UK unemployment total reaches 17-year high

Graham_Devon

Is your mission to simply disagree with and confuddle anything I say?

From Jan 2011, and it's got worse since then...

This year, the number of those in part-time work has reached its highest level since the Office of National Statistics began its employment series records in 1992.

8 million people are now working less than full-time hours. That accounts for 27% of all those in employment in the UK, and represents an increase of 6% since the start of the recession.

http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/news/1018880/the-story-increase-workers

Part time working is rising and has been for some time.

Sure, these figures state most of the job losses are part time, but it's two different figures. Again, I don't want a massive drawn out confusing argument about it. I have evidence for what I said....even though it's common knowledge to all of us and you are simply trying to detract and confuse. I have just answered all your queries efficiently and straight to the point. We don't need this argument. You are simply wrong.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sigh.

The amount of people in part time work as opposed to full time work is rising and has been for some time.

This is just saying that the job losses were part time in this instance.

Two different figures. Nothing amazingly confusing.

the article says that full time employment was down 2,000 and part time employment down by 175,000.

i'm not sure i understand your analysis that part time employment is "still rising" relative to full time employment. it would seem to indicate the opposite to me? (unless there are 90 times more people doing part time work than full time, which there are not).

aside from that, i wonder if the change in tuition fees has impacted on the figures, with people who would previously have not been included in the figures as they would have been in full time education electing not to go to university because it's too expensive and also not being able to find a job. would seem logical, given that september = first month of university.


edit: actually perhaps that increase in tuition fees does not kick in until next year. in which case you'd expect more people into uni this year, as people won't be taking gap years.

Rinoa

joguest wrote: »

Well done. You win the award.

Cheers Jo.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is your mission to simply disagree with and confuddle anything I say?

Sorry asking for the data? it was hardly to cause confusion, it was to back up what you were saying as a number did not show what you were talking about.

It is clear this quarter, part time is falling though. So the reason for any confusion on the thread was the assumption that part time work was "still" increasing.

nicko33

Graham_Devon wrote: »

From Jan 2011, and it's got worse since then
...
Part time working is rising and has been for some time.

Sure, these figures state most of the job losses are part time, but it's two different figures.

So it's getting better now then isn't it, now that part time working has stopped rising?

although maybe a lot of these
"and there was also a record reduction of 74,000 in the number of over-65s in employment."
were in the part-time category

What two different figures do you mean?

doire_2

Cut in part time work......


I remember certain people on here saying the big rise in part time work was due to people opting for it due to their age and wanting to take things easier and not due to the fact thats all they could get

Maybe a lot of these same workers have had enough of working?

Mallotum_X

doire wrote: »

Cut in part time work......


I remember certain people on here saying the big rise in part time work was due to people opting for it due to their age and wanting to take things easier and not due to the fact thats all they could get

Maybe a lot of these same workers have had enough of working?

If they had had enough and retired then they wouldnt be in the unemployment figures. Which one might expect would lead to a drop in unemployment as previously unemployed people would take the jobs.

Seasonably summer work coming to an end? although these were figures to end August, so that shouldnt have an impact yet.

So probably something else... The latest manufacturing figures were down slightly, retail down slightly, perhaps its more related to the economy than retirees?

Are any official analysis figures published?

Really2

They said the figures include those in full time education but looking for work?

Is that a new thing as I thought in the past fulltime edu meant you were financially inactive, not claiming unemployment.

pqrdef

Cameron now knows that today's PMQ is going to be repeated monthly from now on for the foreseeable future. Not only are there plenty more public-sector job cuts in the pipeline, but the private sector is clearly going to be shedding jobs, alongside all those we're told it will create.

And recruitment of young people isn't happening. And what a wonderful time to be telling people who've got to 60 or 65 that they can't retire, they have to stay on a bit longer now.

Well at least he was briefed to acknowledge that compulsory redundancy isn't a lot of fun.

But he knows he can't just repeat the same performance every month. So he's going to have to gerrymander the figures, and come up with whole new ways of making people disappear.

One way is to "retire" the unemployed earlier. Even if people are supposed to work until they're 83, if they lose their jobs at 52 you can say right, that's it, they're out of the labour market now.

Another way is to have so many schemes for the young that you don't have to count them as unemployed until they're about 32.

Then there are the couples. If a husband is unemployed but is wife/cohabitee is working, you can decide he's not unemployed, he's a househusband. Well it worked for housewives for long enough.

The Christian work ethic mafiosi at the DWP will do their nuts, but their timing couldn't have been worse anyway. Cameron is a politician through and through, unencumbered by morality or ideology, and he will win. The Benefits Agency, having been told to try to get people off other benefits onto JSA, will now be told to keep people off JSA if at all possible.

pqrdef

Apparently I'm not allowed to say m*fia, it gets censored. Huh?