Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Employment statistics

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Employment statistics - Cameron lies again

Post by skwalker1964 on Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:56 am

Repost from my blog. As usual, for links please visit the original at: http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/october-employment-statistics-cameron-lies-and-misdirects/

It’s time again to take a proper look at the latest ONS employment statistics. David Cameron, with his usual arrogant sneer, tried to taunt Ed Miliband this week during Prime Minister’s Questions, by asking why Miliband wasn’t congratulating the government on the fact that “employment is up by 212,000 this quarter; unemployment is down by 50,000 this quarter; the claimant count has actually fallen by 4,000; and what that means is that since the election some 170,000 fewer people are on out-of-work benefits“.

That kind of sneering triumphalism deserves to be challenged and examined at the best of times – and even more so in a period where the vast majority of people are being forced to get by on less by ideologically-driven and unnecessary cuts. So, let’s take a look behind the headlines.

Adjusted vs unadjusted

In my monthly analyses, I always mention that I’m using the unadjusted statistics, but this month that point is deserving of its own section. The ONS statisticians make theoretical seasonal adjustments to the actual figures to fit what they think is happening – but the raw, unadjusted figures tell what is really happening to real people. In general – though not always – the adjusted figures will be kinder to the government, but the raw data represent real life, whichever way they go. Let’s compare Cameron’s self-congratulation with the real-life figures:

- “employment is up by 212,000 this quarter”. Employment is up, but actually by 397,000, not 212,000. This matches almost exactly the reduction (400,000) in the number of ‘economically inactive’ people – this is very significant, as we’ll see shortly.

- “unemployment is down by 50,000 this quarter”. Well, no it isn’t. Employment is actually UP by 95,000, from 2.506 million to 2.601 million.

- “the claimant count has actually fallen by 4,000″. The claimant count is actually down by almost 20,000 since the last quarter.

- “what that means is that since the election some 170,000 fewer people are on out-of-work benefits”. I can’t find any statistic in the tables to support this assertion. Whether you use the adjusted or unadjusted statistics, the claimant count is much higher than it was at the time of the election: 1,517,300 people vs 1,494,500 people according to the adjusted figures, or 1,569,900 vs 1,502,200 according to the unadjusted statistics.

So either Cameron got it completely wrong – or else he lied (again) to Parliament. Cameron’s claim differs by 398,000 from the actual (adjusted) number. Too big to realistically be a mistake – but just right for a ‘Big Lie’. As we’ve seen with the ‘1 million net new jobs’ claim, Cameron just can’t resist the opportunity to stretch his claims well beyond the point where they can be called true, for the sake of political point-scoring.

Take all of Cameron’s statements together with the actual statistics, and you get a very different picture from the one he’s trying to paint:

- Claimant count down for the quarter but unemployment actually up means more than 100,000 people losing their jobs but being denied access to needed benefits.

- Employment up, and economic inactivity down by the same amount, while unemployment rose. Economic inactivity figures primarily represent those who, by choice, are not earning wages nor claiming benefits – for example, full-time parents or those with a spouse earning enough to mean they don’t have to work. A reduction in economic inactivity, then, is by no means necessarily a good thing.

The fact that unemployment rose means that the government is not helping those who want to work to find jobs. Instead its economic policies are reducing our incomes so that those who previously didn’t want or need to work are now having to find jobs to make ends meet – while those who are unemployed and seeking work are unable to find it. This is borne out by the next set of statistics.

No dent in unemployment, especially long-term

Numbers in all categories of long-term unemployment (12-24 months and 24+ months) are up substantially. And, contrary to the Tories’ ‘scrounger’ demonisation (the shift worker looking up at the closed curtains of his unemployed neighbour tucked cosily in bed, as Osborne so ludicrously put it), this is not because of people simply preferring a cushy life on benefits. As of the latest quarterly figures, there are 2,528,000 people out of work, and only 475,000 vacancies for them to fight for. No matter what, there are more than 2 million people in this country for whom there is no job – and more than 5 people fighting for every single job there is – even assuming that every vacancy has people with the right skills and circumstances to be able to do it.

Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman…

As (I think!) Tammy Wynette put it so eloquently. And how right she was. In various ways, women continue to be penalised disproportionately under the coalition government – not just in terms of lost benefits and increased costs, but in employment:

Unemployment: women make up 59% of the increase in unemployment.

Single parent claimants: single parent claimants (who are predominantly female) of job-seekers’ allowance is up since the last quarter – and almost doubled (from 70,130 to 134,885) since this government took office.

Lost hours: British people worked fewer hours in the last year, and fewer compared to a quarter ago. While male workers, whether full- or part-time, lost only around 30 minutes from their working (and therefore paid) week, female workers lost an hour or more.

‘Twas tough in such a time to be alive, but to be young was very hell

It’s a very hard time to be young at the moment. Housing costs are making the dream of independence and one’s own home unattainable for huge numbers of young people. University debts have escalated massively under this government (and no amount of musical apology from Nick Clegg changes the fact). The government is targeting young people for the removal of entitlement to housing benefit.

And unemployment? Well, for the 16-17 and 18-24 age groups, unemployment is up sharply. For 16-17 year-olds, the rate has increased massively from 33% to 40%. In pure numbers terms, another 62,000 people in that age group are out of work, and another 56,000 18-24 year-olds.

The working poor

Average wages increased slightly on the quarter, and since last year. However, they failed by a distance to keep pace with inflation – meaning that almost all of us are worse off under the coalition, no matter which period you look at. This means more working people pushed below the poverty line and need to claim housing benefit and income support – in spite of the government’s propaganda that implies that benefit-claimants are work-shy scroungers. This is probably exacerbated by the following segment.

