UK Unemployment falls again

Graham_Devon

Good news.

The number of people out of work fell by 82,000 between August and October, to 2.51 million, official figures have shown. The unemployment rate was 7.8%, down 0.2 percentage points from the previous three months.

The Office for National Statistics also said that the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance fell 3,000 to 1.58 million in November.
Total pay was up 1.8% compared with the same period last year.

Doesn't make sense in my head, considering the amount of job losses at present, but hey, it's certainly good news that both indicators are falling.

What's expanding enough to employ this many people when so many are being laid off? Most suggested that after the olympics, unemployment would rise (considering the amount of temp jobs, this seemed inevitable), but it's hasn't.....therefore, have all these people just found jobs?

Wheres the expansion coming from?

Wookster

Just listening to Liam Byrne saying the figures are rubbish and the figures show that the government are doing "worse than nothing."

Where do they get these clowns from?

BertieUK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Good news.

Doesn't make sense in my head, considering the amount of job losses at present, but hey, it's certainly good news that both indicators are falling.

What's expanding enough to employ this many people when so many are being laid off? Most suggested that after the olympics, unemployment would rise (considering the amount of temp jobs, this seemed inevitable), but it's hasn't.....therefore, have all these people just found jobs?

Wheres the expansion coming from?

Stephanie Flanders the BBCs Economic Editor is also baffled as to what all these figures mean because the growth figures are not reflecting any movement.

Generali

Hi GD.

Here's the chit chat, here's where you get down with some number action, and here is a red hot ONS video.

What I take from the numbers are the following for the last quarter:

- f/t employment rose on the quarter while p/t fell (seasonally adjusted and this figure is up to end Oct 2012 so we can exclude the Xmas period)
- Unemployment fell by 82,000 on the quarter (not the month) and economic inactivity rose by 60,000: almost all of the fall in unemployment might* be explained by workers without jobs becoming discouraged and so leaving the labour market altogether.

Next section: How Bad is /was the Recession (numbers since 2007):
- people in full-time employment fell by 421,000,
- people in part-time employment increased by 709,000,
- unemployed people increased by 879,000, and
- economically inactive people, aged from 16 to 64, fell by 52,000

That's actually not such a bad recession if you compare to 1979-81 for example when unemployment rose from about 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 (not St Maggie's fault) or 1990-92 when it rose from about 1,600,000-3,000,000 (under John of Brixton).

The number we've all been waiting for:

The number of people employed in the public sector was 5.75 million in September 2012, down 24,000 from June 2012.

[drrrum rolll]

The number of people employed in the private sector in September 2012 was 23.86 million, up 65,000 from June 2012.

So once again the private sector is more than making up for job losses in the public sector and for the increased population too. I'm sure some people here said that was impossible but I can't recall who. Can anyone help my increasingly dodgy memory?

This excludes the reclassification of FE college employees.

I suspect that big job losses are making the news but lots of small gains aren't. If 100 Mr Patels employ a bookkeeper to sit alongside their accountancy small businesses that won't make the local news whereas a local factory closure where 80 jobs are going will.










*Note the word might is very much caveated. You don't know any more than me why this is.

Graham_Devon

BertieUK wrote: »

Stephanie Flanders the BBCs Economic Editor is also baffled as to what all these figures mean because the growth figures are not reflecting any movement.

Ross Walker, UK Economist at RBS also seems a little confused by it all.

He's suggested it's likely due to the increase in part time jobs (though this month, they stayed static and full time positions rose), lower wages, and the rise in self employment.

Plus, as he stated, maybe underlying growth is better than actually reported in other figures.

Seems everyone is left guessing how this is happening! Haven't heard what Stephanie Flanders has stated.

It's the biggest quarterly fall since 2001!

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

- Unemployment fell by 82,000 on the quarter (not the month) and economic inactivity rose by 60,000: almost all of the fall in unemployment might* be explained by workers without jobs becoming discouraged and so leaving the labour market altogether.

This is why I hate figures. Like you say, it might be part of it, but just shows how statistics can suggest something different.

Interestingly, how do you "opt out" of the labour market in a way the ONS can measure?

Would, say, a housewife/husband, out of work, not on benefits, not wanting work, have opted out? And if so, how do the ONS measure it?

I ask this only because I know a couple of colleagues have partners at home looking for work, but not in a major rush to do so, and are looking after the kids / home while they look.....would they be counted as unemployed, or "other"?

Generali

BertieUK wrote: »

Stephanie Flanders the BBCs Economic Editor is also baffled as to what all these figures mean because the growth figures are not reflecting any movement.

Ok, I reckon we can take 3 approaches to this:

1. The unemployment figures are wrong. That's not an unreasonable approach: employee productivity is falling (usually a predictor of falling employment) and the numbers presented are only accurate to about 100,000 people.
2. GDP (inflation adjusted) is about flat but employment is up. Well duh, of course it is. Real (inflation adjusted) wages are down, GDP is flat therefore the number of employees must have risen as flat GDP is being shared amongst more people*
3. Ms Flanders is an idiot.

I leave you all to decide.




<Oversimplification Alert!!!>*E.G. we move from Sept to Oct. We have a static population of 50 people. GDP stays at £100. 40 people were employed earning £2/person (wages = £80 of GDP). Now wages/person fall to £1.90/person yet GDP is unchanged so for wages to stay at £80 employment must rise to 42 people.</Oversimplification Alert!!!>

richdeniro

It's just temp jobs and people signing off because they can't be bothered with the hoops they make you jump through.

I signed off a couple of weeks ago for a 5 day temp job and don't think I will bother signing back on again because all I will get is my stamp paid and I can't be bothered with the hassle of going to jobcentre+ to do it all.

BertieUK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ross Walker, UK Economist at RBS also seems a little confused by it all.

He's suggested it's likely due to the increase in part time jobs (though this month, they stayed static and full time positions rose), lower wages, and the rise in self employment.

Plus, as he stated, maybe underlying growth is better than actually reported in other figures.

Seems everyone is left guessing how this is happening! Haven't heard what Stephanie Flanders has stated.

It's the biggest quarterly fall since 2001!

Where my daughter was working the company chose to take on 9 part time employees rather that have 3 full time workers, so this is where the figures actually can confuse the issue.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is why I hate figures. Like you say, it might be part of it, but just shows how statistics can suggest something different.

Interestingly, how do you "opt out" of the labour market in a way the ONS can measure?

Would, say, a housewife/husband, out of work, not on benefits, not wanting work, have opted out? And if so, how do the ONS measure it?

I ask this only because I know a couple of colleagues have partners at home looking for work, but not in a major rush to do so, and are looking after the kids / home while they look.....would they be counted as unemployed, or "other"?

The ONS asks people through the Labour Force Survey.

They ask people if they have actively looked for work in the last period (4 weeks for non-students). If the answer is 'no', you're aged between 16-24 and you aren't working you're either economically economically inactive or a student.

It's mostly done through self definition I think. If you want to go into this in detail then an email to the ONS would secure you a copy of the questionnaire used.

So the simplified answer is, have your mates' missuses looked for a job in the last month? If they have they're unemployed, if not then they're economically inactive.

Generali

BertieUK wrote: »

Where my daughter was working the company chose to take on 9 part time employees rather that have 3 full time workers, so this is where the figures actually can confuse the issue.

Indeed although it is worth noting that p/t employment fell and f/t rose.