90 Bed Shops Shut Down-400 More Jobs Go

smamst

I'm not quite understanding the point of these threads started and endorsed by the local Liebour evangelists in this forum like DLW and Woodbine.

Didn't two huge British companies called Woolworths and MFI go bust on Liebour's watch?

Moby

woodbine wrote: »

go on tell us how many of those 30m are under employed? i.e working part time when they want/need/should be working full time?and how many have taken up self employment to escape the dole?and are due to poor funding doomed to failure

The figures lack any credibility anyway. This Govmt is continually reclassifying individuals.

Generali

woodbine wrote: »

go on tell us how many of those 30m are under employed? i.e working part time when they want/need/should be working full time?and how many have taken up self employment to escape the dole?and are due to poor funding doomed to failure

About 3 million unemployed according to the ONS. That you feel that so many self employed people are doomed to fail I think says more about you than them.

Still the fact remains that now there are more people employed than ever before in the history of Great Britain.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
Still the fact remains that now there are more people employed than ever before in the history of Great Britain.

And yet tax income receipts fail to cover our expenditure by quite a large margin.

Perhaps counting job numbers is not enough.

We need to measure the average income levels of jobs lost and those gained to truly understand patterns.

Our state benefit system does support flexible in/out work situations I think; but I am worried that some employers might seek to exploit specific aspects (e.g zero hours contracts).

Conrad

kabayiri wrote: »

I am worried that some employers might seek to exploit specific aspects (e.g zero hours contracts).

Very much the inevitable consequence of Labours boom in employee centric rules and regs and the litigation culture.

It's just too risky taking people on with normal contracts. Business is there as a shared endeavour to generate moeny for employees and owners. All that other Labour social engineering stuff is a drag on business and makes it less, ermmm fun to be frank. Sure some employers naturally want to offer such things but it should not be mandatory.

lessonlearned

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Expensive and slow delivery relative to competitors.

Surprised they lasted so long.

Exactly. Awful products, outrageously expensive for the (lack of) quality, long delivery dates.

Companies that can't compete, won't. They will fail. It has precious little to do with which colour of government just happens to be in power. It's the business model that fails.

Woollies, HMV etc were the same. They did not evolve to keep up with the times. They did not give satisfaction to their customers so their customers stopped buying.

Please your customers or go out of business. There are plenty of businesses who are still doing well. They have adapted and therefore thrived.

Businesses can't just keep on blaming the economy, the recessions, the government, global competition, the weather or whatever is this week's convenient excuse.

Too many businesses milked the consumer during the good times and they got lazy. If businesses want to survive and thrive then they need to sharpen their acts.

We may not like Amazon, the big 4 supermarkets, the £1 shops etc but they have all realised that they need to give the customers what they want if they are to stay in business.

Woollies should have survived. They were the original pioneers of "pile it high and sell it cheap". They forgot their customer base and lost their way so they went to the wall.

HMV didn't adapt to the new reality of the music world - they were a dinosaur so they became extinct.

Likewise the bed shops. Shoddy goods, high prices, poor service. They didn't deserve our business.

coastline

Conrad wrote: »

Very much the inevitable consequence of Labours boom in employee centric rules and regs and the litigation culture.

It's just too risky taking people on with normal contracts. Business is there as a shared endeavour to generate moeny for employees and owners. All that other Labour social engineering stuff is a drag on business and makes it less, ermmm fun to be frank. Sure some employers naturally want to offer such things but it should not be mandatory.

People who had " normal contracts " don't now in many cases.
Think whats meant here is big companies are re employing staff part time...part time meaning a few hours and we'll ring you up if we need you.
Thats classed as employed and another off the dole numbers depite them still claiming benefits.
Ask women who work in retail how they operate...and they'll be working for the big high street names who can afford it.
Just to add something about this link that was posted earlier..
Cameron claims theres been 1 million jobs created...yet when you look at the chart 29.1m jobs mid 2010 election time and 29.7m now...thats 600,000.
On top of that 200,000 were transferred from the public to the private sector...making that only 400,000 jobs since the election.
The bloke needs to learn how to count..;)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282007/At-new-jobs-filled-British-workers-thanks-stricter-immigration-policies.html

grizzly1911

coastline wrote: »

People who had " normal contracts " don't now in many cases.
Think whats meant here is big companies are re employing staff part time...part time meaning a few hours and we'll ring you up if we need you.
Thats classed as employed and another off the dole numbers depite them still claiming benefits.
Ask women who work in retail how they operate...and they'll be working for the big high street names who can afford it.

If they work less than 16 hours a week on roughly NMW then their is no NI (employee or employer) paid AIUI. So not only are they potentially able to claim benefit there is no contribution to state coffers either. 2 x P/Time workers gives no contribution whereas 1 full time would.

Graham_Devon

kabayiri wrote: »

And yet tax income receipts fail to cover our expenditure by quite a large margin.

Perhaps counting job numbers is not enough.

We need to measure the average income levels of jobs lost and those gained to truly understand patterns.

Our state benefit system does support flexible in/out work situations I think; but I am worried that some employers might seek to exploit specific aspects (e.g zero hours contracts).

Pay is also falling, as those unemployed move into part time jobs etc.

It's a crude measure to simply look at the unemployment numbers. For one, increasing the school leaving age removes a whole years worth of possibilities out of the unemployment figures at the drop of a hat.

IronWolf

coastline wrote: »

People who had " normal contracts " don't now in many cases.
Think whats meant here is big companies are re employing staff part time...part time meaning a few hours and we'll ring you up if we need you.
Thats classed as employed and another off the dole numbers depite them still claiming benefits.
Ask women who work in retail how they operate...and they'll be working for the big high street names who can afford it.
Just to add something about this link that was posted earlier..
Cameron claims theres been 1 million jobs created...yet when you look at the chart 29.1m jobs mid 2010 election time and 29.7m now...thats 600,000.
On top of that 200,000 were transferred from the public to the private sector...making that only 400,000 jobs since the election.
The bloke needs to learn how to count..;)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282007/At-new-jobs-filled-British-workers-thanks-stricter-immigration-policies.html

You forgot the job losses in the public sector.

Maybe you should learn how to count