Unemployment will peak at 2.8m in 2010

chucky

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

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 seems

either that or the economic conditions are improving for them to be that bold...

kabayiri

We may be missing a point here.

It seems well understood that unemployment has been moderated (mostly in the private sector) by the flexible pragmatic attitude adopted by the workforce [car factory temporary closures, reduced hours etc].

This approach has worked, but the question is, can it be extended into the public sector, which we all know is where the brunt of the cuts in 2010 will come from. Already, unions have been making threatening noises. How adaptable will they be to change?

I think they could be if they knew the true parlous state of the public purse.

Thrugelmir

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

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 seems

A forecast is what it says it is......

A prediction based on an analysis of available information at that point of time.

If one bothers to read the assumptons used in a forecast its not difficult to detect short term trends.....

Emy1501

chucky wrote: »

and that's because

it seems that you're disappointed that the ecomomic outlook has improved...
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:

Not at all but the OP gives a :rolleyes: for people who predicted 3-4m unemployed by the end of 2009. We then find out these people were predicting 3.2m but their predictions are now fact because they are below 3m now.

As for the economic outlook being better is it really? I'll believe it when the QE disappear and will the first in the line to cheer. There are more than enough people predicting the outlook for the econmy being bleak next year. Philip Green was pretty bleak on Jeff Randell a week ago and so was Terry Smith chief exec of Tullett Prebon.

sjaypink

Rather than jut talking JSA stats, would be more interesting to know how many of working age are economically inactive, and compared (%) to 5/10/20 years ago

...And of those how many are actually finacially independant- not in receipt of Tax Credits

sjaypink

An award greater than family element is dependant on no. of children and obviously, income, but will tend to be 'under £30k total income'

Dec 2009- 4m families in receipt of TC at a rate higher than the family element

Dec 2008- 3.9m
Dec 2007- 3.6m
Dec 2006- 3.7m
Dec 2005- 3.6m
Dec 2004- 3.6m

400,000 families is a big rise in 2 years, but a bit less than I was expecting TBH

chucky

sjaypink wrote: »

Rather than jut talking JSA stats, would be more interesting to know how many of working age are economically inactive, and compared (%) to 5/10/20 years ago

...And of those how many are actually finacially independant- not in receipt of Tax Credits

how about the long term unemployed

The number of people on Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for more than a year has nearly doubled, the TUC has said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8427237.stm

sjaypink

chucky wrote: »

how about the long term unemployed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8427237.stm

Hmm thats interesting.... tried looking for economically inactive stats- there are some that go back to the 70s, but no big changes really- overall %s have stayed the same roughly...

....but then the % of women has gone down a lot, and % of men gone up.
So whilst the stats don't seem exciting in themselves, thinking further, this is presumably yet more evidence of the divide between haves & have nots (2 worker households increasing, no worker households increasing)

ETA, its a sad day when I admit I may occasionally find statistics exciting :D