Unemployment down 57,000

quantic

Ok, hypercritically lets do an experiment:

Of the 9,040,000 Economically Inactive, lets look at discouraged workers (1%), and other (9%)... so that gives you 904,000 in addition to the 2,510,000 in the unemployed category.

That gives a total of 3,414,000. This doesn't even take into account that some of the Long Term sick have likely slipped through the cracks and are actually able to work.

A good chunk of the "students" will have actually only gone back to study because they have struggled to find work for so long so should really be considered unemployed also.

I think your probably talking (at a crude guess) of having a more realistic unemployment figure of around 3.5-4m.

nomoreboomandbust

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There have been 4 million working age immigrants since the last time unemployment was high in a recession.

There are currently 1.5 million fewer unemployed than at the depth of the last recession.

If immigrants steal native jobs, why don't we have an extra 4 million unemployed?

Don't know where you get that figure from, official unemployment peaked at over 3 million jan/feb 1993, so that should be nearer 0.5 million, and the unemployment figures in this crisis may not have reached 3 million but it certainly seems a lot harder finding a job now than back in 1993, as in the sheer number of people applying for any vacancy that comes up.

Conrad

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Help to Buy and FFL are the first thing he's managed to not screw up so far. And we've yet to see if he'll manage to not screw up the second, more important, phase of help to buy.

We're fairing pretty good in comparison with France, Italy, Spain et al and I put this down to the many dozens of quiet but effective Government measures that underpin enterprise.

Initially splashing out masses more money goes down well with left wing intellectuals that have never created a dime of wealth in their lives.

Conrad

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not just me.....

The body of research and evidence confirming my position is significant.


http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/090112_163827.pdf

And....




And just for you Clapton....



http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration

All incredibly dry and naïve, what I would expect from these organisations.

Do you not meet many builders, cabbies and tillers that found themselves up against new competition from about 2004?

antrobus

quantic wrote: »

I know that, I was more getting at the fact that the decrease in unemployment seems to be a lot about relabeling them as economically inactive instead of becoming employed.

Employment is up '336,000 on the year' unemployment is down '72,000 on the year'. If the numbers of the economically inactive have also increased that might simply mean that there are more people.

Of course, I suspect that the numbers of those that are economically inactive are effected by general economic conditions.

quantic

antrobus wrote: »

Employment is up '336,000 on the year' unemployment is down '72,000 on the year'. If the numbers of the economically inactive have also increased that might simply mean that there are more people.

Of course, I suspect that the numbers of those that are economically inactive are effected by general economic conditions.

Shame they don't give us figures like, unemployment is down 72k, of that 42k went into employment and 30k became classified as economically inactive.

antrobus

quantic wrote: »

Ok, hypercritically lets do an experiment:

Of the 9,040,000 Economically Inactive, lets look at discouraged workers (1%), and other (9%)... so that gives you 904,000 in addition to the 2,510,000 in the unemployed category.

That gives a total of 3,414,000. This doesn't even take into account that some of the Long Term sick have likely slipped through the cracks and are actually able to work.

A good chunk of the "students" will have actually only gone back to study because they have struggled to find work for so long so should really be considered unemployed also.

I think your probably talking (at a crude guess) of having a more realistic unemployment figure of around 3.5-4m.

The ONS uses the standard definition of unemployment as agreed by the International Labour Organisation. You are at liberty to use your own definition if you want, but I'm not quite sure what the point would be.

kabayiri

The biggest concern for me would be the rise in Long Term unemployed.

On a simple economic level it is expensive to put these people on programs to get them ready for the workplace. From looking at the data they tend to need a lot of assistance, and success rates at finding employment are still low. Problems with literacy and language are commonplace.

Things will change, but not overnight.

This might sound harsh, but is it worth throwing a lot of state money at all unemployed, is it not better to target those with genuine potential?

lisyloo

This might sound harsh, but is it worth throwing a lot of state money at all unemployed, is it not better to target those with genuine potential?

It's a good question.
Won't there always be a % of society who for various reasons just aren't ever going to be employable?

rabbit_burrow

JSA might be down showing unemployment as down, but they haven't said about other benefits.

If those 'unemployed' have become part-time employed, they may well be claiming income support/extra tax credits/extra working tax credits/housing benefit/council tax support etc.

Sorry, but when the gov boast about the unemployment rate being lower (backed up by showing a decline in JSA claimants) I am very sceptical about the rest. Unless they can honestly show that unemployment is down, and ALL benefits are down, then I won't believe the hot-air that comes out of their mouth via their backside.