A quarter of adults out of work

StevieJ

I wonder how many were economically inactive in the 50's with all those stay at home wives? maybe it is a sign of economic prosperity

carolt

You know as well as I do that you don't believe a word of that either, Stevie.

vivatifosi

Ok, here is some more from the Telegraph article which goes into greater detail. I don't like to quote whole articles in order not to breach copyright so excuse my personal precis:

The biggest rise in economic inactivity was down to the increase in students, with nearly 100,000 deciding to study in the last three months...
John Philpott, the leading employment economist..... said: "Unemployment is sharply down, however you measure it. Yet there are also 54,000 fewer people in work, with full-time jobs particularly hard hit. The apparent paradox is explained by a very sharp rise of 149,000 in the number of economically inactive people, with the number of students surging by 98,000. Jobless young people are thus turning to study in their thousands to avoid the dole."
There were also a 18,000 increase in the number of people staying at home to care for children or parents to hit 2.3 million, while the long-term sick failed to fall and stayed at 2 million.

The ONS said that of the 8.16 million economically inactive people, 2.3 million have said they would like a job.

(There) were a further 1.04 million part-time workers that were on reduced hours because they could not find a full-time job.
Experts also pointed out that the only jobs being created were in the public sector, with 22,000 created by central government...
In contrast, employment in the public sector fell by 61,000.

ukcarper

michaels wrote: »

You have it all wrong - unemployment is falling and is 'half a million less than the worse case scenario being banded about' - stop reading the independent media and listen to what the state broadcaster has to tell you.

You can knock the bbc if you like but if you watched newsnight last night you would have found most if not all of those points mention

StevieJ

vivatifosi wrote: »

Ok, here is some more from the Telegraph article which goes into greater detail. I don't like to quote whole articles in order not to breach copyright so excuse my personal precis:

The biggest rise in economic inactivity was down to the increase in students, with nearly 100,000 deciding to study in the last three months...

Where are these students studying, a strange time to join a course, also I thought college palces were shrinking?

lemonjelly

StevieJ wrote: »

Where are these students studying, a strange time to join a course, also I thought college palces were shrinking?

I have inside info on this

Imagine, you're approaching 18. The jobs market currently isn't going to fill you with hope (see PN's thread).

May as well go to uni.

Honestly, that is the sentiment of a lot of the students I see. It is also the advice a lot of parents are giving.

Last year there were massive problems with student finance. It was the first year that over a million people applied for university places & were accepted - a 16% increase on the year before, giving us 1.2 million students.

This year, that increase is 23%:eek: For every 4 students last year, there will be 1 extra:eek:

Really2

Well if it is students it looks like we may see a recovery in the pub industry soon.

chucky

StevieJ wrote: »

I wonder how many were economically inactive in the 50's with all those stay at home wives? maybe it is a sign of economic prosperity

how come no-one has been able to answer that one for you Stevie?:eek:

lemonjelly

chucky wrote: »

how come no-one has been able to answer that one for you Stevie?:eek:

Loads.

Thing is a single wage was enough to easily keep a family back then, whereas now, it isn't.

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

Loads.

Thing is a single wage was enough to easily keep a family back then, whereas now, it isn't.

Was it? They never knew they had it so easy did they LJ.:)

I would say life was a lot more of a stuggle than it is today mate TBH on the average wage.