Unemployment FALLS for second month in a row

Charterhouse

StiflersMom wrote: »

Sad really, how the bears keep searching for the bad news while the economy recovers.

Any improvement in the unemployment figures is wonderful news for the families involved.

Long may it continue

It's not an improvement though. The claimant count went up. That's more people on benefits. The only reason that unemployment fell is due to the Government's overly lax definition of the Labour force.

chucky

Charterhouse wrote: »

It's not an improvement though. The claimant count went up. That's more people on benefits. The only reason that unemployment fell is due to the Government's overly lax definition of the Labour force.

that's a good thing right?

but you seem to be contradicting yourself - you don't want more people on benefits but don't think it's a good thing for more people to be unemployed. so what's the alternative?

we have (just) come out of recession, what's better more unemployed claiming benefits or working less hours keeping your job and getting paid for those lesser hours?

you can't have it both ways...

doire_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Unemployment fell by 3,000 to 2.46 million, official figures showed today.

Despite a minor blip up in the new claimant count, total unemployment has now fallen for the second month in a row.
I think we can all agree this is good news.:beer:

Claimants up 27,000

1984ReturnsForReal_2

The Government are offering courses to anybody that goes 1 day over 6 months.

Claiment count up 27,000.

& to top it off loads of people are taking part-time jobs after losing their full time ones.


If Hamish thinks this is good news then he is welcome to it.

Generali

doire wrote: »

Claimants up 27,000

Until GDP growth hits 2% or a little more we're unlikely to see sustained falls in unemployment.

Charterhouse

chucky wrote: »

that's a good thing right?

but you seem to be contradicting yourself - you don't want more people on benefits but don't think it's a good thing for more people to be unemployed. so what's the alternative?

we have (just) come out of recession, what's better more unemployed claiming benefits or working less hours keeping your job and getting paid for those lesser hours?

you can't have it both ways...

They will still be on benefits, just different ones. Go look at how the actual unemployment number works. The unemployment rate is only calculated as a % of people who are economically active. Lots of people who are not economically active still receive benefits. In fact, the officially unemployed are probably the last of our concerns.

chucky

Charterhouse wrote: »

They will still be on benefits, just different ones. Go look at how the actual unemployment number works. The unemployment rate is only calculated as a % of people who are economically active. Lots of people who are not economically active still receive benefits. In fact, the officially unemployed are probably the last of our concerns.

that doesn't answer the point that you made though

you're not happy with more people going on unemployment benefits
you're also not happy with more people becoming unemployed
but you also don't seem to be happy with people having to work less hours which would avoid them being unemployed and therefore claiming benefits.

i see it as better worse case scenariothan being made unemployed

chucky

Generali wrote: »

Until GDP growth hits 2% or a little more we're unlikely to see sustained falls in unemployment.

wouldn't that be distorted or not as accurate if more people were working less hours?

so the unemployment rate would stabilise but GDP would not be increasing

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Until GDP growth hits 2% or a little more we're unlikely to see sustained falls in unemployment.

Surely it is normal for unemployment to climb for around 18 months post recession ?
Although I have a feeling that they were fairly lean before the recession so this may not be nearly as bad as previous, in the private sector anyway. The public sector, well that is a different matter, it looks like they will be the main contributor to any increases, maybe it is a positive rebalancing of the economy ( its an ill wind that blows nobody any good).

Charterhouse

chucky wrote: »

that doesn't answer the point that you made though

you're not happy with more people going on unemployment benefits
you're also not happy with more people becoming unemployed
but you also don't seem to be happy with people having to work less hours which would avoid them being unemployed and therefore claiming benefits.

i see it as better worse case scenariothan being made unemployed

If that's the case then I do agree that would be better. I suspect that as usual these people are being hidden on incapacity benefit. They are probably "depressed" or something.