The swing to part-time and low security continues

The number of people working part-time jumped by 59,000 compared to the previous quarter, while self-employment climbed by 55,000. While the government will try to spin the latter figure as showing that they are promoting enterprise, the reality is that most of these ‘self-employed’ jobs are either imposed by companies to avoid having to pay for sick leave, holidays and national insurance or represent people who are trying to make a living because they can’t find an employed position, but are by no means guaranteed to succeed.

Full-time employed positions have increased by only 30,000 since a year ago, while part-time positions have increased by 214,000 – a major factor in the fact that we’re working fewer hours as a nation, and being paid less too.

Productivity down

The government likes to claim that it’s pro-business and pro-enterprise, and – according to Cameron’s speech at his party’s conference earlier this month – that it’s making us leaner, meaner and more competitive. However, the statistics couldn’t contradict that claim more strongly.

Productivity per British worker is down – and is the lowest it has been since the government took office. That’s what happens when people feel under-valued, exploited, oppressed and abused – their hearts are no longer in their jobs and their output declines. Cameron and his government are crushing the spirits of British workers – or at least angering them so intensely that a de facto go-slow is taking place.

I’m sure there would be more bad news – because there always is – for disabled people, but the statistics on unemployment among the disabled are only updated every 3 months (which is a scandal in itself, really), so there’s nothing new to report yet compared to last month.

But the stats that have been published show, once again, that while there is some good news (in spite, rather than because of, the government), Cameron is presenting an extremely selective picture of the employment situation in Britain and shamelessly using it to pat himself, and his government, on the back – when in fact, the reality is that, for most of us, things are hard and getting harder. Most of us are in it together, while the Tories and their rich chums get richer and smugger – and applaud the orchestra fiddling as the Titanic sinks.

I wish I could say it’s not the norm.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by oftenwrong on Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:00 pm

"I wish I could say it’s not the norm."

Every government since 1950 has at one time or another massaged the unemployment figures. Part of the benefits-fraud problem was actually initiated by government when thousands of "registered unemployed" found themselves "registered disabled".

The 2012 statistics have been revised at least twice by the ONS, who might seem to be competing for the Booker Prize. The eagle-eyed will possibly spot some more "revisions" just before Gideon makes his autumn statement. http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadHome.do;jessionid=Qhp2Q7dPQy8XkQWXpKbxRJ4kL75HcLYLJZLrXCgWMD7h9D32PsxJ!1200671926!1350294927448?m=0&s=1350294927448&enc=1&nsjs=true&nsck=true&nssvg=false&nswid=800
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by skwalker1964 on Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:03 pm

Good point. But a swing from 170k fewer claimants to 228k more is a hell of a massage!
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by Red Cat Woman on Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:16 pm

My Dad wrote this this year 2012

If Gideon goes on like this we will be in a Gross domestic product decline with a de-industrialisation of our manufacturing industries for years to come and will speed up. The impact on our public finances will be twofold. first a massive decline in manufacturing employment will take place again with a reduced tax base. the outcome will be one of substantially fewer worker, especially male manual workers, in full time employment, with a long term growth in unemployment. thus revenue to the exchequer will be curtailed and social benefit payments will be cut again in real terms. 

secondly, the state will in the end have to move to protect post-tax profitability of what is left of our industrial companies and my well have to increase direct grants and other forms of aid to them. as there will be a decline in manufacturing investment and capital expenditure. I believe we could well see major technological innovations within our industry coming to a stop while we see a intensifying of international competition take place as our economy losses its competitiveness in key overseas markets as they take advantage of our lack of any economic growth policy. 

Gideon is speeding up our decaling market share with his policy of retreat. the 0.7% in Q2 and the deteriorating economic performance will have a extreme impact on our on our overseas trade with a greater swing to net imports. We could see a sort term boost due to London Olympics and ticket sales and visitors' spending. but I expect this to fall away by Q1 in 2013. What is very clear is that construction is a direct result of this governments disproportionate capital cuts in public spending. The influence must also have been felt in timber, furniture etc. 

if all these UK economic figures are brought together they signal the most profound structural crisis for the British economy in my life time. but all of that has been made far worse by a grossly mismanaged recession, which in the hand of this Tory lead Coalition government has turned into a devastating economic slump. 

Written by Stox 16

avatar
Red Cat Woman

Posts : 175
Join date : 2012-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by skwalker1964 on Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:48 pm

Red Cat Woman. Great post. 'Race to the bottom', anyone?
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

More Tory weasel words and outright lies: Treasury questions

Post by skwalker1964 on Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:38 pm

See the original at http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/more-govt-bollocks-weaseling-youth-unemployment/ for links.

I dipped into Treasury Questions on BBC Parliament today, expecting to be outraged by the usual nonsense from George Osborne. It turns out he was absent from the proceedings today (he really is a part-time Chancellor), but there was no shortage of things to get incensed about as Economy Secretary Sajid Javid and Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander were standing in for their absentee boss (that the Tories supposedly oppose ‘something for nothing’ really is too ironic).

Javid in particular was simply ludicrous – and next to Alexander he faced some stiff competition. Apart from the usual infuriating ‘tee-up’ questions (for which I’d happily institute the death penalty) from the Tory backbenchers, along the lines of ‘Would the minister agree that we are simply wonderful and the sun shines out of our collective backsides?‘, I don’t think Javid answered – or even alluded to – a single question he was asked.

Instead, every question from the opposition was answered by referring to some supposed failing of the previous Labour government – a kind of ‘inherited mess myth‘-cubed, but with a playground flavour:

“Will the Government now apologise for their complacent decision to scrap the future jobs fund?“

Javid: “I think it is the hon. Gentleman who should be apologising.”


In other words,
Will you apologise for the bad thing you’ve done?
You smell!

But some of the claims he made in his accusatory non-answers were quite mind-blowingly misleading. If I tried to analyse everything they said that was outrageous, untrue or misleading, and often all three, this post would become unreadably long, so I’m going to focus on one key area: youth-unemployment.

