Unemployment down to 5.6%

lucielou5

michaels wrote: »

As I said, I know very little about why people use food banks. I know that in the past when I have had extremely low and variable income I have lived like a monk whenever I did have any money (no TV let alone no Sky) to make sure that I never had no money in the bank. I certainly never used credit if I could help it to avoid paying the excessive fees but the trick was not just going without (going out, drinking alcohol, having a TV) when I couldn't afford it but also doing so when I did have a few quid in the bank in order not to be in trouble if the income dried up.

I am genuinely happy that you have had the opportunity and foresight to 'cut your cloth accordingly' when circumstance dictated. :T
But is it fair to assume that all recipients who have the unfortunate experience of using a food bank have Sky, take on board credit and/or drink?
I was brought up to be wary of making assumptions or generalisations. My teachers, right up to Uni, always drilled into me the importance of balanced research.
I had my 'prejudices' about food banks too, until I saw it for myself.


All the best to you.

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

The data is produced by the ONS. Are you seriously suggesting that the ONS fiddles the numbers only when there is a Conservative in 10 Downing Street?

Not at all. The ONS has a difficult job and the ILO mandates how data is collected which they are then required to use. The figures are not an exact science, as you say they depend on a survey which like all polls has an error margin and can be affected by the way the questions are asked. That is not a criticism of ONS, just a fact.

Take ZHC, it is very difficult to measure this figure. Some people are on ZHCs but because the term is not used they do not always realise they are on them. They may say they work part time or call themselves a shift worker.

I agree employment is rising and unemployment is falling but the question is whether this is due entirely to an economic recovery of an indirect effect of structural changes.

Someone counts as employed (and so not unemployed) if they do 1 hour of in week. Is that right? I do not profess to know. Was that the way the figures were calculated 30 years ago? I do not know. Someone also counts as employed if they did an hour's unpaid work in a family business even if they were looking for work elsewhere.

The ILO classified people as unemployed if without work, available for work and seeking work. The UK only counts someone as unemployed if they have actively sought work in the last 4 weeks and is available to start work in the next 2 weeks, or has found a job and is waiting to start in the next 2 weeks. Is this reducing the real figures?

There is a trend in the data undoubtedly but is it purely due to economic growth or is it a statistical effect?

I realise it is easy to view this question from a political perspective but the question is still a valid one in my view.

CLAPTON

lucielou5 wrote: »

Blimey! All that personal info on thousands of people. That is going to be one hell of a post.
If you are really interested in finding out more (and I mean this respectfully) do the research. Read personal accounts, check out the findings. It's all out there.
Better still, take a few hours to volunteer and really see what it's all about. It's an eye opener.

that would be largely anecdotal information

what we do know is the vast majority of the people of the UK (that you total ignore) are well served by our economic system.

majority of people of the world, would find many of the people who are referring too, as being rich.

Spidernick

antrobus wrote: »

How would you 'interpret' the fact that are now (for example) 26.3 million full-time employees working 37.5 hours a week, compared to 25.2 million full-time employees working 37.3 hours a week in the same period in 2007?

I'm sure someone will come along with examples of the 'quality' of these jobs and the salaries they command in a negative light. Sorry, but whatever you think, politicians do spin stats any way they like and so, yes, these are most certainly open to interpretation.

antrobus wrote: »

I think it is preferable to go with the ONS numbers. Data that comes from a survey of 100,000 people produced by professional civil servants is far more likely to be correct than data that comes from a survey of 2 or 3 people produced by some random person with a political axe to grind.:)

Fair enough, but people tend to engage with other people and their own experiences, not stats. The example of post #13 will resonate with many people (which didn't come across to me as someone with a 'political axe to grind' - if only life were as simple as you seem to think it is! )

CLAPTON

Spidernick wrote: »

I'm sure someone will come along with examples of the 'quality' of these jobs and the salaries they command in a negative light. Sorry, but whatever you think, politicians do spin stats any way they like and so, yes, these are most certainly open to interpretation.



Fair enough, but people tend to engage with other people and their own experiences, not stats. The example of post #13 will resonate with many people (which didn't come across to me as someone with a 'political axe to grind' - if only life were as simple as you seem to think it is! )

maybe but the poster of post # 13 has refused to provide any additional detail except to say 'do your own research'.

if his view resonates with many people, maybe you might like to provide some enlightenment as he has refused to do so.

BobQ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I heard yesterday, fleetingly on the radio that as of january 2015, 700,000 extra people were self employed but paid no tax. Beleived to be for benefit purposes.

Can anyone put any meat on the bones of those figures? Even I thought they were quite high.

(The basic premise is you become self employed, even if it's selling a few items on ebay a week in order to claim more lucrative tax credits).

Yes, spend one hour selling stuff on ebay every 4 weeks and you are by definition employed.:)

The other figure seems plausible given the favourable tax regime for self employment, but I am sure some of them are paying some tax as consultants and skilled craftsmen like carpenters and electricians.

Since 2008 there has been a growth of 700,000 in self employment and I think about 15% of the workforce is now self employed (4m?)

The median income is £207 which suggests half of them pay little or no tax, maybe more with pension contributions and other allowances.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/self-employed-workers-in-the-uk/2014/rep-self-employed-workers-in-the-uk-2014.html#tab-Self-employed-workers-in-the-UK---2014

[Deleted User]

IronWolf wrote: »

He said record percentage.

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

i'm anything but desperate as i know the result of the election,a minority labour one with support and confidence from the snp and maybe others
what will be desperate is the state of the tory party after losing yet another election and facing the prospect of having doris as leader

and i think that we need to lay to rest this nonsense that ZHC are their for the benefit of the work force,that is palpable rubbish,they are there for the convenience of the the employers as an example sports direct have 100s of stores and thousands of employees all but 3,000 on ZHC there are dozens more examples

CLAPTON

woodbine wrote: »

i'm anything but desperate as i know the result of the election,a minority labour one with support and confidence from the snp and maybe others
what will be desperate is the state of the tory party after losing yet another election and facing the prospect of having doris as leader

and i think that we need to lay to rest this nonsense that ZHC are their for the benefit of the work force,that is palpable rubbish,they are there for the convenience of the the employers as an example sports direct have 100s of stores and thousands of employees all but 3,000 on ZHC there are dozens more examples

which country do you think has got it right?

cells

In the uk household income is going up rapidly

household income being different from the often quoted individual incomes

which is more important, household income or individual?

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

which country do you think has got it right?

The UK and the USA for various reasons, the English language being one of the reasons

Another is that we are more geared towards patents and IP than most countries. As the world develops the holders of these patents and IP and copyrights will get very rich as they can sell their info to a much larger audience at almost no additional cost.

Oh and this has pretty much already happened but....sports stars film stars and musicians are going to get paid every more insane amounts of money (globalisation again. Able to sell their crap to more and more people at a almosylt zero marginal cost)


of course that is a long term view and trend lots of things can and will happen in the interim and most the benefits wilp be lost to higher prices. Eg how the swiss are sooo rich if you lool at their wages but once purchasing power is taken into account it gap closes quite a lot