Workless Households - Lowest on Record

Dunroamin

Masomnia wrote: »

AFAIK students can count as unemployed if they're not working but are looking for work.

You can't be both a full time student and unemployed, the one cancels out the other.

pink_princess

I really didn't realise that Such a large percentage of households had nobody employed

the_flying_pig

of all the many 'government' stats that there are, unemployment figures are the ones that I take with the biggest pinch of salt.

they're just about the most political number out there & up there with the most vulnerable in terms of changing definitions & whatnot.

Loughton_Monkey

the_flying_pig wrote: »

of all the many 'government' stats that there are, unemployment figures are the ones that I take with the biggest pinch of salt.

they're just about the most political number out there & up there with the most vulnerable in terms of changing definitions & whatnot.

You can always tell an 'honest' minister, because he will claim an ambition to reduce 'unemployment figures'. Reducing unemployment itself is an entirely different matter.

I strongly suggest that there was once a drive to reduce "Immigration Figures" which was easily achieved by getting Customs not to count them.

chewmylegoff

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.

Going on the definitions they use, the effect of more 16 year olds being in education should increase the number of non-working and mixed households.

If you are in education you are not working. These statistics are not prepared on the same basis as the unemployment stats where they exclude people in education. They are looking at working households (all adults 16-64 in work); mixed households (at least one adult in work, one not); workless (all adults not in work).

Linda_D_2

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

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....

There's always the workshy.

Loughton_Monkey

Linda_D wrote: »

There's always the workshy.

Indeed there are. But they can't afford to retire 10 years early.

Linda_D_2

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Indeed there are. But they can't afford to retire 10 years early.

I take it that you do voluntary work now?

Loughton_Monkey

Linda_D wrote: »

I take it that you do voluntary work now?

I leave that primarily to Mrs LM. Now that I'm retired, I do very little that would come under the heading 'work'. That was the plan. I can thoroughly recommend it....

Linda_D_2

As I said, there's always the workshy.