Here are some of the questions and the corresponding, non-responsive claims (from the Hansard record), along with an analysis of what the facts actually say:

The clever ‘pick’

Catherine McKinnell: One way to tackle youth unemployment in Kettering and Northamptonshire and across the UK would be for the Government to commit now to repeating Labour’s tax on bank bonuses on top of the bank levy to fund much-needed new jobs for young people. Is the Minister aware that in some parts of Northamptonshire, such as Corby, the number of under-24s on the dole for more than 12 months has gone up by a shocking 233% in just the last year?

Sajid Javid:
I am not surprised that the hon. Lady is talking about youth unemployment, because in the last 10 years of her Government it rocketed by 72% from 534,000 to 921,000. The previous Government created the problem and this Government’s policies are bringing the number down.


Doesn’t actually answer the question, but still seems obvious, right? In Labour’s final 10-year period, their management of the economy was so bad that youth unemployment simply rose and rose, until by the 2010 General Election it had increased by 72%. Shocking. Right?

Wrong.

Here’s a graph I made of the youth unemployment figures (raw figures, not the ones the statisticians ‘adjust’, though the story in this case is much the same either way), for the last part of Major’s Tory government and then the whole of Labour’s last period in power:



The yellow line shows the total (unadjusted) youth unemployment from the beginning of 1996 up to May 2010, while the other lines represent the 16-17 and 18-24 age groups. What the graph shows is that youth unemployment came down under Labour compared to Major’s government, and then stayed more or less static for a number of years until 2005, when it increased slightly.

It then rocketed with the onset of the financial crisis – but had started to come down again by the time of the election.

Javid’s trick – clever in a slick and treacherous kind of way – is to refer to the figures in the context of Labour’s ‘last 10 years’ when in fact the real upturn in the youth unemployment figure was because of the financial crisis that slammed economies worldwide. George Osborne has repeatedly blamed the Eurozone crisis for his government’s failure to create economic growth – and yet the Tories are happy to accuse Labour of economic mismanagement, whether in the form of youth unemployment, or the ‘inherited mess’, or the ‘record deficit’ (which is nothing like a record), or any other measure that they want to use to criticise, ridicule and undermine Labour’s economic credibility.

What’s also very clever and deliberately misleading about Javid’s ’72% in the last 10 years’ accusation is that it sets as a starting point the youth unemployment level in May 2000, when Labour had already brought it down by over 29% compared to the level Labour inherited from the Tories. By choosing this low starting point, it allows Javid to arrive at his figure of 72%.

But if you started at the level left by Major’s Tory government, the increase at the end of Labour’s tenure – even after years of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression – was less than 20%. Less than 20%, not 72% – and falling again.

It’s a blatant, shameless distortion of the facts – not to mention that it ignores that David Cameron supported Labour’s measures in response to the crash. All too typical of this hypocritical government.

Ignore one question and frame another

Tom Greatrex: “What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the Government’s fiscal policies on the level of long-term youth unemployment.”

Javid: “The UK labour market is showing some signs of recovery. There are more people in work now than ever before, and youth unemployment is at its lowest since 2011.”


Well, if you look at the seasonally-adjusted figures, unemployment among 16-17s is down by 9,000 compared to the preceding quarter, and among 18-24s by 52,000.

The only small problem is that those numbers are entirely theoretical and don’t actually exist.

If you look at the raw data, 16-17 unemployment rose by 62,000 in the last quarter, and 18-24 rose by 56,000 – those are the figures affecting real people, not the theoretical numbers after the statisticians have played with them. Not only that, but both figures are higher than they were when the coalition came to power, whether you look at the adjusted or unadjusted figures.

In this measure, as in so many others, it’s more a question of ‘the mess we’ve created‘ than ‘the mess we inherited‘. But of course, you’ll never hear anything that straightforward and honest from the lips of a government spokesman.

And the blatant lie…

Gavin Shuker: “In my constituency, long-term youth unemployment is not up by 11% or 110%, but by 1,150%. Will the Government now apologise for their complacent decision to scrap the future jobs fund?”

Javid: “I think it is the hon. Gentleman who should be apologising. He is probably having a hard time explaining to his constituents why the number of young people on jobseeker’s allowance in the last five years of the previous Government went up by 45%. I have some good news for him, however. Under this Government, that number is down“


Well, this qualifies as a blatant lie. Again, Javid picks a low starting point and then points to the higher level when Labour’s tenure ended – but again ignores the fact of the financial crash, and the fact that the level of youth claimants was at its lowest point in over a year by May 2010. Labour was reducing the figure again after the crash.

But he went further, and lied. The 18-24 claimant count in the unadjusted figures in May 2010 was 416,800, versus 445,000 now. ‘ok’, you might say, ‘but he’s using the adjusted figures’. Fair enough. According to the adjusted figures, 429,100 when Labour left office and 435,500 now. Higher in both cases.

Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time to research the figures and ascertain just where the falsehoods lie, and Labour’s questioners would have to be extremely well-informed to be able to identify them within a few seconds of hearing just what lie, evasion or misdirection comes back in response to a question.

But any time you look in any depth at what the ‘answers’ are, and what lies behind them, one thing becomes very clear:

If a Tory’s lips are moving, he’s almost certainly lying.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Tory Treasury bollocks/lies pt 2: 'UK deficit worst in G7'

Post by skwalker1964 on Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:48 pm

Part 2 on yesterday's Treasury Questions. See original at http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/tory-treasury-bollockslies-pt-2-uk-deficit-g7s-highest/ for links.

I wrote last night about the rubbish and outright lies told by Economy Secretary Sajid Javid in yesterday’s Treasury Questions on the topic of youth unemployment, as he skewed and misrepresented statistics and even lied about youth unemployment being down under the Tory-led coalition compared to the preceding Labour government.

