Almost there! Unemployment hits 7.1%

Loughton_Monkey

Expected by analysts to drop to 7.3%, it has gone down to 7.1%, as Carney now starts coughing, spluttering, and finding reasons not to increase base rate next month.....


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/january-2014/statistical-bulletin.html


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25841570

The UK unemployment rate has dropped to 7.1%, the Office for National Statistics has said.

The number of people out of work fell by 167,000 to 2.32 million in the three months to November.

Generali

Has Carney said that the base rate would rise once unemployment hit 7%? I've not read that.

For a start it goes to the vote so he doesn't have the power to raise or lower rates unilaterally.

michaels

I thought he said it wouldn't go up before unemployemnt fell to 7% which is not the same thing at all unless you are in the media it seems.

Definitely good news for all those with jobs who didn't have before but what would be good would be to see that translate in to a sharply falling deficit.

Loughton_Monkey

Generali wrote: »

Has Carney said that the base rate would rise once unemployment hit 7%? I've not read that.

michaels wrote: »

I thought he said it wouldn't go up before unemployemnt fell to 7% which is not the same thing at all unless you are in the media it seems.

Yes. For a month - since last month's huge leap forward, he has been at pains to make out that it's far from automatic. I don't think he will consider it for a long while.

Not sure how much Carney can influence his "committee" either. I suspect he's still the new kid on the block, and if he's upset any of them yet, then maybe they'll give him a hard time. After all, things like personal publicity, or 'personality wars' are far more important than the UK economy.

thescouselander

Generali wrote: »

Has Carney said that the base rate would rise once unemployment hit 7%? I've not read that.

For a start it goes to the vote so he doesn't have the power to raise or lower rates unilaterally.

No, I didn't think he said that either. IIRC Carney said he didn't expect rates to rise until unemployment fell below 7%. This is not the same as saying rates will rise when rates reach 7%.

purch

thescouselander wrote: »

This is not the same as saying rates will rise when rates reach 7%.

Unfortunately, in the World of Pestonomics and tabloid headlines the message was reported as saying it was.

mayonnaise

Great news. :beer:

And before a gloomer pipes up with "It's all part-timers and zero hour contracts!";

• The number of men working full-time, increased by 127,000 to
reach 13.99 million.

• The number of men working part-time, increased by 49,000 to
reach 2.17 million.

• The number of women working full-time increased by 94,000 to
reach 8.06 million.

• The number of women working part-time increased by 10,000 to reach 5.94
million.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Miserable time to be a housing bear.

The restoration of at least partial functionality to the lending markets has resulted in a significant rise in both house prices and volume of housing sales over the last 12 months.

The wealth effect has kicked in, consumer confidence has risen, and resulted in increased economic activity across the wider economy.

GDP is rising, unemployment is falling rapidly, and soon enough we should see wage rises and increased business investment coming to the party as well.

At which point the economic benefits of rising house prices will be seared into the minds of every politician for a generation.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Expected by analysts to drop to 7.3%, it has gone down to 7.1%,

Excellent news. :beer:

as Carney now starts coughing, spluttering, and finding reasons not to increase base rate next month.....

Carney never said he'd raise rates at 7%.

He said he'd not even consider raising rates until it fell below 7%, and raising rates after that depends on a large number of other variables.

Which the media then misinterpreted completely.

spacey2012

The number of people "actively seeking work in receipt of job seekers allowance"
has gone down.
As advisers now have to sanction 4 people a day or receive a disciplinary (so someone said) and 8 is the target figure I am amazed the number of people "actively seeking work in receipt of job seekers allowance" has actually only fallen to this level.

Kennyboy66

Taxi for Ed Balls