Unemployment FALLS for second month in a row

Conrad

Everyone I meet is a lot richer now than in 2007 by virtue of the fact they've paid down thier debts and are enjoying very low mortgage payments on the whole.

A key indicator for me is that the investor is back with a vengeance. Most I meet are very canny, but somehow embued with an approach that is stripped down and simple.

Graham_Devon

Conrad wrote: »

Everyone I meet is a lot richer now than in 2007 by virtue of the fact they've paid down thier debts and are enjoying very low mortgage payments on the whole.

A key indicator for me is that the investor is back with a vengeance. Most I meet are very canny, but somehow embued with an approach that is stripped down and simple.

To be fair though, you won't be meeting the people who are in trouble will you? As they are not likely to be looking at buying a house, and therefore, looking to come see you.

StevieJ

boomerangs wrote: »

No, it's closer to 30% economically inactive. i.e. the true unemployment figure. :eek:

You mean you class people on £100k+ pensions as unemployed, fair enough

Charterhouse

StevieJ wrote: »

You mean you class people on £100k+ pensions as unemployed, fair enough

"Working age inactivity increased 72,000 to 8.077 million, levels for men increased 83,000 to 3.426 million while levels for women decreased 12,000 to 4.652 million. The working age inactivity rate for people increased 0.2 to 21.3 per cent."

Inactive people of working age should not include many on pensions.

nembot

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And now for some perspective.

Make of it what you will.

In computer gaming terms Hamish, you just got "pwned!!!"

StevieJ

Charterhouse wrote: »

"Working age inactivity increased 72,000 to 8.077 million, levels for men increased 83,000 to 3.426 million while levels for women decreased 12,000 to 4.652 million. The working age inactivity rate for people increased 0.2 to 21.3 per cent."

Inactive people of working age should not include many on pensions.

Why not? I know it is changing now but many people in the recent past who lost jobs 50+ have gone straight onto pensions why do you think the govt have raised the minimum age to receive a pension to 55?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

jetta_wales wrote: »

Hamish can I ask how has this recession negativly affected you?

It hasn't.

In fact, it has been of great benefit to us, we have never been better off, as have most people I know.

I do know 3 people that lost their jobs, but all on really good redundancy packages, and all found another job on the same or better wages very quickly, and got to pocket the redundancy package.

Seriously, compared to previous recessions, this one has been a walk in the park for most people. Lower unemployment by far, lower interest rates which benefit millions of households, better safety nets in place through benefits, etc.....

Of course, it's never good for the people that do lose their jobs, but of all the people working full time before the recession, only 3% will lose their jobs. And for those that do lose a job, 75% will be back in work within 6 months.

As far as recessions go, this one has been better than previous ones by a long shot.

Rochdale_Pioneers

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

As far as recessions go, this one has been better than previous ones by a long shot.

And thats on any way you want to cut it. Unemployment lower than not just in the last two recession but also than in the "boom" that briefly separated them. Unemployment lower than in the Eurozone. Reposessions less than half their early 90s peak. Bankruptcies substantially lower with plants working short time or being mothballed rather than being closed. Inflation historically low - even at 3.5%. Interest rates of half a percent not 10%. Debt still lower than all our major competitors despite the bailouts.

Not that you'd know this if you listened to the various Tory frothers. They seem to think that We're All Going To Die and that with Labour having broken the economy its the Tories job to come in and fix it.

Which presumably will be like last time - declare that "Labour isn't working" and then double the numbers out of work.

Generali

chucky wrote: »

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

True and it does seem that people are being pushed into taking part time work. Possibly that's a function of higher levels of unsecured debt than in the past - if they go onto benefits, many would be bankrupted pretty quickly. You get help with the mortgage but not with unsecured debt I think.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

And thats on any way you want to cut it. Unemployment lower than not just in the last two recession but also than in the "boom" that briefly separated them. Unemployment lower than in the Eurozone. Reposessions less than half their early 90s peak. Bankruptcies substantially lower with plants working short time or being mothballed rather than being closed. Inflation historically low - even at 3.5%. Interest rates of half a percent not 10%. Debt still lower than all our major competitors despite the bailouts.

Absolutely right.

Not that you'd know this if you listened to the various Tory frothers. They seem to think that We're All Going To Die and that with Labour having broken the economy its the Tories job to come in and fix it.

Which presumably will be like last time - declare that "Labour isn't working" and then double the numbers out of work.

No matter how well Brown has handled the crisis, (and he has handled it very well indeed,) nothing on gods green earth could convince me another term of illiberal, nanny state, intrusive, authoritarian, socialism would be acceptable, no matter what the economic consequences.