Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Rusty_Shackleton

buglawton wrote: »

Can 'people working hard but would like more money and an easier life' be added to the unemployment figures? In which case I might nominate myself.

One other little thing to remember: Before the 1970s mainly the male married partner worked and a non working wife would never be counted as unemployed or seeking work. Times do change.

Don't be facetious. I think 20% is probably higher than a true reflection but the official figures have been gerrymandered and aren't worth the paper their printed on. People working part time hours who want full time - I can't remember what officially qualifies as part or full time in terms of hours, but full time is anything over 26 or something equally lower than what most people on an hourly wage realistically require.

When we're talking about unemployment figures it's not enough that someone technically has a job, they need to be able to survive on it at least.

fatbeetle wrote: »

The unemployment rate in the eurozone has fallen to its lowest since February 2009, according to the latest official figures. The rate dropped to 9.1% last month, from a downwardly revised 9.2% in May

Greece has the highest rate of unemployment in the eurozone at 21.7%, and also the highest rate of youth unemployment at 45.5%,

The second highest unemployment rate was 17.1% in Spain, which was down from 19.9% a year earlier. Spain also had the second highest level of youth unemployment among 15-24 year olds at 39.2%.

I'd take our unemployment rate any day.

Not forgetting; One in five unemployed people in the UK are migrants, official figures have revealed for the first time. The figures show that 317,000 migrants are unemployed, including 98,000 who were born in the EU and 219,000 born outside the EU.

I couldn't care less what the unemployment rate of other countries is, in the context of the UK. If our figures are as badly unrealistic as suggested, then that would make our unemployment worse than the Eurozone, so careful what you wish for.

Also, regardless of your opinion of migrants, if they are here legally and unemployed, that is still a problem in terms of the problems unemployment causes for society.

Tthe fact remains if we had the lowest unemployment since the 70's there would be wage inflation - instead wages are decreasing in real terms. Square that circle if you want portray the official unemployment figures as accurate. The government have done like they so often do, change how statistics are calculated to look like policy is successful, to cover their own incompetence and failure.

Tromking

gfplux wrote: »

"Enjoy a free house" when did an EU immigrant get a free house? Are you trying to tempt me back to the UK?

I seem to recall the tragic Italian couple who perished in the Grenfell Tower. Both were full time students, yet somehow had bagged a flat in Kensington and Chelsea. I was under the impression that if benefits/housing are available to British citizens then the same must be given to EU citizens choosing to settle in the UK.

always_sunny

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

Well TBH that is the point - how can the fullest employment since 1975 with the protection of minimum wage be the doom and gloom you seem to suggest?

Of course, everyone wants higher pay and with a fuller the employment situation - the harder it will become for companies to recruit without paying more.

Unless in your view the goals should be 20% unemployment and high wages for those with a job???

Not quite sure of the relevance of the Czech average wages either, where cost of living is wildly different.

There is no doom and gloom, it was more of a question. What is the future vision for Britain?
To become a low wage country and 100% employment? Have high wages (in £) but devalue the currency?

It's not my view, it's more what the country is preparing to be. Will a large amount of youngsters with degrees and schooling debt want working in a factory?

CKhalvashi

Tromking wrote: »

I seem to recall the tragic Italian couple who perished in the Grenfell Tower. Both were full time students, yet somehow had bagged a flat in Kensington and Chelsea. I was under the impression that if benefits/housing are available to British citizens then the same must be given to EU citizens choosing to settle in the UK.

Was it a council property or was it privately owned?

Some in the block had been sold under Right to Buy I believe, so it is completely plausible that they were the tenants of a private landlord.

Most full-time students have no entitlement to housing benefit either unless there are very specific circumstances, so no free house, despite what the Express will tell you.

EU citizens following one of the 'four freedoms' have the same right to housing on the condition they are 'habitually resident' in the UK. Under the tests (where I live anyway, I'd assume Kensington and Chelsea is much stricter in definition) they'd have had to have worked for a reasonable amount of time plus show a local connection to the area in order to qualify to register on the housing list. This would then be allocated on a needs-based approach.

Basically, taking a stab in the dark based on judgement, experience and common sense, I'd say they're private tenants, likely with a family paying full rent for them. The cheapest 2 bed flat currently on Rightmove (click here) is £365/week.

always_sunny

Tromking wrote: »

I seem to recall the tragic Italian couple who perished in the Grenfell Tower. Both were full time students, yet somehow had bagged a flat in Kensington and Chelsea. I was under the impression that if benefits/housing are available to British citizens then the same must be given to EU citizens choosing to settle in the UK.

I believe they were both graduates and working here and they rented the flat as any other flat (in was not 100% social housing). They "somehow bagged" because they both had full time jobs and an income.

mrginge

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

The UK does not have a low rate of unemployment. If we had a genuinely low rate of unemployment, pay wouldnt be shrinking in real terms. Article on it here places rate at more like 20pc although personally i think the part time wanting full time figures probably inflate it more than they should.

