Unemployment falls to 7.4%

Graham_Devon

gazter wrote: »

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?

All I said was...

Zero hour contracts have exploded since 2008, with estimates put at 500,000 - 5 million people on zero hour contracts.

I didn't take a top claim as fact. I simply stated the range of estimates.

Instead of simply laying in to a poster because they answered your question, I would be more interested to know whether you accept these issues will have had an impact on the unemployment figures....or whether you are simply not going to accept it?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So long as they are self employed or on a zero hour contract (regardless of any work) they will be seen as active.#

From the Trade Union press release you quoted earlier on Zero hours contracts....

The study found workers on the contracts earn around £500 a week and are likely to be under 30

So average person on zero hours contracts in their 20's and earning £500 a week.....

Not sure that helps your case Graham.;)

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

From the Trade Union press release you quoted earlier on Zero hours contracts....



So average person on zero hours contracts in their 20's and earning £500 a week.....

Not sure that helps your case Graham.;)

If the typical person on a contract like that is on close to the median wage despite being so young then it seems like a good thing.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Yes.

The complete opposite of the picture Dev likes to paint, of youngsters sitting around waiting for the phone to ring, never getting enough hours, etc.

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

From the Trade Union press release you quoted earlier on Zero hours contracts....



So average person on zero hours contracts in their 20's and earning £500 a week.....

Not sure that helps your case Graham.;)

So good that

"Only around one in seven said they wanted to stay on the zero-hours contracts,"

One way of getting around employment legislation:-

"the increase in zero hours points to employers looking to avoid paying holiday pay and sick pay."

Just forget all that statutory business.

gazter

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All I said was...

I didn't take a top claim as fact. I simply stated the range of estimates.

Instead of simply laying in to a poster because they answered your question, I would be more interested to know whether you accept these issues will have had an impact on the unemployment figures....or whether you are simply not going to accept it?

I cannot accept any claim with such a wide margin of error. Utterly preposterous.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.......Instead of simply laying in to a poster because they answered your question, I would be more interested to know whether you accept these issues will have had an impact on the unemployment figures....or whether you are simply not going to accept it?

Don't know about gazter, but personally I don't accept "these issues" one bit.

You're doom mongering again. Brilliant pattern for ages on unemployment, and all you can do is pour scorn and dubious 'facts' around that are meant to have us believe it's highly exaggerated.

Why can't you just accept that things are getting a whole lot better?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Why can't you just accept that things are getting a whole lot better?

Because then he'd have to admit that he's been wrong about.... well.... nearly everything.

dktreesea

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Don't know about gazter, but personally I don't accept "these issues" one bit.

You're doom mongering again. Brilliant pattern for ages on unemployment, and all you can do is pour scorn and dubious 'facts' around that are meant to have us believe it's highly exaggerated.

Why can't you just accept that things are getting a whole lot better?

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.

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

Even if wages stand still and don't decrease for anyone, the buying power of those wages is being eroded. A number of factors have contributed to this, e..g the depreciation of the pound, making imports dearer, the increase in population pushing up the prices of rents in some areas, the prevalence and popularity of zero hours contracts, meaning people sometimes have to work for less hours than they would like.

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".

Graham_Devon

gazter wrote: »

I cannot accept any claim with such a wide margin of error. Utterly preposterous.

Again, it's not a claim.

I'm giving you the range of estimates. It's not one estimate. The reason for the estimates is that there is no way of knowing how many are on these contracts.

I'm not sure why you are having such great difficulty with what was stated?