UK Unemployment falls again

Thrugelmir

The private sector is considerably leaner and fitter than previous recessions. With the technological advances made in past 30 years. Companies are less able to cut head count. As many people are specialists in their roles within their organisations.

So workforces are far more flexible. Such as at Honda who maintain their staff on full pay even when on short shifts. The employees then owe the Company "free" time when activity picks up.

Also in many sectors pay levels are decreasing rather increasing. Finance being a good example.

Another way of Companies saving money is to cut pay but compensate by shortening the working week.

The world of work is changing. With more flexibility the norm.

BertieUK

Conrad wrote: »

Employment at highest figure ever.

Part time jobs down, full time up.

Income up 1.8% over the year.

Highest number of new business's created last yr.


We're rebalancing and creating wealth.

Growth is masked by the fact many many more people now deal more in cash. I see this much more myself now, even some large local building firms offer cash terms on large jobs.

I think that all depends on where you live, there are many on this Forum who will think that you live beside the 'Gates of Heaven'

sheffield_lad

the_flying_pig wrote: »

yeah... the unemployment rate is the single most politically important statistic that there is in pretty much every country in the world.
QUOTE]

Its a pitty the BBC don't think that, on 5 live it made the 3rd headline on drive earlier.

[Deleted User]

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?

if you strip bonuses out of pay inc then they are running at 1.3% half the rate of inflation,and the more recent news on employment i.e novembers figure shows a slow down as only 4000 more people inwork

wotsthat

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.

As long as the ONS are meticulous in maintaining the methodology month after month after month then the figures clearly show that unemployment is on a downward trend.

Not only that but the figures are transparent - if someone wants to research how many people are working part-time or have voluntarily left the labour market it's relatively easy to do.

Not sure there's anything sinister or being hidden here - just part of a long slow grinding recovery.

BertieUK

These figures are very welcome news indeed but as many have stated statistics can cover up the real truth and do not mean that we are moving forward.

The figures could mean that less people are claiming benefit because they have not complied with the benefit claim rules and are no longer eligible, so they are not counted.

If the growth rate rose accordingly then we could assume that these were numbers back at work.

I am not going to be tempted to say that this could be called 'cooking the books' as some critics are saying about President Obamas recent victory.

paulmapp8306

somethingcorporate wrote: »

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".

Its too many hoops if you dont get benefits. Why would you elect to spend money on petrol/parking or public transport and take time away from job hunting every 2 weeks if you recieve no benefit for it?

My wife signed on - knowing full well she wouldnt get benefits. she get her NI paid anyway as the kids are under 16. She signed on for help in finding work. She got no help - everything they told her she was already doing, and all the resorces they suggested she was already using. She was spending money on bus fairs - and when my 9 year old was sent home from school with a temperature, and she had to cancel one "meeting" she was threatened with loosing benefits if she didnt tur up - despite not actually getting any. The upshot? she signed herself back off and went back to looking for work on her own.

If you get benefits - then there not really hoops. They are just making sure you are doing what you can to find work. If you get no benefits - its just hoop jumping and added expense for no gain.

dandelionclock30

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"?

.

To answer your question, they would be classed as economically inactive not unemployed.

BertieUK

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

.

To answer your question, they would be classed as economically inactive not unemployed.

To this old codger its just manipulating words to say what they want, and it simply confuses me ie; economically inactive and quantative easing.

drummer_666

statistics never a true reflection.

ok so the number of unemployed has fallen. yes, because in a lot of instances you can only be on 'dole' for 6 months then you get kicked off.

the no. of unemployed is always going to be WAY higher than the statistics say.