So How's the Job Market Doing?

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

The word 'Cheaper' has a very clear definition and refers without any ambiguity to being lower in price than a reference article. The 30% defines precicely by how much.

It only means anything if you know the reference price and how that relates to other comparable items. Items that have to be custom made are open to price abuse.

Another item I buy is a branded dry dog food. I buy it online and one supplier is consistently the cheapest and that includes shipping (30kgs). Many other sites claim to have offers,discounts ' x% less"real" price is. In a local chain pet store it is considerably higher and a local feed store another high but different price.

Generali

Road_Hog wrote: »

The reality of those jobs.


http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/exclusive-how-jobcentre-plus-statistics-are-being-inflated-to-support-osbornes-economic-growth-fiction/

Really? You reckon that Markit, who make their money and reputation by selling data, understand the employment market less than some geezer with a keyboard. Interesting standpoint.

If employment and wages are increasing according to an independent body (the ONS) and Some Bloke reckons they're decreasing then my money's on the former, especially given that all the other obvious signs of growth (PMIs, house prices, GDP) are also increasing.

I can go on to Google and find countless twits with too much time on their hands making all sorts of counter-intuitive arguments but a link doesn't make you right, it just means you have a link.

tomterm8

Personally, I think the jobs market is great as long as you are not long term unemployed.

I think that there are a substantial number of people who lost their job at the start of the recession who no longer have any chance of getting work again and who are perhaps not counted in the unemployment figures because they are no longer economically active.

And, I think most of the unemployment figures aren't worth the paper they are written on because they are manipulated to within an inch of their life by self-employed working tax credits, workfair schemes, and all sorts of other measures that hide structural unemployment behind other labels.

That's not unique to the conservatives; it's what UK governments have been doing for years.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Really? You reckon that Markit, who make their money and reputation by selling data, understand the employment market less than some geezer with a keyboard. Interesting standpoint.

If employment and wages are increasing according to an independent body (the ONS) and Some Bloke reckons they're decreasing then my money's on the former, especially given that all the other obvious signs of growth (PMIs, house prices, GDP) are also increasing.

I can go on to Google and find countless twits with too much time on their hands making all sorts of counter-intuitive arguments but a link doesn't make you right, it just means you have a link.

It's not just a link.

Try going to the jobcentre plus website and searching for the ads yourself.

What they say is absolutely true. The pages are also full of "home working" spam jobs, all which point back to the same place. Those will be counted as "positions available". But they are not available at all.

You might call these people countless twits, or whatever other insult you want to throw at them.....but they are, in part at least, right, as we can all try it ourselves.

House prices etc are increasing due to extra lending. They are harldy increasing on wages, running at 0.8% growth over the year.

tomterm8

I don't think anyone who actually uses the universal jobsmatch to get a job *wants* a job. I can see people using it to fulfill their jobseekers agreement.

But no one with half a brain cell to rub together would use it seriously.

Any real employer runs a mile from it; it's terrible, and people who apply for jobs using it do so just because they are mandated to by the government. Hundreds of crappy job applications for each position, the vast majority of them not even wanting the job.

Generali

tomterm8 wrote: »

Personally, I think the jobs market is great as long as you are not long term unemployed.

Agree. That's always the case it's just that after a recession you get more in that category. I spent 6 months unemployed and then a period underemployed and it's very hard.

tomterm8 wrote: »

I think that there are a substantial number of people who lost their job at the start of the recession who no longer have any chance of getting work again and who are perhaps not counted in the unemployment figures because they are no longer economically active.

Correct but then they also won't be counted in the 'employed' numbers either, nor will they be contributing much to GDP. Both of those seem to be rising quickly,

tomterm8 wrote: »

And, I think most of the unemployment figures aren't worth the paper they are written on because they are manipulated to within an inch of their life by self-employed working tax credits, workfair schemes, and all sorts of other measures that hide structural unemployment behind other labels.

Indeed. That's why, IMHO, it's also important to look at the rest of the data to see what they say. If unemployment is falling along with employment then clearly something else is going on. So what's going on with employment?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/unemployment-falls-99-000-four-low-093905655.html#OIgQbpq

The number of people in work was 30.09 million, an increase of 250,000 over the quarter and of almost half a million compared with a year ago.

Hmm. Unemployment down, GDP up, employment up, asset prices (e.g. house prices) up. That's all very consistent.

I realise that the thought that the British economy could be in any way good is an anathema to many posters but things are really starting to boom.

tomterm8

Generali wrote: »

I realise that the thought that the British economy could be in any way good is an anathema to many posters but things are really starting to boom.

At this stage after a recession of the depth and magnitude we experienced, I would expect very rapid GDP growth indeed. We must have an output gap in excess of 15% by now, at least compared to the original trend.

I think the recovery is still very fragile, but I expect gdp growth and unemployment to be significantly better next quarter and next year than the current forecasts.

That's what *should* happen, as long as the conservative government carry on their current policy of real terms government spending increases and no austerity.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not just a link.

Try going to the jobcentre plus website and searching for the ads yourself.

What they say is absolutely true. The pages are also full of "home working" spam jobs, all which point back to the same place. Those will be counted as "positions available". But they are not available at all.

You might call these people countless twits, or whatever other insult you want to throw at them.....but they are, in part at least, right, as we can all try it ourselves.

House prices etc are increasing due to extra lending. They are harldy increasing on wages, running at 0.8% growth over the year.

I can think of worse insults than twit, and I can even spell them.

It's hard to see what evidence you want to show that the British economy is getting better:

- Unemployment down
- Employment up
- Wages increasing (albeit still behind inflation)
- Inflation low
- Interest rates low

The local paper in the very nice part of the Home Counties where I was brought up was also full of home working jobs in the 1990s. What did that signify in economic terms? Nothing.

What you fail to realise, don't want to understand or are just trolling about is that pretty much every single economic indicator is now running contrary to your argument. You just have it wrong.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

I can think of worse insults than twit, and I can even spell them.

It's hard to see what evidence you want to show that the British economy is getting better:

- Unemployment down
- Employment up
- Wages increasing (albeit still behind inflation)
- Inflation low
- Interest rates low

The local paper in the very nice part of the Home Counties where I was brought up was also full of home working jobs in the 1990s. What did that signify in economic terms? Nothing.

What you fail to realise, don't want to understand or are just trolling about is that pretty much every single economic indicator is now running contrary to your argument. You just have it wrong.

Put the handbag away for a second. Picking up on grammatical errors is surely below you.

No one has it "right" or "wrong". For you to suggest I have it wrong, suggets you think you have it right.

Theres so much conflicting information out there, and so much to back up either side, it's hard to define what is responsible for the growth of late.

I may well have it wrong, but I can't ignore reports of record increases in credit card debt and instead simply assume everyone is suddenly richer.

If you are just going to sit there and throw silly insults around, I think it's best I simply let you get on with it.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Theres so much conflicting information out there, and so much to back up either side, it's hard to define what is responsible for the growth of late.

There isn't conflicting information out there, the information basically all points in the same direction.