Unemployment & FTBs

chucky

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

im not saying they will buy aged 18-24!! but that they will be on the path


a) 18-24 are formative career years. the 20% that are unemployed aged 18-24 are less likely to be in a buying space aged 25-30

b) average FTB age is surely not in the 25-30 age bracket?

you would need to qualify that a bit better because you have to consider a single FTB who would find it very difficult and then a joint FTB who would find it much easier to buy.

single FTB's are worst hit - their chance of getting a property (not that SO nonsense) is more difficult.

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucky wrote: »

you would need to qualify that a bit better because you have to consider a single FTB who would find it very difficult and then a joint FTB who would find it much easier to buy.

single FTB's are worst hit - their chance of getting a property (not that SO nonsense) is more difficult.

single ftbs feel a relatively recent phenomenon tbh.

chucky

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

single ftbs feel a relatively recent phenomenon tbh.

yes they are - but there are a number on this site for example that complain that houses are unaffordable to them. should they be complaining or should they be more patient until they are in the "traditional relationship" and then buy?

the_ash_and_the_oak

Really2 wrote: »

a) Home ownership is 70% not 100%. So yes the 20% are less likely to own, that a fact and one I never disagreed with.

b) Average FTB is about 30 so as many will buy before 30 as will after 30. I was using 25-30 as that was the next step in employment terms.
I would say average FTB age is 25-35 personally.

a) really comes down to whether you think the 20% unemployment rate for that age group is a problem for numbers of future FTBs. ie. are those 20% comprised of the 30% non-owners - is this unemployment concentrated in menial and unskilled work areas?

b) kinda feeling FTB age is around 34? suggests 25-35 as a spread is too low, if so

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucky wrote: »

yes they are - but there are a number on this site for example that complain that houses are unaffordable to them. should they be complaining or should they be more patient until they are in the "traditional relationship" and then buy?

don't like getting into 'should' too much. but imo a significant part of the housing bubble was the extension of this market, the building of 1 bed flats, the increasing number of people buying to live alone (previously a rental market). a new first rung, particularly in cities. knock on effect - these are the people that are supposed to trade up to 2nd rung properties. not sure how they are going to do that

Really2

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

a) really comes down to whether you think the 20% unemployment rate for that age group is a problem for numbers of future FTBs. ie. are those 20% comprised of the 30% non-owners - is this unemployment concentrated in menial and unskilled work areas?

b) kinda feeling FTB age is around 34? suggests 25-35 as a spread is too low, if so

A) I don't belive the 20% is true unemployment it is a "inactive" figure as the link martin posted above shows that in 2008 it was 5%. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/article.asp?id=2120

If 34 is the average age I would say it as no bearing on FTB as the average of those "20%" still have 10 years to sort out a career.:) the other 80% will have been employed for a long time.

the_ash_and_the_oak

well the thing about unemployment is none of us really believe any of the figures because of repeated changes in calculation methods (and as stated before the large increases into incapacity benefit and further and part-time education). overall think we've been looking at gradual decline in the number of those in full time employment and gradual increase in numbers of pensioners tho (this of course increasingly true of all developed nations)

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The larger employers round here now use "flexible" workforces. In part to avoid contractual liabilities of employing permanent staff.

Its a growing trend that doesnt bode well. As to me employment is a 2 way relationship.

it's not great.

i worked on a contract in Europe for a while and this was the way that it functioned. they had i believe 3 or 4 contracts before they had to employ you permanately. the usual thing was to release that person before the last contract. seem like this might be a European model brought in through the EU.

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

it's not great.

i worked on a contract in Europe for a while and this was the way that it functioned. they had i believe 3 or 4 contracts before they had to employ you permanately. the usual thing was to release that person before the last contract. seem like this might be a European model brought in through the EU.

Somehow there needs to a balance between employee protection (EU model) and a flexible workforce ( US model - Non Unionised employees).

This opens a whole can of worms. Leave this for a another thread when news is quiet.

baileysbattlebus

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

well the thing about unemployment is none of us really believe any of the figures because of repeated changes in calculation methods (and as stated before the large increases into incapacity benefit and further and part-time education). overall think we've been looking at gradual decline in the number of those in full time employment and gradual increase in numbers of pensioners tho (this of course increasingly true of all developed nations)

If you look at it from the opposite side - what is the employment rate - the UK empoyment rate is about 71.5%.

So the remaining 28.5% include the unemployed and the economically inactive students, home makers, pensioners (women state pensioner and the early retired), incapacity claimants, etc.

That figure has remained fairly constant for over 10 years. It used to worse in the 1990's.

Here is a table from Eurostat of countries and their employment levels - we are better than some and worse than others. It goes up to the end of 2008.

The employment rate is calculated by dividing the number of persons aged 15 to 64 in employment by the total population of the same age group

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tsiem010

you can take the official unemployment figures out of that - so probably around 20% or there abouts of the population aged between 15 and 64 economically inactive

Edit: population under 15 about 11m
15 - 64 about 40m
65 + about 9.5m