London statistics on worklessness

drc

I always find it incredible that London has such a high rate of unemployment amongst the working age population. For such an expensive city, how is this possible?

According to this site; http://lseo.org.uk/data/london-data

"In October 2011, 24.4% of all working age Londoners were economically inactive - equivalent to 1.35 million people."

It also says "In 2010, 22.1% of children in London were living in workless households - equivalent to 343,000 children."

These are very high numbers. Seriously, how is it possible for such a large percentage of the population to be living in one of the most expensive cities on earth without working?

wellused

Is it the "Black Economy", ie claiming dole and working cash in hand?

vivatifosi

Well, to be fair, economic inactivity is not the same as unemployment. Having said that, there have always been areas in East London and South East London, in particular, where unemployment has been persistently high.

michaels

Re: The children stat, obviously if thy are one parent families there is a high likelihood they will also be employment free.

heathcote123

drc wrote: »

I always find it incredible that London has such a high rate of unemployment amongst the working age population. For such an expensive city, how is this possible?

According to this site; http://lseo.org.uk/data/london-data

"In October 2011, 24.4% of all working age Londoners were economically inactive - equivalent to 1.35 million people."

It also says "In 2010, 22.1% of children in London were living in workless households - equivalent to 343,000 children."

These are very high numbers. Seriously, how is it possible for such a large percentage of the population to be living in one of the most expensive cities on earth without working?

Simple, you give people the choice of a low income job, or money for sitting on their !!!!!!. A good number will choose the latter.

This is the miracle of the welfare state.

geneer

heathcote123 wrote: »

Simple, you give people the choice of a low income job, or money for sitting on their !!!!!!. A good number will choose the latter.

This is the miracle of the welfare state.

This post has been sponsored by the The Daily Mail.

The_White_Horse

drc wrote: »

i always find it incredible that london has such a high rate of unemployment amongst the working age population. For such an expensive city, how is this possible?

According to this site; http://lseo.org.uk/data/london-data

"in october 2011, 24.4% of all working age londoners were economically inactive - equivalent to 1.35 million people."

it also says "in 2010, 22.1% of children in london were living in workless households - equivalent to 343,000 children."

these are very high numbers. Seriously, how is it possible for such a large percentage of the population to be living in one of the most expensive cities on earth without working?

massive handouts.

the_flying_pig

The_White_Horse wrote: »

massive handouts.

er, you've got that partly the wrong way round - it's the massive handouts that make London "one of the most expensive cities on earth", not vice versa. 1.35 million unemployed plus roughly the same number again in low-paid able to claim basically whatever they ask for in housing benefit.

dlk

It's the expense of London that leads to these figures. Most working people couldn't afford London rents whilst if you don't work you simply have your rent paid for you. London now consists of the extremely well off and the economically inactive with no real in between as how would a £25000pa worker afford to live in London?

drc

I think the statistics can be explained because although the media likes to say otherwise (especially the left leaning media), there is still a lot of social housing in London and something like one third of all London households live in social housing where rent is very very low.

The reason why London tends to be so expensive is the cost of housing, it makes sense that those that live in subsidised housing don't need to earn a lot and housing benefit does cover most social rents for those not working (which are extremely low in comparison to the private rented sector) and is not capped (unlike local housing allowance for private rents).

tartanterra

dlk wrote: »

It's the expense of London that leads to these figures. Most working people couldn't afford London rents whilst if you don't work you simply have your rent paid for you. London now consists of the extremely well off and the economically inactive with no real in between as how would a £25000pa worker afford to live in London?

Who works in all those McDonalds and Burger Kings?

Are they commuting from Birmingham every day or something?