Good News Ahoy!

Generali

The new labour market stats are out for the UK:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/october-2015/sty-labour-market-statistics--october-2015.html

Comparing June to August 2015 with March to May 2015, the number of people in employment increased by 140,000 (to reach 31.12 million), the number of unemployed people fell by 79,000 (to reach 1.77 million) and the number of people aged from 16 to 64 not in the labour force (economically inactive) fell 4,000 (to reach 9.01 million).

"What about earnings Gen?", I hear you ask.

Ah, well I'm glad you asked me that. The ONS has a lovely little infographic that probably cost you a few grand to get drawn up. So much nicer than a paragraph that simply conveys the information I'm sure you'll agree.



So unalloyed good news. I'm sure some miserable [STRIKE]f[/STRIKE] person will find a reason why this is bad. Probably some waffle about zero hours contracts.

Anyway, it's another 140,000 reasons not to vote for that nutjob in charge of Labour.

CLAPTON

where are the 600,000 gross (300,000 net) new immigrants in these figures?

danothy

Generali wrote: »

Probably some waffle about zero hours contracts.

I think we can safely assume that the 19% of new employment that isn't full time will be zero hour contracts, which is terrible. Utterly terrible.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

where are the 600,000 gross (300,000 net) new immigrants in these figures?

Absorbed into the employment figures you lovely little single issue obsessed lunatic.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Absorbed into the employment figures you lovely little single issue obsessed lunatic.

have you checked that?


to a real economist, the population size is a significant parameter and the change should be a matter of comment.

danothy

Generali wrote: »

Absorbed into the employment figures you lovely little single issue obsessed lunatic.

Things get better, yet apparently some people are more concerned with controlling who it doesn't get better for. Maybe we should give all the immigrants the zero hour contracts and keep the full time work for the natives.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

where are the 600,000 gross (300,000 net) new immigrants in these figures?

I'd guess that they were in dataset MGSL; the total of 'All aged 16 & over', and might explain why that number increased by 331,000 over the year.

antrobus

danothy wrote: »

I think we can safely assume that the 19% of new employment that isn't full time will be zero hour contracts, which is terrible. Utterly terrible.

I don't think you can 'safely assume' that at all. There is nothing in the Labour Market stats that allows any conclusions to be drawn regarding so-called zero-hour contracts.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

have you checked that?


to a real economist, the population size is a significant parameter and the change should be a matter of comment.

Where do you think the gaps between changes in unemployment, employment and economic inactivity come from?

If you are that obsessed about this subject, which about 30 seconds glancing at your back catalogue of posting shows you are, the ONS are very open about how they put together their data.

You can email Richard here:

[EMAIL="labour.market@ons.gsi.gov.uk"]labour.market@ons.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

Or you could try reading the ONS's guide to interpreting labour market stats:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_294390.pdf

The data do include migrants. If you don't believe me then bug someone else about it because I can't be bothered.

danothy

antrobus wrote: »

I don't think you can 'safely assume' that at all. There is nothing in the Labour Market stats that allows any conclusions to be drawn regarding so-called zero-hour contracts.

I know there's nothing in the stats about the 19% of new employment that isn't full time, but we all know that things are utterly terrible, so it must be zero hour contracts. They'd have said they weren't otherwise. It's obvious. And utterly terrible.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

I don't think you can 'safely assume' that at all. There is nothing in the Labour Market stats that allows any conclusions to be drawn regarding so-called zero-hour contracts.

I think there may be some tongue in cheek in the post you are replying to.