offensive or not, it's true. Doesnt mean it's aimed at anyone particular on here.

But it will be now.

poppy10_2

StevieJ wrote: »

Interesting to see a graph of invalidity benefit claiments for the same period.

Incapacity benefit claimant numbers have been remarkable static for the last ten years. DLA claimaints have risen by around half a million over the same period.

janey_uk

janey_uk 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:

The papers got there first! http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/feb/03/children-women-parents