There’s one other passage in the questions that is so blatant that I just couldn’t resist giving it its own article – Tory minister Greg Clark’s (non-)answers on the national deficit. Again, he failed to actually answer a question, and in his playground-level non-sequitur statements on the national deficit he not only misrepresented the facts but also went so far as to tell an outright untruth.

Let’s take a look.

Tom Blenkinsop: “What the level of public sector net borrowing was in the (a) first six months of 2012-13 and (b) equivalent period in 2011-12.”

Financial Secretary to the Treasury, GregClark: “Public sector net borrowing totalled £37 billion in the first six months of 2012-13, compared with £62.4 billion in the equivalent period in 2011-12. However, income and expenditure vary throughout any year, and it is too early to draw firm conclusions about the year as a whole.”


Tom Blenkinsop: “Between 2010 and 2015, debt will increase under the coalition by £465 billion in just five years in real terms. How much of that debt is due to an increase in borrowing for higher welfare benefit costs as a result of the Chancellor’s double-dip recession?”

Greg Clark: “I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to talk about debt when the legacy of the previous Government has made it clear that it has been the worst in the G7. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the changes in Government spending have directly added to gross domestic product, and have helped matters, rather than subtract from it.”


and

Mr Speaker: “Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that any Minister would be anything other than straight. He may want to deploy another word with reference to dealings with the House.”

Chris Leslie: “Absolutely. Perhaps it was inadvertent—I would not in any way wish to imply that the Minister was deliberately obfuscating on the facts. I wanted to pick up on a specific question. As I understand it, public sector borrowing in the first six-month period of the last financial year was £62.4 billion. It was £65.1 billion in the first six months of this financial year, so will he confirm that that is £2.6 billion higher, that borrowing has risen, and that the deficit has gone up?”

Greg Clark: “No, the numbers vary from month to month. The hon. Gentleman needs to wait until the end of the financial year. January is the key month for these things, as he knows, but if he is interested in getting matters straight on the facts, will he clarify the shadow Chancellor’s suggestion that there was no structural deficit before the recession, because according to the IMF not only was there a structural deficit but it was the worst in the G7?”


Let’s look at the slightly less obvious offence first. Note how, in the 2nd passage, Clark attempts to dodge the fact that in the first he’s stated false figures by saying that the UK deficit was lower in the first half of this fiscal year than it was under Labour, when in fact it was higher:

No, the numbers vary month by month.”

But his statement was:

Public sector net borrowing totalled £37 billion in the first six months of 2012-13

Total figures for a 6-month period that is already past do not, cannot, “vary month by month”. Clarke referred to a peak in January, but in the fiscal year January falls in the 2nd half of the year and has exactly zero influence on the level of the figures in the first half.

I think Chris Leslie was absolutely right before he modified his statement under pressure from the Speaker:
Greg Clark was deliberately obfuscating the facts.

And now for the big one. The absolutely blatant, inescapable, outright lie:

Note Clark’s statement – repeated twice, just to make sure we got it – that the UK’s national deficit under Labour was “the worst in the G7“.

The G7 is a group of leading industrialised nations comprising Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US. According to Clark’s statement, the UK’s deficit under Labour ‘has been’ the worst in the whole group. Was it?

Here are some figures for the G7 nations that I took from a table compiled by the OECD (you can view the complete table here), which show the national debt for each country as a percentage of its GDP from 2006-2010:



I’ve sorted the data according to the deficit in 2010, Labour’s last year in power. As you can see, the UK ranks 2nd – not worst. You might reasonably argue that Labour was only in power for part of that year, but if you want to make that argument, look at 2009, Labour’s last full year in power – again, we rank 2nd.

Normally, when the Tories want to make this kind of ‘worst in’ argument, they use cash terms – which don’t mean anything, as a millionaire with a debt of £10,000 doesn’t have a problem, while a person on benefits with a debt of £5,000 almost certainly does. But in this case, even if Clark was referring to cash terms and not as a percentage of GDP, he was still lying. The US economy dwarfs that of the UK, so that its higher percentage debt is vastly higher than that of the UK. Whichever way you cut it, Clark gave false information to the House – and if he wasn’t lying, he’s grossly incompetent. Either way he should resign.

And even if he’d made a correct statement that the UK’s deficit was the 2nd-highest in the G7 under Labour, it would have been disingenuous. Here’s the same information, but this time sorted by the level of debt before the financial crisis began:



The UK’s debt was still 2nd-highest in 2006, but look at the level – 2.7%, just barely higher than the US and France, and comparable with all the other countries below us. Then the financial crisis hit. As the site from which I took the data says:

The 2007-2009 financial crisis led to a dramatic increase in the public deficits of many advanced economies, with many of them experiencing their highest levels of debt since World War II. This was in large part due to the huge stimulus programs in countries around the world, in addition to government bailouts, recapitalizations and takeovers of banks and other financial institutions.

As one of the world’s most important financial centres, the UK’s cost to shore up its banking system was far bigger relative to its economy than almost any other country. Not only that, but David Cameron approved the Labour government’s bailout measures that pushed our deficit to such heights. Every G7 nation’s debt rocketed, not only because of the bailouts but because the economic crisis reduced tax receipts and shrank GDP, pushing up debt by default.

In percentage terms, the 2009 deficits of Japan (544%) and the US (529%) and Canada rose as a consequence of the crash by far more than the UK’s 404%, showing that Labour’s handling of the crisis was much better. Canada swung from a budget surplus of 1.6% to a deficit of 5.6%, meaning that you can’t show the deficit increase in percentage terms, as they didn’t have one, but it was a much more drastic swing than in the UK under Labour.

So, Clark not only gave false information to the house, but even if he hadn’t, he’d still have been misleading. Yet again, we see an unmistakable fact:

You just can’t trust a Tory.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by oftenwrong on Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:18 pm

With the date of the Autumn Budget Statement soon to arrive, the statistics are not being helpful to Gideon Osborne, so he has come up with a spiffing wheeze to cover his embarassment.

