Wait for until the cuts begin to bite.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

People are losing their jobs there were 5 compulsary in my wife's department, 7 loses in total including voluntary.
You can't spin that as anything other as 7 lost jobs as without cuts they would all be there!!!

120,000 people less work in the public sector, but they are not job loses as they don't need the jobs. (ignore the people on the dole).

It's the worst argument since King Charles II was reported to have a slight scratch on his neck as a cause of death.

LOL, you won't refer to what you said, will you. You are just going to a macro level to point out some people have lost jobs, which I have never disagreed with, while ignoring what I picked you up on.

You said job losses. You said it in the context of a previous argument (to state you were right) and in the context of 120,000 fewer posts.

I'm not saying job losses haven't happened, and never have.

We all know what I;m saying now. I've agreed with you twice, and will agree with you again. There ARE 120,000 less posts, and indeed, if you want to bring in those who now can't get jobs, you are correct there....but again, in the context in which we are discussing, it's taking things a little far.

My issue is with you starting this thread with the reference that you were right, by bringing up old debates in a manner to antagonise.

You have yet again ignored what I am responding to....

Job losses had not started, are they sure?

I will agree with everyone in stating this debate is now silly. I think everyone can see where everyone is coming from, but don't want to admit it.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL, you won't refer to what you said, will you. You are just going to a macro level to point out some people have lost jobs, which I have never disagreed with, while ignoring what I picked you up on.

You said job losses. You said it in the context of a previous argument (to state you were right) and in the context of 120,000 fewer posts.

I'm not saying job losses haven't happened, and never have.

We all know what I;m saying now. I've agreed with you twice, and will agree with you again. There ARE 120,000 less posts, and indeed, if you want to bring in those who now can't get jobs, you are correct there....but again, in the context in which we are discussing, it's taking things a little far.

My issue is with you starting this thread with the reference that you were right, by bringing up old debates in a manner to antagonise.

You have yet again ignored what I am responding to....

!!!!!! cuts are biting there are 120,000 more on the dole than there would have been last year.

How hard is it to understand.

My son understands if you take something and don't replace it it has gone why can't you! (he is three)

How anyone can dress this up as 120,000 are now having a nice time and ignore the fact some have been pushed and ignore the fact the unemployment count is higher as a result is beyond me.

OK GD Explain to me how these 120,000 cuts have not bitten?

PS I have reffered to people losing their job in the post above. Are you OK?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

!!!!!! cuts are biting there are 120,000 more on the dole than there would have been last year.

How hard is it to understand.

My son understands if you take something and don't replace it it has gone why can't you! (he is three)

How anyone can dress this up as 120,000 are now having a nice time and ignore the fact some have been pushed and ignore the fact the unemployment count is higher as a result is beyond me.

OK GD Explain to me how these 120,000 cuts have not bitten?

Oh for pitties sake really.

Read my posts.

I've never suggested 120,000 are now having a nice time.

I've never denied some have had their jobs actively taken and been forced out.

And have never denied the unemployment count could be higher (mainly because we don't know that for a fact...loosing jobs in one sector does not mean 120,000 people extra on the dole).

Infact, in the post you quote, I actively go out of my way to agree with you on many of the things you then attack me on. I can't do anymore. You just keep ignoring and attacking the same thing regardless of what I say. Even when I say "im not sayign job losses haven't happened" you attack me and suggest i'm saying no one has lost their jobs.

Jeeeezus.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

loosing jobs in one sector does not mean 120,000 people extra on the dole.

Similar debate where I say 230,000 natural wastage may not effect house prices so much but your view on the losses are.

You need to remember what you write.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's still 230,000 jobs gone. They will not be rehiring.

A million, two million jobs could go over the next 5 years in the UK as natural wastage. But that only means the job pool goes down, as the number of people looking go up.

If there are less bananas ont he shelf in Morrisons next week, not everyone who usually buys bananas will be able to buy them. Same with natural wastage jobs.

Understand it when you write it???

It always amazes me when someone classed as a bull posts a similar point they are wrong!!

Graham_Devon wrote: »

:sigh: It stops people getting jobs in the first place. Yes, I see what you are saying. But what you are saying ignores that the job pool is less.

For every older person you get rid of, a younger person is just enetering the job market. With less jobs available, they have less chance of getting a job.

It's not making someone redundant no, and I agree with what you are saying, but the other side of the coin also needs looking at.

