Almost there! Unemployment hits 7.1%

dktreesea

Thrugelmir wrote: »

People are happy doing minimum hours as get topped up with benefits. The sooner Browns welfare state is dismantled the better. Then employees will be forced to work for longer and employers won't find so many people looking for part time hours. Win win all round.

But there are plenty of people working part time right now looking for more hours. They can't get them, because there is a perverse incentive - nothing to do with benefits; this is from the employer's side - to limit peoples hours.

Say you employ someone, at the NMW, who has no other income, for 16 hours a week. Since that is less than £102 a week, you neither have to register them with HMRC, nor pay NI for them. Nor do they have any statutory rights.

Crank that up to 20 hours a week, and you still won't have to pay NI. And there is still no income tax. But you do have to register the employee with HMRC.

While this scheme may now be closed to new employers, it certainly acts as a brake on some existing employers when it comes to increasing their employees hours.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I think Carney has been more than clear - he's saying he doesn't want to raise interest rates anytime soon in an attempt to influence behaviour. If anything backtracking on the unemployment target reinforces the message.

Merv tried to downplay inflation for the same reason.

I can't see how it's possible to be fully transparent.

The two bolded words in your paragraph don't make sense.

How can you be "more than clear" while at the same time "backtracking"?

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The two bolded words in your paragraph don't make sense....

You bolded nine words.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...How can you be "more than clear" while at the same time "backtracking"?

You'd prefer it of he wasn't clear about backtracking? Wouldn't that simply confuse you even more?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How can you be "more than clear" while at the same time "backtracking"?

The BoE said they wouldn't consider rate rises until unemployment reached 7% - seems clear. Now they're saying there's no need to raise rates whatever unemployment is - even more clear.

You've bought the message hook, line & sinker so it must be working.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

The BoE said they wouldn't consider rate rises until unemployment reached 7% - seems clear. Now they're saying there's no need to raise rates whatever unemployment is - even more clear.

You've bought the message hook, line & sinker so it must be working.

Of course it's working. It will always be "working" if you move the goalposts to make it work.

If I've got a deadline of Feburary and don't finish in February, so long as I keep extending the deadline until I've finished and finish within one of the extensions, I can claim I've finished within deadline....and I always would do, so long as I keep changing the parameters.

The only reason you can claim that they are backtracking while being clear is that they keep changing what they are saying on a reactionary basis to suit the new parameters.

I too could claim that the deadline was clear, while purposely ignoring the fact that the deadline had been changed several times. Afterall, the last deadline was indeed, clear.

To an extent, this is a core requirement. They need to adapt to changes in the landscape. But this isn't just adapting. It's changing the scope entirely as they were caught out by their very own policies intended precisely to give them time and a framework in which they wouldn't get caught out easily.

One thing is of absolute certainty though. Regardless of how they change things, so long as they lay out their intentions, you will always be able to say they are being clear. So it's an argument that relies on lots of ignorance of what they stated previous and a basic fundemtnal acceptance that so long as they say something new, they are being clear.

CLAPTON

a good working assumption is that

a. acts by the BoE affect the economy and so can be considered important

b. statements by the BoE are either meaningless or standard economic theory so are unimportant

dktreesea

CLAPTON wrote: »

a good working assumption is that

a. acts by the BoE affect the economy and so can be considered important

b. statements by the BoE are either meaningless or standard economic theory so are unimportant

Statements by the BofE may well be of no importance within themselves - i.e. talking without action. But they aim to influence the people. So if people with mortgages get lulled into a false sense of security, they may keep up their current spending patterns, instead of pulling their belts in (as they probably should be doing) in anticipation of the interest rises to come.

CLAPTON

dktreesea wrote: »

Statements by the BofE may well be of no importance within themselves - i.e. talking without action. But they aim to influence the people. So if people with mortgages get lulled into a false sense of security, they may keep up their current spending patterns, instead of pulling their belts in (as they probably should be doing) in anticipation of the interest rises to come.

99% of the experts don't understand the 'guidance' of the BoE

so there's no chance that the general population will.

Most of the statements cover all possibilities so are no help

What is the point of saying: 'one day interest rates will rise' ? Everybody knows that is true but without a timeframe it's useless and anyway doesn't tell us the consequential facts (rise in house price, salaries, employment, inflation)


uselss

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

uselss

Maybe the BOE should stop predicting, well, at least so publically.

Afterall, they spent what, 3-4 years telling us inflation was going to be back to 2%, only to last year tell us they were indeed wrong for 3 years and inflation was going to be around 3-4% until 2015 before returning to target.

It's only when they finally made that statement (after insisting it was fall to target the 3 years previous) that it actually did fall to target very recently and very abruptly and made a mockery of their predictions again.

Now, don't get me wrong, everyone gets predictions wrong, so I'm not having a pop and don't pretend I could do better in any way, shape or form. The economy can seemingly turn on the head of a screw. So why then, do they spend so much time making these predictions in such a volitile environment? And why do people spend seemingly so much effort defending them? Worse, they make these predictions and statements mainly to adjust our spending habits. Influence them as it were. It appears the BOE are one of the few institutions that aren't held to account for any of their policies based on their own predictions. And currently, those policies effect us all massively.

Maybe instead of spending so much time giving us pointless forward guidance that turns out to be a load of guff, they could spend time actually dealing with day to day stuff? Like, for instance, looking at the housing market instead of holding off until a pre determined meeting in September. Why wait that long amidst so many concerns from so many corners of society and business? If theres something wrong, its wrong now, so why let it boil for another 8 months? If there isn't anything wrong, say so instead of telling us they'll let us know in September, and revisit it each month.

I'm just ranting I guess, but we pay these people a shed load of money and expenses to seemingly predict the unpredictable. Wouldn't it be better if we paid them simply to act and act promptly instead of acting based only on their (normally wrong) predictions and pre determined review points?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Maybe the BOE should stop predicting, well, at least so publically.

Afterall, they spent what, 3-4 years telling us inflation was going to be back to 2%, only to last year tell us they were indeed wrong for 3 years and inflation was going to be around 3-4% until 2015 before returning to target.

It's only when they finally made that statement (after insisting it was fall to target the 3 years previous) that it actually did fall to target very recently and very abruptly and made a mockery of their predictions again.

Now, don't get me wrong, everyone gets predictions wrong, so I'm not having a pop and don't pretend I could do better in any way, shape or form. The economy can seemingly turn on the head of a screw. So why then, do they spend so much time making these predictions in such a volitile environment? And why do people spend seemingly so much effort defending them? Worse, they make these predictions and statements mainly to adjust our spending habits. Influence them as it were. It appears the BOE are one of the few institutions that aren't held to account for any of their policies based on their own predictions. And currently, those policies effect us all massively.

Maybe instead of spending so much time giving us pointless forward guidance that turns out to be a load of guff, they could spend time actually dealing with day to day stuff? Like, for instance, looking at the housing market instead of holding off until a pre determined meeting in September. Why wait that long amidst so many concerns from so many corners of society and business? If theres something wrong, its wrong now, so why let it boil for another 8 months?

I'm just ranting I guess, but we pay these people a shed load of money and expenses to seemingly predict the unpredictable. Wouldn't it be better if we paid them simply to act and act promptly instead of acting based only on their (normally wrong) predictions and pre determined review points?

Gosh, I almost fell like defending them now