You'll remember the Bank of England contribution to the nation's welfare was Quantitative Easing - a licence to print money. Osborne plans to balance his books by appropriating to HM Treasury the INTEREST notionally earned on that funny-money from lending it to our penurious Banks.

Just one question. How is the Chancellor proposing to pay it back if Bank Rate were to be increased?
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by skwalker1964 on Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:29 pm

The appears to be no limit to their willingness to cook the books.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

November employment stats: bad news for women, youth, disabled

Post by skwalker1964 on Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:50 am

For links, of which there are a number, please see the original at http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/nov-employment-stats-bad-news-for-young-women-disabled/

The government has been quiet on this month’s employment stats so far, which is usually a sign that they made too big a deal of the good news they’ve spun out of the previous month’s figures and are now trying to keep a low profile as the ‘progress’ goes backward. Either that or I’ve just missed them making a big deal out of it – they’re by no means above trumpeting good news that just isn’t there.

Either way, good information trumps bad, so here’s my analysis of the November employment statistics – as usual, I’ll be using the raw data and not the ‘seasonally-adjusted’ figures the government prefers because they usually look better, because the raw data represents stuff that’s actually happening. This is in no way unprecedented or anomalous – several of the ONS’ tables also only show unadjusted data (eg. the figures for disabled people, which are only published quarterly). So, here goes:

Overall unemployment

Unemployment is exactly static compared to the October release at 2.601 million. The adjusted figures show a fall of 50,000, but this is entirely notional. The July-October quarter figure (the most recent in the November figures) of 2.601 million is up by 82,000 compared to the preceding Apr-Jun quarter, just as the June-Sep quarter (the most recent quarter in the October stats) figure of 2.601 million was up by 95,000 compared to the preceding Mar-May quarter. So the trend in real unemployment is an increasing one, however much the government might crow otherwise.

Bad news for all but especially women

As in so many areas under this government, women are being affected far more severely than men. Of this month’s increase in unemployment of 82,000, the number of unemployed men rose by 22,000 – very bad news for those men. But the number of women rose by much more – 60,000 compared to the previous quarter.

Bad news for the disabled – again

This government has shown again and again that disabled people do not fit into its ‘everyone must pay their way’ ideology, demonising the disabled shamelessly and introducing measures that will push hundreds of thousands of them and their families into poverty.

In spite of Iain Duncan Smith’s claim that he only wants to get people out of unemployment into ‘proper jobs’ (Remploy doesn’t count in his book), the Tories are singularly failing to reduce unemployment among disabled people: unemployment rose for the 4th quarter in a row and is far higher than at any time since figures for disabled people began to be recorded separately.

Bad news if you’re young

The increase in unemployment among young people (16-24) was actually higher than the increase in the overall population, as it was offset by small falls in a couple of other age groups. This government’s policies are forcing more and more young people out of work – at the same time as the government is planning to bar them from housing benefit. So if you’re in any doubt about how the Tories view the majority of this country’s young people, you shouldn’t be.

Unemployed and unsupported

While the number of people out of work rose, the number of people claiming benefits fell in both the unadjusted figures, but rose in the adjusted ones. This shows the nonsense of the government’s claims – unemployment is supposed to be falling but benefit claims are increasing. So we have a theoretical fall in unemployment and a real rise in the claimant count.

The raw data shows that the government is creating unemployment – but at the same time forcing people off benefits even though only one vacancy exists for every 5.43 unemployed people. So much for ‘compassionate Conservatism’.

It’s pay, Dave, but not as we know it

Average earnings fell in the most recent quarter in both public and private sectors. At the same time, inflation rose from 2.2% to 2.7% according to the most recent ONS data. This means that the ordinary, working people, ‘those who work hard and do the right thing’, as the government likes to call them when it’s demonising the unemployed, are facing a continuing and worsening real-terms cut in wages – as the government cuts taxes for the richest.

The fall of the self-employed

In previous analyses I’ve argued that the increase in the number of self-employed people means nothing like the government’s claim of a rise in entrepreneurship and the creation of new businesses – but is actually a symptom of desperate people trying to make a living through self-employment because no employed jobs are available, and without any guarantee at all that they’d actually be able to make a living.

Well, this month’s figures support that interpretation. The number of self-employed people fell for the first time under this government – as people find they can’t earn enough to survive and are forced to register as unemployed.

The rise of the part-timers

The number of people working part-time increased yet again from last month’s record level – by 50,000 according to the seasonally-adjusted figures, co-incidentally exactly the same number as the theoretical decrease in unemployment. So, even in the government’s ‘fantasy’ figures, it’s unable to create full-time jobs to get people out of unemployment and can only offer part-time jobs. Hardly a sign of the resurgent economy the government would love us to believe we’re seeing.

It’s a ‘temporary’ thing

Not only is part-time work at record levels, but temporary positions rose by 53,000. The UK’s people are being forced to take insufficient, insecure work to try to make ends meet while companies make huge profits. It doesn’t take much to guess whom this government really cares about.

Time flies when you’re on the dole

Long-term unemployment – both over 12 months and over 24 months – rose again and are at the highest levels they have been since the coalition government took office. The government’s policies, for all its determination to demonise the poor and unemployed, are only increasing the numbers of people who have been out of work for years with no hope of finding a job.

As MPs return to the Commons this week, no doubt at some point Cameron or one of his stooges will try to crow over the theoretical fall of 50,000 in the headline unemployment figure. It’s not true, like most of what he says – and I hope an opposition member will be brave enough to nail him or her on it.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by boatlady on Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:37 pm

Nice clear account - just what I've come to expect. Shame the news isn't better, and I do hope the opposition makes a big noise about this very depressing and dangerous trend
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3792
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by starlight07 on Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:22 pm

Bad news if you’re young

The increase in unemployment among young people (16-24) was actually higher than the increase in the overall population, as it was offset by small falls in a couple of other age groups. This government’s policies are forcing more and more young people out of work – at the same time as the government is planning to bar them from housing benefit. So if you’re in any doubt about how the Tories view the majority of this country’s young people, you shouldn’t be.

