So How's the Job Market Doing?

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

It's not for ever - things are picking up.

It may not be forever it will just seem like that for a very long time.

sammyjammy

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Steria has been as the preferred bidder for running a number of Shared Service facilities within the BIS family. The most significant being the DWP. In 2015 this will result in a significant transfer of headcount from public to private sector.

DWP staff from Shared Services have already transferred to Steria, it was brought forward and the transfer of staff and responsibility for those Services happened in November.

[Deleted User]

my BIL has been out of work in yorkshire for 15 months now despite applying for everything and anything on a daily basis and very few interviews,he is fully trained in his field(but will do anything)and at 48 this is his first time out of work for more than a week
the figures are massaged by the number of zero hour jobs,the draconian jsa staff who can take you off the figures for bad breath,and the 2 million people working part time that are desperate for full time work

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just reality. Apologies.

I'm wasted here. Your friend works an a creamery....hard cheddar....sour cream.....

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

........I personally know of an ex public sector employee (full time) who is now working in a creamery attaching lids to pots for 11 hours a week. So on paper, she's got a job. Thats grand. In terms of where she is, she's 10x worse off.

That's difficult to top.

[Sorry Graham. You don't recognise puns do you?]

As one who constantly tries to read, understand, and mull over your interesting posts, I was confused by your last paragraph above.

Now the term "better off" has different meanings. If I earn £30,000, and spend £20,000 then I have £10,000 left over.

If I asked a hundred people to specify what I mean by being twice as well off, even then I'd get different answers. Some would say £60,000 income, while others would say £40,000 income (giving £20,000 surplus).

Now the concept of being ten times worse off is very intriguing. Mathematically this is a concept I have never heard. It's the same thing as saying something is 'ten times slower'. Or ten times quieter. Until you know what 'slow' or 'quiet' actually is, exhibiting a multiple degree of 'slowness' is not something I understand. A fractional degree would make perfect sense. [e.g. half the volume, one third the speed].

Can we take it that you mean her 11 hours a week brings home one tenth of the 37 hour public sector job?

I promise that from now on, when I take the lid off my Sainsbury Gooseberry Fool, I will have a lot more respect for the people who created it. I simply hadn't realised their jobs were 'on paper'.

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

That's difficult to top.

[Sorry Graham. You don't recognise puns do you?]

As one who constantly tries to read, understand, and mull over your interesting posts, I was confused by your last paragraph above.

Now the term "better off" has different meanings. If I earn £30,000, and spend £20,000 then I have £10,000 left over.

If I asked a hundred people to specify what I mean by being twice as well off, even then I'd get different answers. Some would say £60,000 income, while others would say £40,000 income (giving £20,000 surplus).

Now the concept of being ten times worse off is very intriguing. Mathematically this is a concept I have never heard. It's the same thing as saying something is 'ten times slower'. Or ten times quieter. Until you know what 'slow' or 'quiet' actually is, exhibiting a multiple degree of 'slowness' is not something I understand. A fractional degree would make perfect sense. [e.g. half the volume, one third the speed].

Can we take it that you mean her 11 hours a week brings home one tenth of the 37 hour public sector job?

I promise that from now on, when I take the lid off my Sainsbury Gooseberry Fool, I will have a lot more respect for the people who created it. I simply hadn't realised their jobs were 'on paper'.

C'mon Monkey - it's been bothering me for years that we are constantly being told that something is, say, 30% cheaper than it used to be etc etc. But I thought that I would be branded as a pedant if I were to bring it up in conversation.

TruckerT

grizzly1911

TruckerT wrote: »

C'mon Monkey - it's been bothering me for years that we are constantly being told that something is, say, 30% cheaper than it used to be etc etc. But I thought that I would be branded as a pedant if I were to bring it up in conversation.

TruckerT

Or when offers say something like 55% off double glazing or 25% off tyres when you don't have a clue what the base price is. or it is made up to suit the job.

At least with some goods you know it has been consistently sold at a given price for a long time.

TruckerT

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Or when offers say something like 55% off double glazing or 25% off tyres when you don't have a clue what the base price is. or it is made up to suit the job.

At least with some goods you know it has been consistently sold at a given price for a long time.

I remember seeing an advert once which said that their prices were twice as cheap as the nearest competition. !!!!!! does that mean?

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey

TruckerT wrote: »

C'mon Monkey - it's been bothering me for years that we are constantly being told that something is, say, 30% cheaper than it used to be etc etc. But I thought that I would be branded as a pedant if I were to bring it up in conversation.

TruckerT

TruckerT wrote: »

I remember seeing an advert once which said that their prices were twice as cheap as the nearest competition. !!!!!! does that mean?

TruckerT

Pedantry is my middle name.

I believe "30% Cheaper" is perfectly valid. As would be "10% Dearer".

But "twice as cheap" is just as meaningless as "10 times worse off".

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.

The word "Cheap" on the other hand, has no such reference and is therefore unquantifiable. To be a multiple of (or a fraction of) an unquantifiable amount or value is therefore equally unquantifiable.

I hope this makes things 3 times clearer.

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Pedantry is my middle name.

I believe "30% Cheaper" is perfectly valid. As would be "10% Dearer".

But "twice as cheap" is just as meaningless as "10 times worse off".

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.

The word "Cheap" on the other hand, has no such reference and is therefore unquantifiable. To be a multiple of (or a fraction of) an unquantifiable amount or value is therefore equally unquantifiable.

I hope this makes things 3 times clearer.

So if something is on sale for £1, and is advertised as being a third cheaper than the previous week, then what would have been it's earlier price?

And how about 'Almost Half Price'?

TruckerT