You have previously told us about the respected economists that you have read and that because those economists say one thing (that fits your agenda), it is to be believed and respected.

Now you seem to be quoting a journalist, who's comments (that fit your agenda) have been dismissed by actual economists.

Can we have some consistency please?

Rinoa

GreatApe wrote: »

Is a uk born family with the parent as a bin man a drain to society? Do they pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits and services?

How can a bin man who does a clearly necessary job be a drain to society?

There is a balance in any society. Some are born to be bin men, others nuclear scientists. Bin men are poorly paid but do a necessary job so I'm happy to pay a little more in taxes so he has a decent standard of living.

But you can only afford to subsidise a limited number of people before the natural balance is thrown out of kilter. And if you take in millions of migrants in a short period of time it puts extra pressue on schools, hospitals, transport. Pressure which is difficult to relieve if many migrants pay little or no tax.

If you want to settle in most countries they insist on you having a cast iron well paid job guarantee from a list of required professions or alternatively a substatial amount of money deposited in a bank account.

We need to do the same.

fatbeetle

Tthe fact remains if we had the lowest unemployment since the 70's there would be wage inflation - instead wages are decreasing in real terms. Square that circle if you want portray the official unemployment figures as accurate.

The "fact" as you call it is purely unsupported supposition on your part.

If you do not care to compare the UK to other countries in terms of unemployment, then you ignore the wider world economic situation, and your figures in isolation are meaningless.

If the unemployment rate in the EU was at (laughing here,) 2% and in the UK it was 60% woudl you ignore their situation then?

This article in the FT may enlighten you;

https://www.ft.com/content/83e7e87e-fe64-11e6-96f8-3700c5664d30

Between 2007 and 2015, the UK was the only big advanced economy in which wages contracted while the economy expanded. In most other countries, including France and Germany, both the economy and wages have grown
There are various reasons for the exceptional case of the UK, not least a shift towards lower-paid jobs, low productivity levels and growth, a strong rise in employment and higher inflation.

Rusty_Shackleton

mrginge wrote: »

You have previously told us about the respected economists that you have read and that because those economists say one thing (that fits your agenda), it is to be believed and respected.

Now you seem to be quoting a journalist, who's comments (that fit your agenda) have been dismissed by actual economists.

Can we have some consistency please?

I'm happy to quote a journalist because he's quoting verifiable fact - the interpretation of those statistics is what we're discussing.

The government have gerrymandered figures and the ONS have failed to change how they gather statistics to reflect structural changes in employment. People on a zero hours contract (and this doesn't apply to all of them, I'm not saying it does) count as employed, even if they actually get just an hour a week. What about people 'inactive but would like a job', not counted in official stats - these will include people, for example, who have been sanctioned by DWP. Do you not consider those people to be genuinely unemployed?

Given what unemployment figures are actually used for, and the way they're used to declare how the economy is great and anyone not doing well is just whining, greedy, or an alcoholic/ drug addict/gambler... in fact,anything other than 'struggling to find genuine work' that they can actually live on.

It's important: just because the government says unemployment is low, doesn't mean we don't have the waste and social consequences of high(er) unemployment.

The fact is that by the official figures, we are at 'full employment'. In an economy where there is full employment, demand for labour outstrips supply because employees have more leverage. That's clearly not happening, so something is very wrong.

Now stop being a bore and trying to have a go at me personally... someone else said something relevant to this... ah yes:

mrginge wrote: »

I'd rather you either backed up such claims, or alternatively !!!!!!.

Please follow your own advice.

GreatApe

always_sunny wrote: »

I can only assume it's because historically bin men have been regarded as lower skill jobs and paid accordingly. I don't see why a bin man should not earn the same or even more than any other council worker (desk job).

Not sure what it has to do with Brexit though!

I'm trying to explain that there is not a simple way to judge the value/contribution of an individual or job just by looking at their paycheck to see how much in taxes they pay. I am using a UK family as an example but you can apply this to an immigrant family. So I am trying to suggest even poor migrants on low wages actually contribute more than their pay packets suggest because they push up everyone else in the pay and skill scales.

Using the bin men on £17,000 a year, clearly if you look at just the taxes they pay vs the benefits and services they get that family will look like a huge drain to society and if they disappeared it would seem a big gain for everyone else. But how can that be when that is a vital job that needs doing.

I can only see two ways to bring the situation to a point where it makes sense, either we increase the wages of bin men to around £40,000 a year which is roughly where the break even for a family is that is to say they are not a drain or a net payer.

Or we keep their wages at £17,000 and are grown up and knowledgeable enough to accept that their paycheck where it says tax paid only a £1,000 is not the full story that this family is not a burden even if on first accounting it looks like they are

It makes more sense to keep their wages at £17,000 and accept that the numbers of paychecks are not the full story than to increase his wage to £40,000 because increasing the wage artificially would missallocate people. That is to say people with more skill and IQ and experience than is required would apply to be bin men and get those jobs because of the artificially high pay vs the skills/experience required.