2,029,000 on the dole

kennyboy66_2

Andrew64 wrote: »

I don't know if it was a factor in previous recessions, but this time round - as well as all the unemployed - there will also be a large number of people of people on short time, 3 and 4 day weeks, with corresponding pay cuts. Semi-employment on top of unemployment.

Its more of a factor, however the actual labour market is much bigger & a good portion of that increase is in part-time work.

Short-time, no overtime, short weeks were fairly common in the 1970's and early 80's recession. Often however a short week leads to a job loss if things don't pick up in a reasonable amount of time.

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Maybe " a bit of exaggeration" rather than "a bit of a myth".

Inflation went below 4.5% in only 4 times in the 36 months between 1983 and 1985

Inflation was above 10% from Nov 1973 - Dec 1977. The lowest point for inflation in the 1970s after 1971 was 7.4%.

Inflation needed driving out of the system and loss making companies needed to go bust. Thatcher and Howe did both. The Labour Government of 1974-1979 was a disaster as was the Tory Government prior to that which failed to unwind the disastrous policies they'd inherited.

My fear is that the next (Tory?) Government is going to be timid and so fail.

Wookster

Generali wrote: »

My fear is that the next (Tory?) Government is going to be timid and so fail.

These are serious times for serious people and I'm not sure anyone is prepared to be making the tough decisions that Britain will need. Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing and spending billions in the process.

Lurkio

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To the first part, the only details I can give you, is that you are financially penalised for working over 16 hours a week on various forms of benefits. Therefore, there are heaps of workers working up to and no more than 16 hours a week.

It's been discussed on MSE loads of times. And to be fair, there are loads who would like to work more, but when they will lose out financially for doing so because of the system, you cannot really blame them for only working upto the 16 hour limit.

All these 16 hour part time workers are classed as employed, whereas actually, they are only employed maybe 2 full days or 3 half days a week, and the rest of their income comes from the state. This simply did not exist when unemployment was 3 million, not in the guise it does now. So one job now, employs, on average more people, so more are kept employed, by one job.

Like here. We have 36 people here. But only 2 full timers. We really only need 14 staff. We employ however, 36, to fill the 14 vacancies, simply because no one wants full time, it penalises them. It also works for us in some ways, but actually creates a nightmare in other ways.

Going back to 1990 when a few will in situe here, and they only employed 12 full time staff. nothings changed really apart from we now have 36 staff.

As for the self employment, you have loads of painters and decorators, brick layers etc, all contracted in and paid a sum to do the job. This has risen dramatically in the last decade and something labour was very proud of. For those of us self employed however, we are entitled to less and less.

It's why we started out with self assesment etc, because so many more were being encouraged to work this way.

Yes it did. I was one of them.......

But one shouldn't compare unemployment figures from different times as they have always and will always change the criteria........

Graham_Devon

Lurkio wrote: »

Yes it did. I was one of them.......

But one shouldn't compare unemployment figures from different times as they have always and will always change the criteria........

Part times jobs existed, yes, of course they did. I thought people would be able to figure out what i was saying though, as in this culture did not exist.

dobbie82

amcluesent wrote: »

The headline is 2M on the dole, but counting up IB claimants and the like, it's more like 8M of working age are idle. No wonder those of still waged (for how long?) are being bled white with taxation.

Exactly. the bad back brigade dont count, If one of a couple is out of work, they dont count unless they are eligible for jobseekers allowance, stay at home mums dont count. those that are on a mickey mouse college course to keep their benefits dont count.

Would be better to find out how many people ARE employed and compare that the the numberof 19-65 yr olds in the country,

Lurkio

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Part times jobs existed, yes, of course they did. I thought people would be able to figure out what i was saying though, as in this culture did not exist.

I did figure out what you were saying - it was as you described. Anything more than 16 hours meant a reduction in benefits, so I was very careful about the hours I worked.... I wasn't alone

Generali

I did a thing on growth and unemployment on the blog I set up if you're interested.

http://anothereconomicblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/uk-unemployment-lessons-from-recent.html

drc

The question is really how many people are employed in the private sector since these are the people bringing money into the system. The public sector just recycles the money but doesn't bring any money in to the system. If too many private sector companies shut down, the !!!!!! will really hit the fan since this will lead to a drop in tax revenues which will filter down to cuts in the public sector ergo more unemployed.

Generali

drc wrote: »

The question is really how many people are employed in the private sector since these are the people bringing money into the system. The public sector just recycles the money but doesn't bring any money in to the system. If too many private sector companies shut down, the !!!!!! will really hit the fan since this will lead to a drop in tax revenues which will filter down to cuts in the public sector ergo more unemployed.

100% correct, IMO.

AIUI, public sector employment is still rising as private sector employment falls.