Unemployment falls to 7.4%

grizzly1911

With all these peeps gainfully employed - the highest figure ever, apparently, makes me wonder why the country hasn't got more of a spring in its step?

gazter

grizzly1911 wrote: »

With all these peeps gainfully employed - the highest figure ever, apparently, makes me wonder why the country hasn't got more of a spring in its step?

Because perception and reality have a long lag.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

With all these peeps gainfully employed - the highest figure ever, apparently, makes me wonder why the country hasn't got more of a spring in its step?

given you trust no government statistics, why not look for reliable private sector numbers and report back the true numbers.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

given you trust no government statistics, why not look for reliable private sector numbers and report back the true numbers.

Reliable private sectors numbers. Something like LIBOR rates, the number of suspects tagged, profits of coffee shops, intertnet retailers and such like.

It was a valid question. Highest employment numbers yet making such little headway.:think:

dktreesea

antrobus wrote: »

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


[ QUOTE]
My figures are from the ONS latest labour market statistics. Where are yours from?

dktreesea

grizzly1911 wrote: »

With all these peeps gainfully employed - the highest figure ever, apparently, makes me wonder why the country hasn't got more of a spring in its step?

Perhaps the depreciation of the pound makes them feel poor every time they buy something imported? Like food?

Also, many unemployed people only get contributions JSA. So when that runs out they rely on their partner to support them, because they don't qualify for income based jsa. That maybe how it should be, but those kinds of households may feel like they have their backs to the wall, especially if they are now paying their mortgages on one income rather than two.

Then there's household debt. Paying down personal debt can be addictive and contagious. It doesn't take many people to move from a "want to have" to a "need to have" consumption pattern to keep an economy in the doldrums.

Loughton_Monkey

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.

antrobus wrote: »

...
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: »

My figures are from the ONS latest labour market statistics. Where are yours from?

You only have to read the first 2 paragraphs from the ONS latest labour market figures to learn that 30.09 million people are employed and 2.39 million are unemployed. Both figures are for Aug to Oct 2013 and reiterated throughout the 63 page report.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_338181.pdf

dktreesea

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You only have to read the first 2 paragraphs from the ONS latest labour market figures to learn that 30.09 million people are employed and 2.39 million are unemployed. Both figures are for Aug to Oct 2013 and reiterated throughout the 63 page report.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_338181.pdf

I was looking at a report called labour market status by age group, an excel document, but it must have been from an earlier time, i.e. that latest one from December has revised statistics compared to the one I had saved earlier. The one I had goes back to 1971 but I see this latest December one only goes back to 1992. (a01dec2013_tcm77-337514.xls)

I still think it is the quality of the work, not the quantity of hours worked that counts. Even the ONS claim that "Average earnings of employees in the UK have fallen in real terms since 2009. Average earnings in real terms are now at similar levels to those of 2002-03".
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/regional-trends/regional-economic-analysis/changes-in-real-earnings-in-the-uk-and-london--2002-to-2012/art-changes-in-real-earnings-in-the-uk-and-london--2002-to-2012.html

Generali

When you have unemployment north of 7% then it's very likely that there'll be little or no wage inflation.

Wait until unemployment drops to closer to 6% and then you'll see pay increasing. If there isn't much demand for what you're selling then prices are likely to be low. That's the same if you're selling ice cream or your labour.

dktreesea

Generali wrote: »

When you have unemployment north of 7% then it's very likely that there'll be little or no wage inflation.

Wait until unemployment drops to closer to 6% and then you'll see pay increasing. If there isn't much demand for what you're selling then prices are likely to be low. That's the same if you're selling ice cream or your labour.

Demand for goods and services is a big problem. People are steering away from debt. With rents going up, not to mention essential goods and services like food and energy, people are finding it harder over time to cover the essentials, let alone the "nice to haves".

Then there's sites like this one http://themoneycharity.org.uk/debt-statistics/, telling us every day between July and September 2013, 1,359 people were made redundant. Not to mention every 5 minutes and 3 seconds someone goes bankrupt/is declared insolvent.

What if the people being laid off are relatively well paid, and those being taken on, while outnumbering those being laid off (hence the fall in the number of unemployed) are going into minimum wage jobs?

If wages were at least keeping pace with inflation, maybe there would be grounds for optimism, but so far they are still lagging behind, for the 5th year straight.