Having been amongst this category of 'young and unemployed' last year, it was very unpleasant and depressing. We still have the Jobseeker's Allowance but I've never applied for it. Many youngsters in search for work do. Even with up to £111.45 a week, how much can one save?
avatar
starlight07

Posts : 95
Join date : 2012-11-16
Age : 28
Location : Lancashire

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by starlight07 on Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:30 pm

Skwalker,

I call it synchronicity but I've read this article today and then found your thread logging on to the site.

UK unemployment - the North/South divide

Talk of England's North/South divide may be as old as the hills (most of which are in the North incidentally), but despite the efforts of successive governments, it seems that the divide is still very much in place.

A recent labour market report from the Office of National Statistics reveals that the three regions with the highest unemployment in the UK are all in the North of England - and that the three with the lowest unemployment are all in the South.


http://msn.careerbuilder.co.uk/Article/MSN-385-Job-Search-UK-unemployment-the-North-South-divide/?lr=int_ukmsn&SiteId=int_ukmsn_a385&sc_extcmp=int_ukmsn_a385
avatar
starlight07

Posts : 95
Join date : 2012-11-16
Age : 28
Location : Lancashire

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by skwalker1964 on Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:58 pm

starlight07 wrote:Skwalker,

I call it synchronicity but I've read this article today and then found your thread logging on to the site.

UK unemployment - the North/South divide

Talk of England's North/South divide may be as old as the hills (most of which are in the North incidentally), but despite the efforts of successive governments, it seems that the divide is still very much in place.

A recent labour market report from the Office of National Statistics reveals that the three regions with the highest unemployment in the UK are all in the North of England - and that the three with the lowest unemployment are all in the South.


http://msn.careerbuilder.co.uk/Article/MSN-385-Job-Search-UK-unemployment-the-North-South-divide/?lr=int_ukmsn&SiteId=int_ukmsn_a385&sc_extcmp=int_ukmsn_a385

Thanks for the link. I didn't get round to looking at the regional figures yet, but the North is always affected far worse. In part, it's deliberate - the government is cutting public spending back far more harshly in areas where it knows it won't win seats anyway, so as it has little to lose politically by doing so, and slashing spending in the North and other Labour heartlands allows it to minimise cuts in the areas that do/might vote for it.

I suspect many people in the South East, for example, are virtually unaware of the extent of the cuts to public services in many regions - and the government would love to keep it that way, with the media's collusion. Which is why we need to march, protest, blog, tweet and do whatever else we can to make it harder for people to be ignorant.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by oftenwrong on Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:27 pm

QUOTE: "....the North is always affected far worse. In part, it's deliberate - the government is cutting public spending back far more harshly in areas where it knows it won't win seats anyway, so as it has little to lose politically by doing so, and slashing spending in the North and other Labour heartlands allows it to minimise cuts in the areas that do/might vote for it."

Perhaps we should begin to refer to this practice as "The Mitt Romney policy".
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Government claims 510,00 new jobs in 2012, exaggerating by 301,000

Post by skwalker1964 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:39 pm

Original including links: http://wp.me/p2sftc-4kd

Govt claims 510,000 new jobs in 2012. Exaggerates by 301,000

An article in yesterday’s Guardian by Shiv Malik and James Ball today exposes as a fallacy claims by the government, including George Osborne in his autumn statement, to have created half a million new jobs over the past 12 months.

Osborne was referring to figures provided in the September reports on employment from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) which showed that 510,000 new private sector jobs had been created over the past 12 months.

However, the article reveals the fact that a ‘quirk’ meant that the ONS figures included 105,000 people who are in government work schemes rather than in real jobs – and that many of these people were still claiming unemployment benefits. Shadow Employment Minister Stephen Timms MP was quoted as saying:

105,000 of claimed new jobs turn out to be just schemes – this explains why employment seems to have risen.

105,000 jobs out of a claim of 500,000 would mean a huge exaggeration on the part of the government – one that would call into serious question any semblance of credibility it might claim on this issue or any other.

However, that’s not even close to the real extent of the exaggeration. As I pointed out in an earlier article, almost twice as many of the government’s ‘new jobs’ were not new at all.

The ONS employment statistics for the 2nd half of 2012 contained a prominent warning from the ONS to anyone reading the statistics on public sector and private sector jobs. So that you can see just how unmissably prominent the warning was, I’m inserting it as an image rather than as a quote:



I’d call that pretty unmissable, wouldn’t you? Even more so when it’s placed repeatedly next to columns of tiny figures – and that’s exactly how it appears and how it was positioned. But just in case you think I’ve enlarged it or am exaggerating its prominence, here’s a snapshot of the spreadsheet:



And repeated like that all the way up the side of the table of figures.

The warning is very clear: 196,000 jobs were not new at all, but simply reclassified from the public sector into the private.

Take the Guardian’s 105,000 and the ONS’ 196,000 that I revealed some months ago, and you have a total of 301,000 jobs, out of the total of 510,000 that the government has been claiming as new, which are either not real jobs, or simply moved on paper from public to private sector. That means the real figure of 209,000 was exaggerated by a massive 144%.

Osborne and his colleagues were aware of these facts – they admitted it to the Guardian about the 105,000 jobs, and they couldn’t possibly miss the warning in the ONS statistics. Yet they went ahead and made the claim anyway – deliberately and completely misleading the public and Parliament for the sake of a snappy soundbite.

