Unemployment falls to 7.4%

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So then what are you getting worked up about?

Things are getting better. More people are employed full time, more people are employed part time or getting training, fewer people are unemployed.

If your argument is that there's still some way to go, and further improvements to be had, nobody is disagreeing with you....

I'm not getting "worked up" about anything. Another made up bit of nonsense in order to ditract from everything written.

When unemployment starts increasing, and you are delving in to the numbers to state it's actually better than it seems, I'll remind you of this thread.

My honest opinion? Were arguing for arguments sake. I've often found the very worst forum faux par to some appears to be agreeing with "the other side", so an argument WILL be found, even if that argument simply involves making stuff up.

antrobus

dktreesea wrote: »

...Employment as a whole may be increasing, but part time work is increasing at a faster rate than overall employment. ...

From the ONS Labour Market Survey:-

for Aug-Oct 2013; Total people working full-time 21,942, Total people working part-time 8,144

for Aug-Oct 2012; Total people working full-time 21,482, Total people working part-time 8,119

Full time employment up 2.14%, part-time up 0.31%.

dktreesea wrote: »

...Both of these factors suggest that, while overall employment maybe increasing, the ability of those employed people to be self sufficient and support themselves is decreasing over time...

Your conclusion is not supported by LMS data.

dktreesea wrote: »

....Here's something from the Labour Market Statistics for 2013. The number of unpaid workers and workers on various government work schemes is at a record high. for the 3 months to September 2013, the number of unpaid workers was up by over 10,000 people. The total number of people in unpaid work schemes is now 175,000. These are people the ONS count as being "employed".

The total number of people in unpaid work schemes is actually now 170,000. Compared to 171,000 in the same quarter in 2012. So slightly down over the year.

And in no way, shape or form, would these numbers by anywhere near a "record high". The total of individuals on "Government supported training & employment programmes" was over 300,000 in the 1990s!

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

That contradicts what exactly?

Unless my irony detector is faulty you're simply confirming, using the wonderful medium of sarcasm, that you are somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to official data.

Official data is well offical so it is no doubt correct.

Why should I be sceptical?

Remember what those Asian condom makers say.

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Official data is well offical so it is no doubt correct.

My irony detector is going off again.

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Why should I be sceptical?

...and again

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Remember what those Asian condom makers say.

I hadn't forgotten. It's just that as you've made such an effort NOT to say what you mean it's difficult to understand the relevance of Indian condom makers.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Slight suggestion to your post.

Many people can afford the repayments and are overpaying to reduce them.

By doing this, they are easing the time when rates eventually will rise.

No indication that debt repayment is high on the list of peoples priorities. Given that consumer debt hasn't materially changed since 2007.

Loughton_Monkey

dktreesea wrote: »

Why should we accept that things are getting better based on one statistic that says unemployment is falling?

The issue isn't just about whether people are employed but how much they are able to earn in employment. Self employed income is dropping like a stone, even though the number of people self employed goes up by tens of thousands every year. If the average income for the self employed is £10,400, it is possible that the median income is somewhat lower than that.

... er.... on a thread titled "Unemployment falls to 7.4%" then is it wrong to stick to the subject? If you want other statistics, then look at GDP growing, look at forecasts of us growing relative to Europe, look at continued low inflation, look at stock markets improving......

Like the Devon boy, you are introducing a grudging "unemployment may be down but wages aren't going up...." except that he (as far as I can see) doesn't seem to accept falling unemployment. Wage scales are an entirely different matter, important though they might be.

As I have said many times, average (or median) wage statistics are - by their very nature - a different type of statistic. They do not pretend to measure average individual salary increase but simply measure the average price for an employee. If the mix of employment changes (as I strongly suspect it has) then this will show up in the figures. It is theoretically possible for everyone to have receiced a 5% wage rise at the same time as average wage shows 0% increase - simply because a large buch of older higher paid people retire and are replaced by juniors at almost minimum wage.

I am not saying this is fully the case but it is a fundamental difference in this sort of statistic. I fully accept that most individuals have seen quite low pay rises for a number of years.

Just like house prices, wages are partly a function of supply and demand. Can nobody imagine that the unprecedented massive immigration from low-wage countries must have had an impact on the price of labour? Millions upon millions of new people seeking work, and 'happy' to get minimum wage. Crikey! it's a wonder wages have not plummeted.

Similarly, if we see millions more houses built over the next 5 years, don't be surprised if house prices stop going up. Or only go up in very small doses.

dktreesea

Antrobus, the LMS very much supports the fact that wages, in real terms, are falling. An average increase of 0.9% over the year is not sufficient to counteract inflation. People aren't just feeling poorer - they are poorer.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not getting "worked up" about anything.

