Unemployment Rising Fast-By Area-All Time High Predicted

DecentLivingWage

Our UK unemployment rate is projected to jump from 8.8% in 2012 to 10.7% by 2016, snuffing out any recovery, consumer spending growth in the country. The last time that the rate was this high was in 1995, after the deep recession of the early 1990s The line the gov are feeding us is a dangerous one, and devious!

It seems that the Cons are so embarrassed by Osborne's failure that they are relabelling many job hunters under different programmes but the cold harsh reality is that employers are not paying them for these mickey mouse pretend jobs and schemes - we are ,the tax payers. This means they are 'economically inactive' not producing tax revenue or consumer spending growth which is the main reason unemployment matters in the first place. When you add these relabelled unemployed 'pretend workers' back in - the shock jump in figures is truly scary!

Here's the true (non-newspaper,non-bbc story from the CEBR report)

http://www.cebr.com/unemployment-to-keep-rising-to-2016-across-uk-except-in-the-south-east-east-and-london/

PaulF81

The price we need to pay to avoid going down the greece route. most of these job losses are public sector and contribute very little to the country.

better chopping off the rotting branch than letting it infect the whole tree.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Our UK unemployment rate is projected to jump from 8.8% in 2012 to 10.7% by 2016, snuffing out any recovery, consumer spending growth in the country. The last time that the rate was this high was in 1995, after the deep recession of the early 1990s The line the gov are feeding us is a dangerous one, and devious!

Not nearly as devious as you misquoting that article on regional employment variances.

You've quoted the current and projected Northern Ireland unemployment rate, and claimed it's for the UK as a whole.

What the article actually says is.......

"With almost three in ten workers employed by the public sector in Northern Ireland, the increase in unemployment is expected to be particularly pronounced. The unemployment rate is projected to rise from 8.8% in 2012 to 10.7% by 2016, weighing down heavily on consumer spending growth in the country. The last time that the rate was this high was in 1995, following the deep recession of the early 1990s."

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

PaulF81 wrote: »

The price we need to pay to avoid going down the greece route. most of these job losses are public sector and contribute very little to the country.

better chopping off the rotting branch than letting it infect the whole tree.

And that response was just as idiotic as the OP.

It is of course absurd to think that an economy destroying national unemployment rate of 10.6% would be remotely acceptable as a price to pay for trimming the public sector.

Wookster

Yet another cutting edge, super sharp, thought out and informative post. Keep up the good work.

DecentLivingWage

errr.... 'almost every region?'

“Five more years of pain are expected for much of the UK, with unemployment continuing to rise in almost every region. The outlook is tough for UK households, particularly those in places with a high dependency on public sector employment. Family budgets are being squeezed between the pressures of rising unemployment, low earnings growth and stubbornly high inflation.”'

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

errr.... 'almost every region?'
'

Doesn't remotely excuse you deliberately changing the quote to state the UK instead of Northern Ireland in your OP, and then post it all under a completely untrue thread title.

If you don't want to come across as a devious little liar, then don't act like one.

Generali

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

errr.... 'almost every region?'

“Five more years of pain are expected for much of the UK, with unemployment continuing to rise in almost every region. The outlook is tough for UK households, particularly those in places with a high dependency on public sector employment. Family budgets are being squeezed between the pressures of rising unemployment, low earnings growth and stubbornly high inflation.”'

What do you think the counter-effect will be of very low gas prices? What about demographic changes over the next 4 years? What about the likely need to balance trade or at least to come closer to reaching a trade balance - will that be done via increased exports or reduced imports and what impact will that have on employment?

This looks to me like a very narrow report that has taken a prediction about one part of the economy and extrapolated. So far, the private sector has more than soaked up public sector job losses. Why wouldn't that continue?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

What do you think the counter-effect will be of very low gas prices?

This is the UK.... We'll manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory somehow on that topic.

I suspect that the next government will be Labour, and they'll totally screw up the enormous opportunity to revitalise our economy with cheap energy, via idiotic lefty environmental taxes.

What about demographic changes over the next 4 years? What about the likely need to balance trade or at least to come closer to reaching a trade balance - will that be done via increased exports or reduced imports and what impact will that have on employment?

All valid points. But there will need to be some incentive for private industry to move out into the regions beyond what is there already.

Despite all the rubbish spouted by crashaholics, it turns out that cheap land for business and cheap housing for it's employees are simply not an attractive enough proposition to get businesses to relocate "oop north" or to Northern Ireland.

Or the alternative, move more government out of London and to somewhere that is geographically central in the UK... Like Carlisle.;)

So far, the private sector has more than soaked up public sector job losses. Why wouldn't that continue?

Overall.... Yes it has.

But in fairness to the report, (rather than the OP), some of the regional unemployment stats are quite horrific.

PaulF81

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And that response was just as idiotic as the OP.

It is of course absurd to think that an economy destroying national unemployment rate of 10.6% would be remotely acceptable as a price to pay for trimming the public sector.

If those 10% are unproductive even when they are in work, do you want to tell me how its "economy destructing"? Its not the governments job to pay people purely keep consumer spending numbers up. Its to responsibly use taxation to create a competitive environment so we can compete in a global market.

Mr._Pricklepants

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not nearly as devious as you misquoting that article on regional employment variances.

You know the doomsters have hit rock bottom when they start misrepresenting articles with misleading thread titles.