However, we’re not quite done yet. A look at the September ONS table shows that the most recent figure (at that point up to Jul 2012) for the number of people employed full-time was 21,438,000. The number of people 12 months earlier was 21,325,000 – 113,000 fewer. Of the 209,000 jobs that were new, only just over half were full-time. Almost half of the government’s supposed economic ‘achievement’ was in part-time (mostly low-paid) jobs.

An absolute exaggeration of 144% combined with misuse of what’s left, and all to deceive the electorate. There’s one thing you can say about this government:

It’s consistent.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by Phil Hornby on Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:52 pm

Does anyone remember those days when they used to call this type of 'exaggeration' by its proper name...?
avatar
Phil Hornby
Blogger

Posts : 3980
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Drifting on Easy Street

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by boatlady on Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:56 pm

What was that - hyperbole?
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3792
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by skwalker1964 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:03 pm

boatlady wrote:What was that - hyperbole?

The earlier article I wrote and referred to in this post had a plainer title that included 'bare-faced lie'...
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by oftenwrong on Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:21 pm

Perhaps eventually the spin-merchants will acknowledge the Law of Diminishing Returns.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Employment statistics

Post by skwalker1964 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:12 pm

Thought it would be a good idea to have a thread for discussion of the monthly employment statistics. To set the ball rolling, here's my analysis of the January ONS stats. The original including links is at http://wp.me/p2sftc-4GC.

Jan labour stats: headline hides bad news for women, young, long-term

This month’s employment statistics have drawn continued comment from the news media and observers about the supposed ‘oddity’ of increasing employment when the UK’s economic contraction continues.

But the story is nothing like as unalloyed as we might be led to believe. If you’re a woman, or young, then the news is anything but good. Economic inactivity is up and the news for Wales, Scotland and the long-term unemployed of either sex is not much less than awful.

Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman..

Much is being made by the Tories, in particular, of their ‘achievement’ in terms of jobs, with a fall of some 38,000 in the total unemployment number according to the statistically-adjusted figure.

However, the figure for women’s unemployment – according to the raw data which represents what’s really happening – is up by 10,000 (flat according to the adjusted figure). The figure is also higher than it was a year ago, and has increased by 66,000 since the middle of last year.

In spite of the increase in unemployment among women, the number of unemployment claimants fell by almost 15,000 – which means many women unable to find work also being denied unemployment benefits.

Just shuffling the deck

The number of people registered as unemployed may have fallen, but there’s a strong sense that much of this has been achieved by forcing people off benefits rather than by getting great numbers into work. 122,000 extra people became ‘economically inactive’, not making any contribution to the economy even by spending benefits – dwarfing the government’s headline drop in unemployment. This increase cannot be put down to increased population figures, as the number of ‘economically active’ people has fallen.

The young ones

The government has been widely and correctly criticised for the impact of its actions on young people – and for the insanity of its policy plans such as ending housing benefit for under-25s. In spite of this, it is continuing to punish young people for being young. Economic inactivity among 16-24s rose by 101,000, with the bulk of this impacting people in the 18-24 age group – out of work but not even being able to claim benefits, and so not being counted in the unemployment figures.

So, while hitting young people with massively increased university fees, spiralling rents and the near-impossibility of raising finance to buy a house, the government is not only forcing huge numbers of them to be out of work, but preventing them even being able to claim benefits and have some kind of participation in the economy.

This is bad for them, and bad for all of us as depressed demand contributes to the failure to recover economically.

Not much to sing about in the valleys

The fall in unemployment was almost entirely in England. Unemployment in Scotland rose by 24,000, and in Wales by 28,000, while economic activity in Scotland rose by another 38,000 and in Wales by 29,000.

The long-term unemployment pit – is HUGE

For all this government’s rhetoric about ‘welfare dependency’ and cutting benefits in order not to ‘trap’ people in unemployment, the reality is that its policies are condemning more and more people to long-term unemployment.

The number of people unemployed for over 2 years rose in every age group. Numbers unemployed for 12-24 months and over 24 months increased by an almost unbelievable 58% and 131% respectively over the past year.

But those barely-comprehensible figures pale into insignificance when you look at the change over the whole period of this risible government since it took office. Since May 2010, the 12-24 month figure has risen by 135% and the >24-month total by an astronomical 375%, as this graph shows:



2.5m into 400k won’t go

The ONS’ latest jobs vacancy figures indicate that there are still only 491,000 available jobs for a shade under 2.5 million unemployed people – 5.07 people for every available job. The government’s ‘scrounger’ rhetoric is as irrelevant as ever while there are more than 2 million people for whom no job exists.

And that’s only counting the officially unemployed, and not the substantial number of ‘hidden unemployed’ among the almost 18.4 million economically inactive people currently living in the UK.

In summary..

New figures for disabled people won’t be available until next month, but it’s a safe bet that the news for them is not going to be good either and will add yet another hammer-blow to the many that they are suffering under the Tory-led coalition. While the number of people in employment has risen, the news for many parts of our population is consistently bad – and the impact of this government on the long-term prospects and dignity of millions people could justifiably be called criminal.

For those who are benefiting from it, the increase in employment is very good news – but as has been shown in earlier analyses, and commented on by the more astute and independent media, the employment mix in the UK is steadily worsening, with part-time and/or low-paid work by far the strongest growth-areas as the government’s ‘make work pay by making unemployment poverty‘ policies allow employers to pay wages that are below even a subsistence level, so even where unemployment is rising the news is unlikely to be as good as it appears at first glance.

As ever under this government, any kind of real scrutiny of the headlines and soundbites soon exposes a far more mottled and diseased-looking reality. Small wonder, since the ‘health’ of the wider economy and the wellbeing of ordinary people are very far from the priorities of the Tories and their corporate backers, while the LibDems have been weak, largely cowardly and generally ineffective in moderating the predatory instincts of their ‘partners’ in government.

