If we vote for Brexit what happens

Masomnia

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

And all I'm saying is that there shouldn't be any interpretation.

Jobless figures have fallen. The end.

The previous figures were likely counted using the same methodology as this set of figures, and the number has decreased since then. I doubt very much that the methodology for counting such figures changes each time to put forward the narrative that the government wants to portray.

You are aware that there is a body responsible for making sure things like that don't happen?

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/monitoring-and-assessment/

Are these people not doing their job? Perhaps we should sack them all and save the taxpayer some money if we're just going to interpret, discredit and disavow the statistics each time they come out.

It comes across as tinfoil hat conspiracy think.

It's public sector bashing!

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The definition of unemployment in Germany:

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/24608/1/dp07041.pdf



Makes sense. The UK's definition is a bit different. In fact when you consider that someone in a pointless training scheme is doubly counted, both as not unemployed, and employed, and that zero hours contracts count as employment, and also that people who can't claim benefits because the Tories took them away, but still want to work - then the UK really is hiding quite a lot of people who are jobless and don't want to be.

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/



If anyone wants to read the Sheffield Hallam study, them it's here:

http://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/real-level-of-unemployment-2012.pdf

Once you add in people who are unemployed who are actually unemployed, then the UK's real unemployment rate is about 10%. Or double that of Germany, which doesn't count people on zero hours or short part time as "employed".

I realise that Clapton and Conrad will immediately leap over this as a cause to shut the doors to immigrants. Of course they will, xenophobes see everything through the prism of their own fear.

The actual comparative facts are that Germany is much more open to immigration than the UK, receives the lion's share of asylum applications (500,000 people are seeking asylum in Germany at the moment), is part of the EU, doesn't count unemployed people as employed, and is doing better than us.

good you see that Thatcher was responsible for all the slight of hand.
now remind me who was in power from 1997 to 2010? but I do agree that we ought to reduce the compulsory education age to 16

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

But it's a statistic, so there's always going to be bias and interpretation.



For a given meaning of "Jobless", I agree with you.

There shouldn't be any bias or interpretation though.

You can argue that the definition doesn't include enough attributes, or too many depending on your point of view. But once there is a definition the statistics for that definition are not bias or open to interpretation, the statistics for that measure are the just statistics for that measure.

So in the Sheffield Hallam study example, they want to open up the definition of unemployment to include those on incapacity benefit and also statistics from a survey and applying the results of that survey nationally, despite the obvious flaws in both measures to which they admit in the study, but RuggedToast wouldn't point that out to you.

The study he wants to use as an example of how unemployment is under reported uses those who are deemed too ill or incapable of working and therefore receive state welfare, plus an up-rated national guess of those who are unemployed and not claiming welfare.

Would you trust those two figures to accurately demonstrate the health of the economy in terms of employment? By the authors own admissions:

The second element – the additional LFS unemployed – is conceptually straightforward
but reliable measurement is complicated by the fact that the data comes from a sample
survey.

The third element – the hidden unemployed among incapacity claimants – is
unavoidably more difficult to measure.

mayonnaise

Brexit latest: Jobs market stagnates in three months to October

The jobs market stagnated in the three months to October, according to the latest jobs report from the Office for National Statistics, suggesting employers are finally slowing their hiring in the wake of June's Brexit vote.

Unemployment fell by 16,000, but this was due to fewer people seeking work.
The numbers aged 16 to 64 classed as "inactive" rose by 76,000 in the three months.

Analysts were mostly downbeat about the figures.

"The UK has experienced a rapid deterioration in job creation, giving the sense that Brexit uncertainty is now becoming a drag on the economy", said James Knightley of ING.

"Cracks are beginning to appears in the labour market," agreed Howard Archer of IHS Global Insight.

Martin Beck of the EY ITEM club said the strong employment growth of the past two years was now "petering out".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/jobs-market-stagnates-in-three-months-to-october-a7473446.html

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

Brexit latest: Jobs market stagnates in three months to October




Analysts were mostly downbeat about the figures.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/jobs-market-stagnates-in-three-months-to-october-a7473446.html

shows we have no shortage of labour in the UK and so goods reason for cutting down on immigration

Masomnia

'Unemployment fell by 16,000, but this was due to fewer people seeking work.'

No s***!

'The numbers aged 16 to 64 classed as "inactive" rose by 76,000 in the three months.'

Students returning to uni/college after the summer would explain a lot of that.

The market is definitely slowing down, looks like Brexit is having an impact, but as I posted earlier there wont be significant decreases from 4.8% because there will always be a group of unemployed people, people made redundant or sacked, long term unemployed, students looking for work, people who leave jobs for other reasons. There's a nice chart on the BBC article that shows that unemployment pre-crisis was around the level it is now and never much lower.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

A vote of confidence in the UK economy, is people willing to buy UK assets because they believe they will make money:

But they don't need to be confident about the economy in order to make money from it. You can make money in a recession. Especially if you own a monopoly for something vital.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

shows we have no shortage of labour in the UK and so goods reason for cutting down on immigration

You do realize that immigrants use facilities, goods and services?

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

But they don't need to be confident about the economy in order to make money from it. You can make money in a recession. Especially if you own a monopoly for something vital.

so, in general you think that foreign money buying UK businesses, shows, on balance a lack of confidence in the future of the UK economy.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

so, in general you think that foreign money buying UK businesses, shows, on balance a lack of confidence in the future of the UK economy.

No. I'm saying foreign money buying cheap assets shows nothing either way about the future of the economy. It shows they think they can make money out of it, and that's all.

You don't open a Pawn shop because you're confident the economy is good; you do it when you're confident it's bad.

Unless people stop using electricity, you'll be able to make money off of ownership of energy infrastructure.

Unless the economy goes seriously downhill, London property is a pretty safe gamble. Plenty of people will need to live and rent there, even in a recession. In fact, a recession probably means less new builds too.