We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Doubt on coalition's '500,000 new jobs' claim
Comments
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »Growing numbers of economically inactive people who don't register as unemployed. in the first place.
Correct. That's because economically inactive people aren't necessarily unemployed, they're economically inactive.
Someone who is doing a self supported (or Mummy supported) degree or is a stay at home Mum or is retired isn't unemployed, they are not economically active. That's why there are 2 different things measured: there are 2 different things to measure.
Why do you think there are more economically inactive people today than at some other times? I suspect it's linked, in part to the economy being crap, in part to there being more retired people and in part to there being more students.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »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.
Just out of interest, have you tried actually looking up the data?
If you provided some numbers this stuff might be a bit more credible:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html
HTH0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »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.
They can't because Europe-obsessed Clegg won't let them do anything radical to break free from damaging EU requirements in this Parliament. If the problem posed by Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants is as dire as the worse predictions would have it it could be a deal-maker or deal-breaker, whichever way you want to look at it, when it comes to some sort of referendum on Europe. The Eurosceptics maybe figure that it would be worth having the problem in order to swing the vote, and I would agree with that.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
If you want to know how bad the job situation is in the UK you just have to try and find one.
Few people are hiring, salaries seem to be falling back to 2006 levels and people who have jobs are clinging onto them.
The jobs page in my local paper isnt even an entire page anymore, and a third of what is there is people advertising themselves.0 -
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.
I remember seeing Frank Field being interviewed on television not so long back.
He was quite matter of fact in his statement : over a 5 year period 3m jobs had been created, and there had been an influx of 3m economic migrants.
I don't think he had any protectionist bias behind his statement. You could argue that a core European goal was free movement of labour. This is possibly direct evidence of that free movement in operation.
The issue is, we aren't comfortable with accepting the knock-on economic consequences, namely a largeish economically inactive segment of the workforce.0 -
The issue is, we aren't comfortable with accepting the knock-on economic consequences, namely a largeish economically inactive segment of the workforce.
I agree with you and have made the same point here previously where I was told immigration doesn't have a knock on effect to the "home" work force."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Just out of interest, have you tried actually looking up the data?
If you provided some numbers this stuff might be a bit more credible:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html
HTH
Yes I have looked a certain subsets of statistics both from the ONS and various economic platforms.
Between August to October 2007 and August to October 2012:
•
The number of people in full-time employment
fell
by 421,000,
•
The number of people in part-time employment
increased
by 709,000,
•
The number of unemployed people
increased
by 879,000,
•
The number of economically inactive people, aged from 16 to 64,
fell
by 52,000.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_287888.pdf
I did provide you with another link on the long term increase in the economically inactive.
So are you saying it isn't happening. It seems to be widely accepted in the UK media and a number of posters/threads here.
Quite happy to grow trawling but are you certain it isn't the case ."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Correct. That's because economically inactive people aren't necessarily unemployed, they're economically inactive.
Someone who is doing a self supported (or Mummy supported) degree or is a stay at home Mum or is retired isn't unemployed, they are not economically active. That's why there are 2 different things measured: there are 2 different things to measure.
Why do you think there are more economically inactive people today than at some other times? I suspect it's linked, in part to the economy being crap, in part to there being more retired people and in part to there being more students.
Retired aren't in the 9million.
The point is if they are economically inactive, then their contribution to the tax pot will be lower than if they are employed, regardless of how they are classified."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Thats the one. Although i thought it was 2m not 3m.I remember seeing Frank Field being interviewed on television not so long back.
He was quite matter of fact in his statement : over a 5 year period 3m jobs had been created, and there had been an influx of 3m economic migrants.
I don't think he had any protectionist bias behind his statement. You could argue that a core European goal was free movement of labour. This is possibly direct evidence of that free movement in operation.
The issue is, we aren't comfortable with accepting the knock-on economic consequences, namely a largeish economically inactive segment of the workforce.0 -
angrypirate wrote: »Thats the one. Although i thought it was 2m not 3m.
The trouble is there appears to be a lot more free movement into the UK than out of it. The reason for that is that many of the "economically inactive" are unemployable here, let alone abroad.
If a superior alien race came and took over the world and decided to take responsibility for the husbandry of the human race, they would cull us -- and they'd probably start in the UK.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards