We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Unemployment will peak at 2.8m in 2010
Comments
-
Just in case you forgot the government growth and borrowing numbers from November 2008
As they say - when some numbers change, it affects others.... (oh, and the above numbers didn't 'forecast' QE either, and that moved a bit smartly from £75bn to £200bn over 6 months or so).GDP Forecasts - 2009 1% contraction, 2010 1.75% growth,
Borrowing Forecasts - 2008 £78bn, 2009 £118bn, 2010 £105bn, 2011 £87bn, 2012 £70bn, 2013 £54bn
Article here http://seekingalpha.com/article/107818-uk-government-debt-will-double-and-tax-rises-will-follow-tax-cuts0 -
As they say - when some numbers change, it affects others.... (oh, and the above numbers didn't 'forecast' QE either, and that moved a bit smartly from £75bn to £200bn over 6 months or so).
But wasnt the official figure £180bn only a couple of months ago??
You so know where the sacked city accountants are working now....Not Again0 -
1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »where the sacked city accountants are working now....
Soup kitchens would be my preference.0 -
-
that's fair enough.Old_Slaphead wrote: »I didn't intend it to sound that way - I was suggesting that overall unemployment (in terms of hours worked) wasn't necessarily less but was being ameliorated by the wider spreading the pain.
every other post seems to be a bit upset that unemployment isn't at 3 million already and doubting the figures etc... etc...
i would have thought that it was good news that this was revised prediction - obviously not for some peoplethat's clearly good news that there will be less people unemployed.
0 -
that's clearly good news that there will be less people unemployed.
can you show me a different way apart from predictions or even guessing to know indicate what unemployment will be in 2010?
The thread is titled unemployment will peak at 2.8m. Of course when you read the article its a prediction from a bunch of people who's previous prediction was 3.2m and their current prediction on based on the Tories not making huge cuts if they get in which seems unlikely.
Therefore the title should be unemployment predicted to reach 2.8m as long as there are no huge cuts by the next government0 -
Of course when you read the article its a prediction from a bunch of people
a bunch of people the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development are a bit more qualified and have a bit more analysis available to them than people who like to read thread titles on an internet forum :eek:The thread is titled unemployment will peak at 2.8m.0 -
a bunch of people the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development are a bit more qualified and have a bit more analysis available to them than people who like to read thread titles on an internet forum :eek:
Does not matter how qualified they are, their prediction was wrong months ago and highly likely to be wrong in 6-12 months time especially when they put loads of ifs and buts in their prediction. Surely they should get a :rolleyes: for predicting 3.2m to be unemployed previously just like those who predicted between 3-4m0 -
and that's becauseDoes not matter how qualified they are, their prediction was wrong months ago and highly likely to be wrong in 6-12 months time especially when they put loads of ifs and buts in their prediction. Surely they should get a :rolleyes: for predicting between 3.2m to be unemployed previously
it seems that you're disappointed that the ecomomic outlook has improved...But improvements in the general economic outlook meant the jobs market was not expected to suffer as much as previously thought.
as for them being qualified the markets like this prediction instead of your headline soundbites on an internet forum. i reckon they know a bit more about the economy than you duchess... :rolleyes:0 -
a bunch of people the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development are a bit more qualified and have a bit more analysis available to them than people who like to read thread titles on an internet forum :eek:
CIPD were quoting 3.5million just a few months ago
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/6183457/Unemployment-could-reach-3.5m-and-remain-high-for-a-decade-CIPD-warns.html
and 3.2million in Nov 2008 (for 2009). They're not much better at forecasting than anyone else - so it seems0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards