Unemployment down to 5.6%

michaels

At the last general election it was 7.9% and climbing.

I generally support the idea that running a huge deficit is unsustainable and therefore the budget had to be tightened but would never have bet that whilst this was going on we would have seen a sharp fall in unemployment, indeed I thought an increase to 10% much more likely.

I know we haven't seen nearly as much austerity as was promised but even still the unemployment numbers are incredible. They actually support the theory that there was structural unemployment due to the level of support given to the unemployed and that by changing the form and level of support it really was possible for the picture to be changed and for jobs to become available.

Of course the flip side of this has been the 'exploitation' of cheap labour, low investment and low productivity and a stark distinction between the French model of high wages, high productivity and high unemployment. Of course which you think is preferable comes down to your political persuasion and we are about to be asked to vote on it.

MFW_ASAP

There has also been a fall in teenage pregnancies, partly due to the curtailment of benefits and the negative press for people on benefits. It seems to be getting thru that benefits are a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

It's a shame that this will all be destroyed when the SNP/Labour coalition get in and trash the economy (again).

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Very good news.

purch

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Very good news.

Yes, especially the fact that we now have the largest % of the working age population actually in employment, for over 40 years.

[Deleted User]

it may be good news but the under lying figures have to be looked at e.g the 1.8 million on zero hours contracts,the 3 million recently self employed who are only so because its slightly better than jsa,the large number of under employed people,and those whose benefits have been sanctioned
as usual the figures are a fiddle themselves
as for a record number of people in work,of course there are,the population has expanded,people having to work well past 65 etc etc etc
this is no tory miracle,most of it is down to the tory disaster,one of the reasons cameron didn't want to debate his record last night

IronWolf

woodbine wrote: »

it may be good news but the under lying figures have to be looked at e.g the 1.8 million on zero hours contracts,the 3 million recently self employed who are only so because its slightly better than jsa,the large number of under employed people,and those whose benefits have been sanctioned
as usual the figures are a fiddle themselves
as for a record number of people in work,of course there are,the population has expanded,people having to work well past 65 etc etc etc
this is no tory miracle,most of it is down to the tory disaster,one of the reasons cameron didn't want to debate his record last night

He said record percentage.

But keep trying with your negativity, you are only looking more and more desperate

BobQ

It may well be the case that the actions of the Coalition in relation to benefits system have initiated some structural changes that have affected the figures and there is probably no single reason.

It may be the case that people who expect that they would not receive benefits do not register at all. There has also been a cultural change where some people feel more demeaned, humiliated and dehumanised by a system that subjects then to more scrutiny, hassle and harassment to get benefits which may have changed people's behaviours. Some would say this is the intention of the system to deter people claiming.

Another factor is that there are more people who register as self employed even when they have less work than they want so do not count. Also there are many more people living with parents than there used to be, and this may make them less likely to register.

We also know that some of those on ZHCs may have little work yet still count as employed.

It also seem to me that the black economy is still thriving judging by the number of cash in hand discounts I am offered.

The question in my mind is do people believe the figures anymore, or, to put it another way, do they actually reflect the level of unemployment?

The Thatcher/Major government that Cameron seems to enjoy copying ideas from used to manipulate the way the figures were calculated so it would not be surprising if there were also factors like this in play, particularly in the last year before the election.
.

Generali

It's not just that unemployment figures are falling. If that was due to discouraged workers then we'd not be seeing record levels of employment.

As for the zero hours thing? A lot of that just reflects the change in status of casual workers. The large majority of people on zero hours contracts want to be on a zero hours contract. For most the flexibility is a two way street. When I was a casual worker that was very much the case: it suited me to be able to scale down my workload as exams approached and scale them back up in uni holidays.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

It's not just that unemployment figures are falling. If that was due to discouraged workers then we'd not be seeing record levels of employment.

As for the zero hours thing? A lot of that just reflects the change in status of casual workers. The large majority of people on zero hours contracts want to be on a zero hours contract. For most the flexibility is a two way street. When I was a casual worker that was very much the case: it suited me to be able to scale down my workload as exams approached and scale them back up in uni holidays.

I agree that those on ZHCs sometimes find them convenient and it is not that different to casual work of the type you describe. If people are opting for ZHCs I cannot see a problem. But I doubt most people on them are choosing them.

Some employers in some industries only employ junior staff on such contracts for the employers benefit. 10% of people (3 million) want to work more hours than they are contracted. I am not clear how they calculate this figure for ZHCs since if they have no contracted hours what does underemployed mean.

Similar issues for self employed. Some have real businesses and chose it (fine) but others go self employed when unemployed but end up being underemployed as well.

audigex

As far as I can tell "Unemployment" is a nonsensical stat

"Unemployment" is simply those who fit in the criteria for a government category. A criteria which has been slowly narrowed to exclude more people.

The fact people are being forced off benefits etc is reducing the number too, since it only really counts claimants.


"Unemployment" statistics are useless, because you can shift people off that number simply by requiring them to undertake training to get their benefits, then listing them as "In training" rather than "Not in Employment, Education or Training"

What we really need to see is the "Employment" statistic

"How many people are in proper employment? ie they're either in full time, permanent employment earning at least the national minimum wage, or are part time/temporary/contracting/zero hours through their own choice because that suits their personal circumstances, not because it was the only job available". How many people actually have a proper job of the style they want, essentially

Every government does the same fudging of statistics, but it means they're never directly comparable. The only useful metric is the above number of people in "real" work, as a proportion of the working age population.

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

"How many people are in proper employment? ie they're either in full time, permanent employment earning at least the national minimum wage, or are part time/temporary/contracting/zero hours through their own choice because that suits their personal circumstances, not because it was the only job available". How many people actually have a proper job of the style they want, essentially

And how much government cash do you expect to pay to perform the "who's happy in their job" survey of the entire country? It's pretty straight forward, the method to measure unemployment is the same now as it was when Labour were last in power. It shows unemplyment is well down, now compared to then.