Almost there! Unemployment hits 7.1%

coastline

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes - there is a video of him on the Beeb. Or was yesterday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh5nS4tbm5k

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is such nonsense. I've never dropped my concern about zero hour contracts, only the other day I was discussing them on here. Again you are simply making things up on the spot to create your argument.

Your post though is simply a post to have a go. As usual. It's a shame to see thrugel thanking it, but hey ho, each to their own.

So you're saying that these are not 'real jobs' and that the true unemployment figures are way above the 7% BoE target? Then you've answered your own question of why rates aren't going up.

See, it isn't rocket science.

lvader

What is the average number of working hours per week for zero hour contracts? I don't get the impression that aren't real jobs doing 20+ hours a week.

Thrugelmir

lvader wrote: »

What is the average number of working hours per week for zero hour contracts? I don't get the impression that aren't real jobs doing 20+ hours a week.

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.

pbouk

MrRee wrote: »

Why didn't you buy to let when prices were very cheap in 2009 then?

Your money isn't earning anything like what it should be.
And, when you have to buy, prices will have far outstripped your saving additions.

Err BTL? If you learn to read you will notice the word I used "invested"
A bulk of my money is invested in more profitable ventures.

pbouk

TheFactory wrote: »

Exactly. Why would not buy into a rising market if only to let out whilst your own rent is paid for you?

I think there is only one idiot in this thread, but im not here to call names so I'd apprieciate it if you just stuck to the debate please pbouk. I respect your opinion, and refer you to my earlier post where I said only time will tell - historical trends are useless when trying to predict where we go from these unprecedented times.

Answered this already with the other post.
The bulk of my money is invested in other business ventures that are more profitable. Also the prices have been rising from the big slump a few years ago, but, it is plain to see that the BOE and government will not allow another house price boom, so I have actually done better than I would have done, if I put my money into BTL.:T

wotsthat

"Although a few quarters of above-trend growth driven by household spending represent a good start, they aren’t sufficient. Even though employment is growing and unemployment has fallen – particularly so recently in Scotland – the recovery has some way to run before it would be appropriate to consider moving away from the emergency setting of monetary policy."

Mr. Carney earlier this afternoon.

N1AK

wotsthat wrote: »

Mr. Carney earlier this afternoon.

I don't disagree with his conclusion. It's just disappointing that after years of Merv lying to us about it being his job to control inflation and then just ignoring it we now have Carney lying to us while pretending it is all part of being more transparent.

If Carney isn't capable of expressing clearly the criteria in which he would raise interest rates, which he certainly hasn't so far, then he shouldn't have made some up and then back peddled them as soon as it looked like they might be reached.

dktreesea

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

Yes, GDP is rising, but look how much of it - and an ever growing portion - is imputed rents. Something fed by growing house prices.

I don't see how imputed rents increases the employment prospects of anyone, or grows the real economy. It's not exactly money flowing into the economy, is it! There may be good economic reasons for including it, but put if this way, if ever there was a house price crash, you can bet the massive decrease in the imputed rents wouldn't flow into the GDP figures. I am sure the government of the day would find some creative reasons to exclude them.

Also, I wonder what the effect on unemployment figures, and the GDP, would be over the course of the recession if London is excluded. According to the TUC, the number of jobs in the North East, the North West, the Midlands and the South West have shrunk in recent months (source; http://www.bainesandernst.co.uk/news/tuc-reveals-truth-falling-unemployment-figures/) The vast majority of British people neither live nor work in london.

wotsthat

N1AK wrote: »

I don't disagree with his conclusion. It's just disappointing that after years of Merv lying to us about it being his job to control inflation and then just ignoring it we now have Carney lying to us while pretending it is all part of being more transparent.

If Carney isn't capable of expressing clearly the criteria in which he would raise interest rates, which he certainly hasn't so far, then he shouldn't have made some up and then back peddled them as soon as it looked like they might be reached.

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.