Unemployment falls again to 2.5m (or 7.8%)

Thrugelmir

Intangibles are better represented by items such as goodwill. The value paid above the net asset value of a business for brand names etc.

Intangibles are capitalised on the balance sheet and written off over many years.

A way of inflating a Companys value.

MacMickster

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Good news overall.


Long term unemployed has also fallen, which is brilliant news. Wonder how much of an impact workfare had, considering people found themselves having to do something anyway?[url][/url]

Well the Public Accounts Committee seem to think that it has actually had a negative effect, which is fairly extraordinary

A multi-billion-pound scheme to help long-term unemployed people into work has been branded extremely poor by MPs.

The government's Work Programme only managed to get 3.6% of the people on the scheme off benefits and into secure employment in its first 14 months, the Public Accounts Committee said.

The government said it was "early days" for the scheme and the committee's report had painted a "skewed picture".

But Labour said the programme was "worse than doing nothing".

The 3.6% of claimants on the scheme who had moved off benefits into sustained employment between June 2011 and July 2012, was a mark well below the target of 11.9% that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) expected to achieve, the MPs said.

The committee's report pointed out that it was also below the official estimate of how many of those claimants would have found work anyway if the programme had never been launched.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21532191

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Intangibles are better represented by items such as goodwill. The value paid above the net asset value of a business for brand names etc.

Intangibles are capitalised on the balance sheet and written off over many years.

A way of inflating a Companys value.

I'm clearly going to have to read up on this. As I say I'm not an accountant.

Many have tried to explain accountancy to me. Then I fall asleep and when I awake there's a small pile of accounting on my pillow and a brain that is once again free of accounting.

!!!!!!, I got my head round the rules of trading and settlement in Greece so I should be able to cope with a little light accounting. Nope.

N1AK

MacMickster wrote: »

Well the Public Accounts Committee seem to think that it has actually had a negative effect, which is fairly extraordinary

Good spot MacMickster; it would be interesting to see someone reasonably independent look at whether the governments original estimates were nonsense or whether it was plausible but they failed to achieve it.

Even as someone who supports the sort of logic Workfare is based upon I can't see success figures like that and not wonder if it functional or not.

MacMickster

N1AK wrote: »

Good spot MacMickster; it would be interesting to see someone reasonably independent look at whether the governments original estimates were nonsense or whether it was plausible but they failed to achieve it.

Even as someone who supports the sort of logic Workfare is based upon I can't see success figures like that and not wonder if it functional or not.

My thoughts exactly. I agree that we need to get the long-term unemployed back to work, but I have no dogmatic view about how that should be achieved.

I always go back to the famous Roosevelt approach to a problem...

"Do something. If it works do more of it. If it doesn't do something else."

The work programme isn't working, so do something else.

N1AK

MacMickster wrote: »

My thoughts exactly. I agree that we need to get the long-term unemployed back to work, but I have no dogmatic view about how that should be achieved.

I always go back to the famous Roosevelt approach to a problem...

"Do something. If it works do more of it. If it doesn't do something else."

The work programme isn't working, so do something else.

My understanding of the scheme is that the private companies people are referred to are paid mostly based on results so a lower rate doesn't automatically make it less cost effective. The article also doesn't mention drop out rates which, if I understand correctly, can lead to benefits being withdrawn. Finally there is a question regarding how quickly, and how much, the success rate can increase; my understanding is that the target figure wasn't specifically for the first year.

On that basis I see nothing wrong with continuing it and refining it for some people while testing other solutions. We're a big enough country with enough unemployed that trying out multiple solutions shouldn't be beyond us