Cynical ploy or reality?

grizzly1911

ukcarper wrote: »

People working part time who want to work full etc might not be unemployed or count to the unemployed figures. But they are a symptom and do make the unemployment figures look better than they are.

Depresses per capita GDP figures to - for what they are worth.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

just your definition of unemployment and not one of the normal accepted definitions or indeed very sensible

My definition was not citing one of the statistical measures. It was a statement of what unemployment is in my opinion. However, according to the ONS

Unemployment measures people without a job who have been actively seeking work within the last four weeks and are available to start work within the next two weeks.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_319808.pdf

My statement was that:

"unemployed" means not working but available to work

The difference is pure pedantry and irrelevant to the point I was making. By the ONS definition above it measures people who have no work. The point the TUC were making is that there are many more who are partially employed but available full time if such a job was available..

Please explain why my definition is not sensible.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

My definition was not citing one of the statistical measures. It was a statement of what unemployment is in my opinion. However, according to the ONS



My statement was that:



The difference is pure pedantry and irrelevant to the point I was making. By the ONS definition above it measures people who have no work. The point the TUC were making is that there are many more who are partially employed but available full time if such a job was available..

Please explain why my definition is not sensible.

I acknowledge there are a lot of definitions of unemployment and on reflection yours is indeed a valid one.

The fact they you include people who aren't looking for work even though they want it includes idiot youth that laze at home watching TV all day but if pressed and offered a job would accept.

However yes it is valid.

I acknowledge the TUC story as it's blindingly obvious that the ILO definition is but one of many.

Linda_D_2

Almost double at 5 million? The real figure is around 9 million and then there's another 9 million in part time jobs.

There's a huge percentage of the adult population who don't have full time time jobs.

Thrugelmir

Linda_D wrote: »

There's a huge percentage of the adult population who don't have full time time jobs.

Many people don't want full time work.

Linda_D_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Many people don't want full time work.

They get demonised by the government and public

CLAPTON

Linda_D wrote: »

They get demonised by the government and public

Everyone I know cares what their family and friends think; never heard anyone worry being demonised by either the government or public.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

Everyone I know cares what their family and friends think; never heard anyone worry being demonised by either the government or public.

I think they meant in terms of tax / benefits.

I know it's very difficult for someone to move to full time hours if they are on benefits etc, as policies make it sometimes impossible on lower paid jobs. They may want to work full time and do their best to do so, but depending on how many benefits they get and rent in their area, the system may make it impossible to do so.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....

I know it's very difficult for someone to move to full time hours if they are on benefits etc, as policies make it sometimes impossible on lower paid jobs. They may want to work full time and do their best to do so, but depending on how many benefits they get and rent in their area, the system may make it impossible to do so.

A rather interesting choice of words: "Impossible".

I guess you are talking about a general situation of someone working part time (say 16 hours) and taking home (say) £18K in net pay and benefits.... and who see a 35hr full time job available which gives net salary £18K, but the state benefits reduce to zero.

OK. We all understand the proposition 'Why work 35 hours when I get the same income by working 16?", but it doesn't make the full time option 'impossible'. It makes it superficially uneconomic. And it says something about the benefits system.

A few people, I think, faced with this proposition might still choose to work the full time route, for the following reasons:

1. Self-respect. Far better to think one is providing 100% for family without relying on state help...

2. The full time option may include additional benefits such as pension contributions...

3. There is a strong possibility that income from FT occupation may provide greater increases than the benefits option. Compounding effect would be quite lucrative over time...

4. When in FT employment, good workers have substantial further opportunities for promotion or a far better CV ultimately commanding better opportunities elsewhere....

Assuming an able bodied person, either not working or only working part time, do you condone a benefits system that provides continuous income equal to, or greater than, the individual's income if he worked full time?

black_taxi_2

if we all put in tax returns like the unemployment data we would all be in jail