I did look at the other side and you still disagreed!

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Similar debate where I say 230,000 natural wastage may not effect house prices so much but your view on the losses are.

LOL. Now you are just setting yourself up.

I have on this thread agreed with you that the jobs have been removed. This proves you are not reading my posts.

Here:

If really2 had simply said "yes, true, not everyone has actually lost their jobs but it's still a job thats no longer availiable" I would have simply agreed.

I'm not sure why you linked to that thread. It proves my post, number 39, absolutely correct. Afterall, what was it you were saying?

Really2 wrote: »

Correct but that is not going to increase the jobless totals is it. These people will not be signing on as they have not been made redundant.
So in essence the article is wrong because there will not be 230,000 made redundant/cut it will be natural wastage.
So not sure how 230,000 retiring or finding a new job will make houses fall by 20%?

LOL. Is that Really2 arguing with me that people have not lost their jobs because they have not been made redundant!? Couldn't make it up.

<shakes head>

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL. Now you are just setting yourself up.

I have on this thread agreed with you that the jobs have been removed. This proves you are not reading my posts.

Here:


I'm not sure why you linked to that thread. It proves my post, number 39, absolutely correct. Afterall, what was it you were saying?



LOL. Is that Really2 arguing with me that people have not lost their jobs because they have not been made redundant!? Couldn't make it up.

<shakes head>

And what was your response would it be the quotes above? and what did I say the context of my response was? (that through natural wastage would not effect house prices per say)

So not sure how 230,000 retiring or finding a new job will make houses fall by 20%?

You argued the opposite then! I knew what I said, you had a compleatly forgot.

I was corrected then that 230,000 means 230,000 people who can't be employed, what changed your stance?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

And what was your response would it be the quotes above and what did I say the context of my response was? (that through natural wastage would not effect house prices per say.

You argued the opposite then! I knew what I said, you had a compleatly forgot.

For the umpteenth time. I have not argued at all on this thread that the loss of posts in the public sector will not mean less jobs to those looking.

Please, point out where I have. I have actively agreed with you on that point about 5 times. And you are just pointing out another thread where I have said the same thing to yo, as you were arguing against me.

This is pointless really. You have undone all your arguing by posting that thread. Everything I am arguing now, you are arguing then. Difference is, that was about house prices falling, so you decided the job cuts were not actually job losses if people retired and wouldn't effect house prices.

Thanks for proving my post no.39 so correct!!! Tutt!

Really2 wrote: »

But are they not going to make cuts by not re-recruiting after retirement or people leaving?

How is that increasing the jobless?

Really2 wrote: »

Correct but that is not going to increase the jobless totals is it. These people will not be signing on as they have not been made redundant.
So in essence the article is wrong because there will not be 230,000 made redundant/cut it will be natural wastage.
So not sure how 230,000 retiring or finding a new job will make houses fall by 20%?

Really2 wrote: »

But the point is these will not effect house prices like making 230,000 redundant.
How can 230,000 people retiring or moving jobs cause a 20% crash? (even if the figures are correct)
AFIK we have a glut of older workers anyway so we may need some natural wastage anyway.

Full thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/32023903#Comment_32023903

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

For the umpteenth time. I have not argued at all on this thread that the loss of posts in the public sector will not mean less jobs to those looking.

Please, point out where I have.

But you have argued they are not loses or that that is not biting (having an effect on employment)

I agree that natural wastage is unlikely to affect house prices, but I will not argue that the cuts are not biting and people have not lost jobs.

Seen your edit
Thanks for pointing my post 1 is right. Tutt!;)

Really2

All it proves Dev is what ever I argue, you will always argue the opposite.

My stance of the effect of natural wastage is the same, other than the fact I agree it means less jobs for those on the dole. (A point I never disagreed with)

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

All it proves Dev is what ever I argue, you will always argue the opposite.

My stance of the effect of natural wastage is the same, other than the fact I agree it means less jobs for those on the dole. (A point I never disagreed with)

Same as what? Same as what you said on this thread, or the same as what you said on the other thread, as they both differ.

On the other thread, you state the public sector cuts will not be job cuts, because they will be done through natural wastage. I've quoted it and posted the thread, you can hardly argue different.

On this thread, you have argued for 3 pages, that no matter how the job is removed, its a cut.

So which stance are you now agreeing with, just so we can end this?