Workless Households - Lowest on Record

Rinoa

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23862993

The proportion of UK households where no adult aged 16 to 64 is in work is at its lowest since comparable records began in 1996, official figures show.
The Office for National Statistics said there were 3.5 million such households in the UK between April and June this year, about 17.1% of all households.
This was down from 3.7 million, or 17.9%, a year earlier.
The highest percentage of workless households was in the north east of England.

Interesting. Is govt. policy forcing people into work? If so, that's excellent news.

Masomnia

Wow that really is fantastic news.

I know people will say they're all part time and zero hours contracts, but it's still a big step forward and those jobs work for a lot of people.

Loughton_Monkey

Well I and Mrs Loughton Monkey are included here. Had I not early-retired, then it would have been even lower at 3,499,998.

I'm not looking for work so it is even better news.

... large gin & tonics all round....

Mallotum_X

Whilst on the face of it this is good news. However how many of these people take home a wage they can live on without benefit top ups etc.

wotsthat

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Whilst on the face of it this is good news. However how many of these people take home a wage they can live on without benefit top ups etc.

If people are starting to make a contribution to their own living costs then that should reduce taxpayer burden.

Over time they'll get pay rises, bonuses, overtime and be able to afford stuff they couldn't before and generally wish they'd turned to work earlier.

chewmylegoff

Rinoa wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23862993

Interesting. Is govt. policy forcing people into work? If so, that's excellent news.

It could be. Alternatively govt policy could be forcing people who don't work into higher density housing, with working households becoming smaller in to the bargain. (It is notable that there was a large decrease in the number of single occupancy households where the occupant doesn't work).

I should point out that neither is a bad thing in my view.

Loughton_Monkey

Mallotum_X wrote: »

......However how many of these people take home a wage they can live on without benefit top ups etc.

Good question!

Q "How many of these people take home a wage they can live on without benefit top ups etc."
A "Probably about 99%"


Q "How many of these people take home a wage they can live the life they would like to lead without benefit top ups etc."
A "Probably very few."

I once tried an experiment to see if I could live without a telephone, mobile phone, car, computer, any alcohol in the house, television, holidays, or eating in restaurants.

All of this was in a one-bedroom rented flat.

Strangely, I found it to be perfectly possible. Even on a low wage. The thing is, though, I didn't really know it was an 'experiment'. I had just left university and naively thought I was simply... er... 'living'.

Graham_Devon

Well it's a conundrum at least. Theres got to be some data which can make sense of it all.

But the basic issue here is that we have the lowest number of workless households on record, but higher unemployment overall?

Education may be one factor. Firstly the mandatory extra year in school has got to have an impact, and it's impact would have been this year. Secondly, more and more are signing up to courses, which removes them from the unemployed figures but keeps them on benefits.

Don't have any figures to hand, but the amount in education was also at a record not too long back. It doesn't necessarily mean people are earning a wage.

Not saying any of the above is the case, just looking at what could have caused the results, and the extra years education will have quite a large impact I would assume, as the figures look at 16-64 year olds.

ALL 16 year olds will now be in education. So it really needs to look at 17-64 year olds.

Dunroamin

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well it's a conundrum at least. Theres got to be some data which can make sense of it all.

But the basic issue here is that we have the lowest number of workless households on record, but higher unemployment overall?

Education may be one factor. Firstly the mandatory extra year in school has got to have an impact, and it's impact would have been this year. Secondly, more and more are signing up to courses, which removes them from the unemployed figures but keeps them on benefits.

Don't have any figures to hand, but the amount in education was also at a record not too long back. It doesn't necessarily mean people are earning a wage.

Not saying any of the above is the case, just looking at what could have caused the results, and the extra years education will have quite a large impact I would assume, as the figures look at 16-64 year olds.

ALL 16 year olds will now be in education. So it really needs to look at 17-64 year olds.

Not so. They have to be in education or training, which includes jobs with a training element involved.

Graham_Devon

Dunroamin wrote: »

Not so. They have to be in education or training, which includes jobs with a training element involved.

Ok, should have said education or training.

Still doesn't alter the fact that a whole years worth of people have been removed from ever being able to hit the unemployment figures.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well it's a conundrum at least. Theres got to be some data which can make sense of it all.

But the basic issue here is that we have the lowest number of workless households on record, but higher unemployment overall?.....

Household is one thing Individual is another.
Chalk is one thing. Cheese is another.