UK Unemployment falls again

somethingcorporate

richdeniro wrote: »

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

This made me laugh. What hoops? having to go and sign on once every two weeks and send out half a dozen CVs?

If that is hard work no wonder there are so many unemployed - they'd not survive a day in a place that actually expects you to do work if sending out a few CVs a week is too many "hoops".

the_flying_pig

strange, innit.

in the wake of the credit bubble's bursting:

1 - the US got a 'jobless recovery'; but
2 - we're getting 'recoveryless jobs'.

i think that the explanations on this thread go most of the way to explaining it. questionable definitions/statistics, a slight shift from good jobs to bad jobs, PT work, & so on.

Domfrizby

Governments change the lies stay the same.

Only in this case the lies get even more absurd.

How can anyone believe these clowns.

If we go on this way soon we will have almost full employment and no need to keep cutting benefits because hardly anyone will be claiming them

In the real world however the unmanipulated figures show those out of work are going up.

Wookster

Generali wrote: »

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!!!>

I'd have to guess a mix of all three points you make, having read Ms Flanders blogs.

Generali

Wookster wrote: »

Ms Flanders blogs.

I try to avoid them as they make me feel faintly ill and the state health coverage isn't comprehensive here.

moneyinmypocket

We are recovering, hardworking families are paying down debt, hard working people going out to work - rejoice!

House prices booming happy Xmas

Wookster

Generali wrote: »

I try to avoid them as they make me feel faintly ill and the state health coverage isn't comprehensive here.

She is very much from the Ed Balls school of economics rather than prudent economic management school of economics, but then most of the BBC are.

Graham_Devon

Another record....

Largest fall in youth unemployment on record.

StevieJ

Reminds me of the conundrum of (relatively) full employment and low inflation that had the economists scratching their heads in late nineties to mid noughties.

coastline

Unemployment up 1 million since 2007....part time working continues rise at an equal pace...leaving the total number in some kind of work at 29m..
Full times jobs lost and many will have been in excess of £20,000 per year...replaced with part time which could easily be £4,000 per year.
Not so sure this was happening in previous recessions as working practises have changed...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/05/a-parttime-recovery/