Unemployment falls to 2.51m

Graham_Devon

Good news.

Unemployment fell by 49,000 to 2.51 million in the three months to September, taking the jobless rate down to 7.8% from 7.9%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20323096

Though do still need to reserve a little caution due to the part time jobs that are probably (not data as yet) making up these falls in unemployment.

shortchanged_2

It's all a bit of a smokescreen I'm afraid.

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Though do still need to reserve a little caution due to the part time jobs that are probably (not data as yet) making up these falls in unemployment.

The number of people in work increased by 100,000 in the latest quarter to just under 30 million, a rise of more than half a million over the past year.

Part-time employment increased by 49,000 to 8.1 million, close to a record high, while there were 51,000 more people in full-time jobs, at 21.4 million.

shortchanged wrote: »

It's all a bit of a smokescreen I'm afraid.

That's the spirit

shortchanged_2

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

That's the spirit

Cheers prickypants, you keep that stiff upper lip now. It will all be alright in the end, it's just we're not there yet, still far from it I'm afraid.

Carl31

This drop means what exactly? that the economy is now bursting at the seems, meaning more and more start up companies dishing out jobs left, right and centre? the welfare bill is about to drop is it, meaning we can pay less taxes?

I doubt it somehow, its just the government trying to show off about nothing

moneyinmypocket

Excellent news, nobody likes to see anyone out of work so this is good news. Let's hope it continues to fall.

wotsthat

shortchanged wrote: »

It's all a bit of a smokescreen I'm afraid.

The ONS are releasing employment data using consistent and transparent methodology.

What do you think they're trying to hide?

Graham_Devon

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

That's the spirit

If the spirit is keeping your eyes firmly closed, then yes, you got it.

I've stated it's good news, so not sure what you have to baulk at really, but the reason I stated the figures have to be looked at with caution is here...

Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said: “Overall, economic performance has been pretty dismal. There’s been little growth for two years but the labour market has responded to that very well. We’ve seen employers push through a reduction in hours and wages decreased. That’s unpleasant for many individuals but are we better off as a society? Yes.”

Figures from the Office for National Statistics yesterday laid bare the extent of the trade off for achieving relatively positive employment levels in the UK compared to the rest of Europe.

Part-time employment increased in the three months to September by 49,000 to 8.1m, close to a record high, while the number of people working part-time because they could not find a full-time job reached 1.4m, up 143,000 over the year. Almost half of the rise in employment is due to part-time working, the figures showed,

The number of people working in temporary jobs, also because they could not find full-time work, rose to 655,000, up 72,000 on the year.

If you just want to look at a headline number and say "great news", pretend everythings getting better and scoff at anyone looking just a tiny bit further, then feel free. But I'm not sure it needs to be done on every single thread.

It's obviously good news that unemployment is decreasing. BUT, surely we can look at how it's been achieved without being labelled?

The part time numbers are not that good news for the government, or indeed, the taxpayer. It's all extra housing benefit, all extra tax credits. We need higher employment, but we need higher employment which actually pays people a wage they can live on, and part time (when taken in the context above) isn't great. It's just better than having nothing at all.

michaels

Thanks for this GD - for some reason this was a big non-story on the bbc website today where as 1000 jobs going at the DoE was huge..hmmm.

On more substantive matters the claimant count which I think is better for spotting trends is up for the first time in a while

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Though do still need to reserve a little caution due to the part time jobs that are probably (not data as yet) making up these falls in unemployment.

Given the cost of childcare. Perhaps more part time will allow many people to enjoy a better quality of life. Not forgetting the benefit to the children as well of having a parent around.

shortchanged_2

wotsthat wrote: »

The ONS are releasing employment data using consistent and transparent methodology.

What do you think they're trying to hide?

49,000 jobs of what?

They could be 49,000 8 hour a week positions or they could be 49,000 people pushed onto training (or call them preparation for work) courses.

Don't forget wotsthat, these are the unemployment figures not the employment figures and they can be manipulated in many ways.