We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Unemployment falls to 7.4%
Comments
-
They do. Are you able to show otherwise? Others may present the information they collate in different ways, but lets not fudge around the issue. The facts clearly show that unemployment is dropping and the economy is growing.
You dont like these facts because they run counter to your own political ideology therefore you try to discredit independent civil servants who collate the figures in an impartial way as possible.
We should all be careful of statistics as methodologies can change giving the incorrect impression.
So the question remains, as there been a recent change that would account for the astonishing drops in unemployment we have seen over the last twelve months?
The "statistics" show unemployment is dropping and the economy is growing - I can now sleep soundly.
I actually entered the discussion regarding CPI. That is also dropping, apparently, so all is well.
House prices are rising too.
:beer:"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
They do. Are you able to show otherwise? Others may present the information they collate in different ways, but lets not fudge around the issue. The facts clearly show that unemployment is dropping and the economy is growing.
You dont like these facts because they run counter to your own political ideology therefore you try to discredit independent civil servants who collate the figures in an impartial way as possible.
We should all be careful of statistics as methodologies can change giving the incorrect impression.
So the question remains, as there been a recent change that would account for the astonishing drops in unemployment we have seen over the last twelve months?
It's called the denial phase. It doesn't need any rational logic behind it.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
The fall in people claiming JSA could be at least partly explained by the rise in the self employed, up by 367,000 in the years 2008 to 2012 (versus a drop of 434,000 jobs for employed people). (source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/self-employed-workers-in-the-uk/february-2013/sty-self-employed-workers.html)
And self employed earnings are falling. The latest figures from the ONS state that the average income of self employed people is now only £10,400 a year. As far back as 2000-2001, that average was around £15,000 a year. In 2000/2001 pounds.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/12/03/the-fast-disappearing-income-of-the-uks-self-employed/
That's bad news for the self employed once U.C., and the minimum income floor comes in. Unemployment may well be only 7.4%. But what about those who are working but not self sufficient, who have to rely on benefits like WTC and/or housing benefit to survive?
The number of housing benefit claimants is soaring. 987,000 people in work now claim housing benefit. Given only one person claims oper household, and a household could have more than one working person, these at least mean underemployed households, and possibly mean households working, due to self employment, for far less that the NMW.0 -
The latest figures from the ONS state that the average income of self employed people is now only £10,400 a year. .
So the average income for self employed people just happens to be right around the tax free allowance.
I'm sure that's a complete coincidence.:)“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
So the question remains, as there been a recent change that would account for the astonishing drops in unemployment we have seen over the last twelve months?
Yes.
School leaveing age has changed.
Zero hour contracts have exploded since 2008, with estimates put at 500,000 - 5 million people on zero hour contracts.
Since 2008, the number of self employed people has risen 367,000.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/feb/06/self-employed-worker-numbers-soar-uk
All these things combined won't change the methology of the unemployment count, but it WILL increase the amount of people who are excluded and can't be counted as unemployed. So long as they are self employed or on a zero hour contract (regardless of any work) they will be seen as active.#
Not saying this explains the drop, people in work is increasing, but people in part time work is increasing at an increasing rate. Again, helping the figures.
It's a changing world, the figures are only accurate to what they are counting at the time. What they count is changing. It just so happens that since 2008, more people are in part time, zero hour and self employed roles, so the figures will "exclude" them and see them as employed, regardless.
The key point is simple really. Whether self employed, part time or employed, the majority are seeing the pay cut. Looking soley at employment numbers misses a huge picture....and I'm sure if unemployment increases, you will be telling us the very same thing.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »All these things combined won't change the methology of the unemployment count, but it WILL increase the amount of people who are excluded and can't be counted as unemployed. So long as they are self employed or on a zero hour contract (regardless of any work) they will be seen as active.
If you don't like it just refer to your preferred number derived from a methodology that meets with your approval.
You might get a figure of 10% vs 7.4% but does it make a jot of difference - a difference of 2.6% but the change in economic activity = 0.0 -
If you don't like it just refer to your preferred number derived from a methodology that meets with your approval.
You might get a figure of 10% vs 7.4% but does it make a jot of difference - a difference of 2.6% but the change in economic activity = 0.
Why do you constantly make out I don't "like" something because I have made a relevant point?
Facts are nothing to do with liking or disliking something.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Yes.
School leaveing age has changed.
Zero hour contracts have exploded since 2008, with estimates put at 500,000 - 5 million people on zero hour contracts.
Since 2008, the number of self employed people has risen 367,000.
None of the above has changed recently ~ and unemployment is down a staggering 99,000.Graham_Devon wrote: »
Zero hour contracts have exploded since 2008, with estimates put at 500,000 - 5 million people on zero hour contracts.
Are you seriously suggesting 5 million people are on zero hour contracts? Even you must realise that's an absurd statement.If I don't reply to your post,
you're probably on my ignore list.0 -
None of the above has changed recently ~ and unemployment is down a staggering 99,000.
Are you seriously suggesting 5 million people are on zero hour contracts? Even you must realise that's an absurd statement.
No, I'm suggesting exactly what I stated, that estimates put the amount of zero hour workers at between 500,000 and 5 million.
Not stating it's correct - but the claim is here
http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/08/up-to-5-5-million-workers-on-zero-hours-contracts-claims-unite-union-3954279/0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »No, I'm suggesting exactly what I stated, that estimates put the amount of zero hour workers at between 500,000 and 5 million.
Not stating it's correct - but the claim is here
http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/08/up-to-5-5-million-workers-on-zero-hours-contracts-claims-unite-union-3954279/
A report claims between 500,000 and 5,500,000, you take the top claim as fact.
Do you think that any estimate which can still claim to be correct with a range of up to 11x can seriously be considered evidence?
Laughably absurd. Why stop at 5 million? Why not 50 million? 100 billion?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards