Doubt on coalition's '500,000 new jobs' claim

Shakethedisease

While I have taken it as read that successive governments like to 'massage' the unemployment figures as positively as possible in terms of calculations etc etc. This one has been actually trumpeting their figures in terms of actual job creation. While counting those in workfare schemes and even some who attend job workshops every fortnight...:eek:
No wonder economists were scratching their heads over why there has been such a rise in 'employment' figures.. while the claimant figures also rose. These are ONS figures btw.. and internationally recognised methods of counting employment stats.

I wish they'd ALL just be straight with us once in a while. Surely it isn't THAT difficult to differentiate between those in paid employment and those not ? And I especially wish that the current one would stop gloating over the number of 'new jobs' and 'people in work'. When that's not the case for 1 in 5 of their statistics.

So these 'rises' and 'new jobs' ? 105,000 of them are just people working for JSA or attending a meeting once a fortnight. Well, that's ok then is it ? Lets count that as '500,000 new jobs' and 'people in work' shall we ? :whistle:

But of those "employed", 105,000 were in back-to-work schemes. While people on such schemes have been counted within the employment figures for years, last year there was a dramatic increase in their number. This growth was partly down to new ONS 2012 counting criteria, under which the statisticians stopped tracking people on Labour's back-to-work schemes as the programmes were being wound down, and started tracking those on the new schemes of the coalition....

A parliamentary answer from the ONS director general, Glen Watson, given in October last year, confirms that even if people were claiming jobseeker's allowance, they could still be counted as employed.
He said: "Those participants [in government schemes] whose activity comprises any form of work, work experience, or work-related training, are classified as in employment. This is regardless of whether the individual is paid or not."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/15/statistics-doubt-coalition-500000-jobs

All the people saying 'Great news' on threads like the below in Oct, may want to revise their thoughts and look a little deeper for the next announcement. I certainly will be.. :-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4236937

BertieUK

In a nutshell until we see a rise in the countries economic growth these figures do not mean very much to the average man in the street, if there are more jobs being created what are they producing?

angrypirate

Shakethedisease wrote: »

While I have taken it as read that successive governments like to 'massage' the unemployment figures as positively as possible in terms of calculations etc etc. This one has been actually trumpeting their figures in terms of actual job creation. While counting those in workfare schemes and even some who attend job workshops every fortnight...:eek:
No wonder economists were scratching their heads over why there has been such a rise in 'employment' figures.. while the claimant figures also rose. These are ONS figures btw.. and internationally recognised methods of counting employment stats.

I wish they'd ALL just be straight with us once in a while. Surely it isn't THAT difficult to differentiate between those in paid employment and those not ? And I especially wish that the current one would stop gloating over the number of 'new jobs' and 'people in work'. When that's not the case for 1 in 5 of their statistics.

So these 'rises' and 'new jobs' ? 105,000 of them are just people working for JSA or attending a meeting once a fortnight. Well, that's ok then is it ? Lets count that as '500,000 new jobs' and 'people in work' shall we ? :whistle:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/15/statistics-doubt-coalition-500000-jobs

All the people saying 'Great news' on threads like the below in Oct, may want to revise their thoughts and look a little deeper for the next announcement. I certainly will be.. :-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4236937

Dont think the Tories actually changed the method of counting did they? Its labour who did all the playing around with how the figures were added up. Job creation has been used as a statistic for a while - Gordon Brown loved using it. He just failed to mention that every job created under his reign as Chancellor went to non UK citizens.

grizzly1911

angrypirate wrote: »

He just failed to mention that every job created under his reign as Chancellor went to non UK citizens.

What is your source for this claim? Where is the evidence.?

ruggedtoast

It wasnt every job, but I think the date from 2012 was 3 out of every 4 new jobs to non UK people. I didnt see anything drilled down into this though, and as we know; the government's definition of "a job" is rather different to most people's so god knows what they actually ended up doing.

IronWolf

angrypirate wrote: »

Dont think the Tories actually changed the method of counting did they? Its labour who did all the playing around with how the figures were added up. Job creation has been used as a statistic for a while - Gordon Brown loved using it. He just failed to mention that every job created under his reign as Chancellor went to non UK citizens.

This is an internationally recognised way of measuring employment, set out by the International Labour Organisation, whether you agree with it or not, its not due to politicians massaging the figures.

Can't say I really agree with this definition of 'Employment' but its nothing new. Most statistics have some grey areas in them.

angrypirate

grizzly1911 wrote: »

What is your source for this claim? Where is the evidence.?

I saw it reported at the time. Cant remember the source. Cant be bothered to find it again. If you dont believe that the large majority of new jobs went to johnny foreigner then look it up yourself. Its another statistic that most labourites buried their head in the sand about.

Generali

Doesn't the ONS use the ILO method for describing employment and unemployment? If not to use the internationally agreed definition of employment and unemployment then what definition should be used? Let's be absolutely clear; there is no 'massaging' here as the UK's definition of employment (that is to use the current ILO definition) has not changed.

Should the ONS/ British Government push for a new standard definition or push ahead with creating a new statistic which isn't comparable internationally?

Lets not forget that unemployment figures are accurate to about 100,000 people (CBA to link again, it's on the ONS website) so the numbers are only just within statistical significance.

I wonder whether the Tories' main claim, that employment is at an all time high is still accurate. My guess is that it is hence The Guardian obfuscating and the OP dropping the Guardian's original claim entirely and concentrating on the 'controversy' alone.

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

I wonder whether the Tories' main claim, that employment is at an all time high is still accurate. My guess is that it is hence The Guardian obfuscating and the OP dropping the Guardian's original claim entirely and concentrating on the 'controversy' alone.

The statitical numbers are no doubt in accordance with the "rules" what is probably more significant is the type and mix of employment and unemployment.

Lower paid/low skilled, part time/temporary jobs v. permanent jobs with advancement opportunities. Leading to reduced tax revenue and higher welfare coasts for the same employment levels. 0 hour contracts.

Growing numbers of economically inactive people who don't register as unemployed. in the first place.

grizzly1911

angrypirate wrote: »

I saw it reported at the time. Cant remember the source. Cant be bothered to find it again. If you dont believe that the large majority of new jobs went to johnny foreigner then look it up yourself. Its another statistic that most labourites buried their head in the sand about.

If that is true what are the Conservatives doing to stem the flow?

Are they going to extend the ban on the new euro immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria? Are they looking to make it more difficult for Poles? They have had nearly three years to "correct" the position.

BertieUK

Generali wrote: »

I wonder whether the Tories' main claim, that employment is at an all time high is still accurate. My guess is that it is hence The Guardian obfuscating and the OP dropping the Guardian's original claim entirely and concentrating on the 'controversy' alone.

It would appear that the Guardian's obfuscating was very obfuscating.;)