Unemployment falls to 7.4%

ukcarper

As a lot of people on these part jobs will be paying no tax, NIS and in some cases still be claiming benefits would it be better for the economy if the unemployment figures were higher but there was more full time a fewer part time jobs.

antrobus

patanne wrote: »

Does anyone actually believe the unemployment figures quoted these days. ...

I see no reason to believe that the "unemployment figures quoted these days" are any different from the unemployment figures quoted in previous days.

patanne wrote: »

...Surely it should read more like - currently unemployed plus economically inactive less economically inactive in 2007. ....

Data on economic activity is available. For example, I can tell you that there 9.124 million people who were economically inactive in Aug-Oct 2007 compared to 8.916 million people in Aug-Oct 2013 which is a reduction of 208,000.

patanne wrote: »

..That may well give a much more accurate figure. ..

A more accurate figure of what?

patanne wrote: »

..After all, once your contributions based unemployment benefit has run out you go on income based and if you have a partner who is earning then it may well not be worth putting yourself through the aggro of attending the not very pleasant Job Centre. Don't get me started on sanctions!

Claimant count and unemployment are two different things.

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

I see no reason to believe that the "unemployment figures quoted these days" are any different from the unemployment figures quoted in previous days..

Well just one reason...

Kids are now at school longer. Until 17. That's removed a whole years worth of potential unemployed people from the stats.

That will play one small part in reducing unemployment, a part which was never included before.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well just one reason...

Kids are now at school longer. Until 17. That's removed a whole years worth of potential unemployed people from the stats.

That will play one small part in reducing unemployment, a part which was never included before.

Plus the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are being created of course.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Plus the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are being created of course.

That's absolutely nothing to do with the question in the post though, of course.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....Kids are now at school longer. Until 17. That's removed a whole years worth of potential unemployed people from the stats.....

Pretty obviously that would not be the case. Since, of course, a great number of 17 year olds would have stayed on in school anyway. (Plus of course, (a) the recent change doesn't mean that 'kids' have to stay in 'school', there are alternatives; and (b) it only applies in England.)

As it happens it appears that about 10% of 16-18 year olds in England previously qualified as NEETS.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's absolutely nothing to do with the question in the post though, of course.

What question? I didn't see one.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

What question? I didn't see one.

Not sure why you are being quite so difficult all of a sudden?

The point antrobus made regarding the differences in data.

Conrad

Mr consumer wants the best value courier to transport his parcel, he does not give a moments thought to staff conditions and pay, thus the consumer drives the ZHC's eco system.




Forget the post war permanent contract era, it was just a passing phase built on the fact consumers were obedient and Britain had little competition.




I have never understood Governments forcing enterprise to provide anything other than money and a safe working environment to its workers. By all means an enterprise may wish to offer other goodies, but forcing enterprise on pain of death to offer such things was always going to result in ZHC's.

Conrad

coastline wrote: »

All these well paid jobs yet theres a rush to Aldi and Lidl for the shopping...
Wonder if the punters drop the bags into Sainsbury plastic carrier bags as they walk out the door..;)

http://www.cityam.com/article/1387331547/bargain-hunters?

Why the smug winky, this is a non-starter.
You do realise those booming wealthy Germans for decades pioneered value super market chains right? Nothing to do with them being hard up - hint hint.