If we vote for Brexit what happens

ruggedtoast

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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:

No it doesn't. It clearly subdivides people who are out of work due to receiving incapacity, from the other groups. You are misrepresenting the report because it doesn't say what you want to read.

This report assesses the real level of unemployment in 2012. It plugs the key gap in official
measures of unemployment and provides alternative – and more robust – estimates of
unemployment across all Britain’s regions and districts.

The Labour Force Survey, which is what the government uses to give you the headline figures of unemployment that you Tory fans are so pleased about, surveys a grand total of just 40,000 households.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22870886

Or about 1 in 600 of the working population. With a + or - 3% margin of error (in a survey reporting 5% unemployment)

Irrespective of whether those people think they are unemployed or not, if they are on a pointless training scheme, if they have given up looking for work because there isn't any, if they are receiving any form of incapacity benefit whether or not they are otherwise fit to work, one of the 800,000 people on a zero hours contract

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/number-of-zero-hours-contracts-increases-by-104000-a6920716.html

not immediately looking for work as they have a few weeks in Amazon over Christmas, or otherwise working part time and having to make their income up in benefits; the ONS consider them to not be unemployed.

The ONS consider this to be in line with international definitions of unemployment and therefore comparable internationally, but we have already established that Germany would consider many of these people to be unemployed, and do include them in their own statistics.

The survey also points out the hidden regional unemployment figures, which exceed 20% in places in the Midlands and North.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

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

Why should we take expensive migrants from Europe?

If we dropped the minimum wage outside of the EU there are literally billions of workers out there currently surviving on far less than our minimum income.

They wouldn't be in a position to demand residency rights either.

mayonnaise

Brexit Bus receives Golden Globe nomination for ‘Best Special Effect’

The Brexit Bus has been made favourite for the special effects Golden Globe after those behind it convinced millions of people that what was written on it was genuinely real.

http://newsthump.com/2016/12/14/brexit-bus-receives-golden-globe-nomination-for-best-special-effect/

TrickyTree83

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No it doesn't. It clearly subdivides people who are out of work due to receiving incapacity, from the other groups. You are misrepresenting the report because it doesn't say what you want to read.



The Labour Force Survey, which is what the government uses to give you the headline figures of unemployment that you Tory fans are so pleased about, surveys a grand total of just 40,000 households.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22870886

Or about 1 in 600 of the working population. With a + or - 3% margin of error (in a survey reporting 5% unemployment)

Irrespective of whether those people think they are unemployed or not, if they are on a pointless training scheme, if they have given up looking for work because there isn't any, if they are receiving any form of incapacity benefit whether or not they are otherwise fit to work, one of the 800,000 people on a zero hours contract

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/number-of-zero-hours-contracts-increases-by-104000-a6920716.html

not immediately looking for work as they have a few weeks in Amazon over Christmas, or otherwise working part time and having to make their income up in benefits; the ONS consider them to not be unemployed.

The ONS consider this to be in line with international definitions of unemployment and therefore comparable internationally, but we have already established that Germany would consider many of these people to be unemployed, and do include them in their own statistics.

The survey also points out the hidden regional unemployment figures, which exceed 20% in places in the Midlands and North.

Oh yes, it does clearly subdivide them.

But claims they are part of the unemployed cohort, as do you.

Once you add in people who are unemployed who are actually unemployed, then the UK's real unemployment rate is about 10%

Do you want to try to dodge it again?

As far as I and probably others can tell the Sheffield Hallam study, and yourself, include the incapacity benefit claimants in the unemployment count. Giving an estimated 8.8%, or as you say "about 10%".

I've not misrepresented the report at all, I simply explained the quotes before posting the quote from the authors themselves.

They also as you can see from the above image are indeed trying to include incapacity benefit as part of the overall unemployed cohort, I love how they put it in capitals too "REAL UNEMPLOYMENT"

Edit: I'm genuinely sorry that I've pointed out it doesn't support what you are trying to claim I must be an exasperatingly boring individual to read such things, but also I also failed to mention that it's from 2012, only 8.8% using that absurd definition and the figures for claimants has fallen in the last 4 years.

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

in general what do you feel are the best meaures of unemployment

the year on year figures that have a 'naturally ' seasonal adjustment
or the 3 month figure that clearly don't show a seasonal adjustment

or the one that best suits the point you want to make

Rinoa

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

Amazing how the analysts worked all that out, when just a few posts ago the remoaners were stating categorically the figures were fixed.

Rinoa

Oh dear, looks like the EU are having problems with their own negotiating stance.

European Parliament Brexit boss Guy Verhofstadt today (14 December) threatened to open up separate negotiations with the British, unless EU leaders meet his demand to be included in the UK-EU divorce talks.
The threat is the first crack in the carefully crafted show of unity the EU has displayed since the 23 June referendum.
EU leaders, excluding the UK, will discuss how to handle the negotiations with the British tomorrow evening (15 December) in Brussels.
Draft documents point to them confirming the European Commission will lead the negotiations once Article 50, the legal process taking the UK out of the EU, is triggered.
Michel Barnier, the Commission’s Brexit boss, will be joined in the negotiation room by staff from the Council and the nation holding the six-month rotating Presidency of the EU.
While the Council and Commission will be represented, the Parliament, which must approve the final Brexit deal, will not

.



http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/verhofstadt-threatens-separate-brexit-talks-between-eu-parliament-and-uk/

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

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

so another good reason for cutting out immigration

ruggedtoast

I've got an interesting idea for an experiment.

We can divide the country in two. On one side we can completely ban immigrants.

On the other side we can allow unlimited immigration but completely ban racists.

I wonder which side would work out best?

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I've got an interesting idea for an experiment.

We can divide the country in two. On one side we can completely ban immigrants.

On the other side we can allow unlimited immigration but completely ban racists.

I wonder which side would work out best?

well banning those that discrimination in favour of white christian europeans and against all the other peoples of the world, might be an interesting idea