Absolutely not.

Let's just park that suggestion and accept that instead of being worked up, you're just a bit 'overwrought' about things at the moment. You perceive people are making stuff up.

A large Gin & Tonic and an early night will make things better.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Were arguing for arguments sake.

Oh no we're not!

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've often found the very worst forum faux par....

.... is to act like Del Boy and get all your French Phrases wrong. Mange tous, Graham, It's a "faux pas", meaning false step.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thing is though Loughton, you won't look any further than the headline stat. Something which you are forever telling me I should look past when posting articles.

And may I restate that caution to you to read things. If you read the full ONS report (as I did) maybe you would understand. It reflects that hours worked are up and mentions nothing at all about zero hours. Do you think ONS would fail to mention this if it were a material fact in the figures?

The report does mention the (very small) reduction in 16 to 24 year olds in work, as a result of extra time in FTE.

The tone of your arguments is very dismissive of a continued upward trend in quite accurately compiled figures. Why do you want to introduce red herrings about 'pay cuts' and things that are nothing to do with the subject? You are just looking for reasons not to accept that the whole economy is picking up.

In other words, doom-mongering again.

dktreesea

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

... er.... on a thread titled "Unemployment falls to 7.4%" then is it wrong to stick to the subject? If you want other statistics, then look at GDP growing, look at forecasts of us growing relative to Europe, look at continued low inflation, look at stock markets improving......

Like the Devon boy, you are introducing a grudging "unemployment may be down but wages aren't going up...." except that he (as far as I can see) doesn't seem to accept falling unemployment. Wage scales are an entirely different matter, important though they might be.

As I have said many times, average (or median) wage statistics are - by their very nature - a different type of statistic. They do not pretend to measure average individual salary increase but simply measure the average price for an employee. If the mix of employment changes (as I strongly suspect it has) then this will show up in the figures. It is theoretically possible for everyone to have receiced a 5% wage rise at the same time as average wage shows 0% increase - simply because a large buch of older higher paid people retire and are replaced by juniors at almost minimum wage.

I am not saying this is fully the case but it is a fundamental difference in this sort of statistic. I fully accept that most individuals have seen quite low pay rises for a number of years.

Just like house prices, wages are partly a function of supply and demand. Can nobody imagine that the unprecedented massive immigration from low-wage countries must have had an impact on the price of labour? Millions upon millions of new people seeking work, and 'happy' to get minimum wage. Crikey! it's a wonder wages have not plummeted.

Similarly, if we see millions more houses built over the next 5 years, don't be surprised if house prices stop going up. Or only go up in very small doses.

Even though unemployment is down, it still remains well up on 6 years ago.

Aug to Oct 2007 1.607 million unemployed, 28.041 million employed
Aug to Oct 2013 2.339 million unemployed, 28.341 million employed

And, as other people on this thread have pointed out, it's not just quantity of people employed that matters. It's also the quality of their income. Those people who are working and claiming housing benefit is on the increase. Now over 1 million households. The government counts a person as employed even if they are on a zero hours contract. People on unpaid internships and government work programmes are also counted as employed.

Wages have plummeted. The problem with having a NMW is it's also a "permission" to employers to aspire to only paying the NMW. Quite a few jobs at our local council , previously permanent full time jobs paying above the NMW, have been outsourced to agencies who employ people on zero hours contracts at the NMW. No overtime. No guarantee of hours from week to week.

I would like to see a labour statistic that compares full time equivalent jobs for Aug to Oct 2013 to the same measure prior to the recession.

antrobus

dktreesea wrote: »

Even though unemployment is down, it still remains well up on 6 years ago. ....

Good grief! You mean to say that unemployment is higher now, after the worst recession since the 1920s, compared to what it was at the peak of 15 year economic boom? That is a surprise.

dktreesea wrote: »

...Aug to Oct 2007 1.607 million unemployed, 28.041 million employed
Aug to Oct 2013 2.339 million unemployed, 28.341 million employed....

I have no idea where those numbers come from. The correct figures are;

Aug to Oct 2007 1.631 million unemployed, 29.313 million employed
Aug to Oct 2013 2.388 million unemployed, 30.086 million employed

dktreesea wrote: »

...I would like to see a labour statistic that compares full time equivalent jobs for Aug to Oct 2013 to the same measure prior to the recession.

Is there any reason why you believe that when the ONS quotes statistics for the "Total people working full-time" it doesn't mean precisely that?