The end of this government is, more than ever, a matter of urgent necessity for the vast majority of people in this country.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by boatlady on Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:06 pm

I have concern about new patterns of employment that seem to be evolving - spoke to someone last week whose partner is 'employed' by a well known retail chain on a permanent contract of 7 hours per week. In order to make up his hours, he is expected to be available 'on the bank' to fill in whenever and wherever) the company needs staff - which sort of prevents him taking on any casual contracts to make up his pay.
This effectually traps the worker in a dependency on in work benefits.
There's not a lot of year-round work where I live, so I guess those terms seem comparatively attractive, but I have to say if I was starting out my working life on those terms I would be worrying.
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3792
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by skwalker1964 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:19 pm

boatlady wrote:I have concern about new patterns of employment that seem to be evolving - spoke to someone last week whose partner is 'employed' by a well known retail chain on a permanent contract of 7 hours per week. In order to make up his hours, he is expected to be available 'on the bank' to fill in whenever and wherever) the company needs staff - which sort of prevents him taking on any casual contracts to make up his pay.
This effectually traps the worker in a dependency on in work benefits.
There's not a lot of year-round work where I live, so I guess those terms seem comparatively attractive, but I have to say if I was starting out my working life on those terms I would be worrying.

I share those concerns! Do you think they'd be willing to (anonymously) provide me with some more information that I could incorporate into an article?
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by oftenwrong on Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:59 pm

Even where a Business is prepared to offer a written contract of employment (a legal requirement anyway), it can be for a small number of hours weekly which is below the requirement to pay National Insurance Contributions. Which probably also means no entitlement to sick pay, holiday pay or maternity pay and the like.

That's something in which the Bosses have no problem with being all in it together.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by boatlady on Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:58 am

Steve - unlikely they would be willing to provide information for you - by the nature of my current work I can't really recruit anyone for this kind of purpose..
But, looking around, I bet you'd be hard pressed to find anyone not in a professional role or nearing retirement age who actually has full time hours in their contract any more, although many are working in excess of the 40 hour week that used to constitute full time work - only in several different jobs, or in the form of 'overtime'
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3792
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by boatlady on Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:04 pm

And as OW comments the companies offering those terms of employment are not breaking any law.
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3792
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by oftenwrong on Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:43 pm

There now follows a moment of contemplation in which to appreciate our Good Fortune,
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by oftenwrong on Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:46 pm

Thank you. Exploitation will resume shortly.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by tlttf on Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:59 pm

It would appear Mr Miliband has been telling a few porkies ref; Youth Unemployment?

Statistics watchdog queries Miliband unemployment claims
26 February, 2013 - 16:18 -- Owen Spottiswoode

The Chair of the UK Statistics Authority Andrew Dilnot has today written to Labour Leader Ed Miliband over his claim in the Sun newspaper that in Europe "only crisis-hit Spain has higher numbers of young unemployed than the UK."

The claim isn't inaccurate - it is, according to Mr Dilnot, "consistent with the latest published data for total numbers of unemployed people" - but it doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.

http://fullfact.org/articles/miliband_unemployment_claims_probed_by_statistics_watchdog-28791

tlttf
Banned

Posts : 1029
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by oftenwrong on Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:24 pm

Ah, yes, "The Full Story". Well, tlttf (always straining at the gnat) Spain is a Poor Country. It has been a Poor Country for four hundred years. Continuously. Ever since they ran out of stolen South-American Gold, pillaged from the Maya and the Inca in the name of God. Things got worse in 1936 when Francisco Franco staged a military Coup which displaced the ELECTED Government. Many people died, but things began to improve with the advent of TOURISM in the 1960s, as a result of which Northern Europeans exchanged their valid currencies for a nice tan and sand-between-the-toes. The Spanish Economy blossomed on the back of Tourist divisas (money) providing not only 2-week package holidays but also building retirement property. Restaurateurs on The Costas were so embarrassed at the prices they were able to charge, that they offered "free" drinks with the meals. Entry into the European Common Market served only to put cream on the jam on the bread-and-butter.

Nothing about Spain has changed, tlttf. It has simply reverted to 1936 now that Northern Europeans find themselves dealing with their own problems as a priority.

It's a funny old world, innit?
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by sickchip on Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:16 pm

The levels of unemployment are not so much what matters. What matters is the type of jobs that are available. Many of which are temporary, part time, agency, low paid, etc. In such cases the worker often needs to supplement their wage with benefits and therefore ends up making no real contribution to the revenue. Can anybody really claim that is any measure of success, in terms of reducing unemployment?
avatar
sickchip

Posts : 1152
Join date : 2011-10-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by Ivan on Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:29 pm

It would appear Mr Miliband has been telling a few porkies ref; Youth Unemployment?
tlttf. No he hasn’t. What the hell is the matter with you? If you intend to start posting libellous remarks again, you’re skating on very thin ice.

Ed Miliband’s claim that in Europe "only crisis-hit Spain has higher numbers of young unemployed than the UK."
If you had any integrity, you would have quoted the facts in the source you provided:-

Youth unemployment (under 25s) in November 2012:-
1. Spain 959,000
2. U.K. 951,000

So Ed Miliband is telling the truth.

Why don’t you tell us about the real lies – the ones that Cameron spews out every week at PMQT? Professor David Blanchflower has today commented on how Cameron keeps repeating the same crap about there being a million new jobs, when there aren't. Why haven’t we heard from you on that? But then you're not really interested in the truth, are you?
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7175
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by boatlady on Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:33 pm

Sickchip
Of course you're right - when people on unpaid work placements and people on 1 hour contracts and 'independent contractors' are included in the statistics as employed, it is inclined to skew the figures more than somewhat.
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3792
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by sickchip on Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:43 pm

boatlady,

....also people on minimum wage (or thereabouts) doing 20-30hrs pw will often need to claim more in benefits than they will pay in tax. A ridiculous scenario.......that demonstrates what I've warned about for years - wage differentials are totally imbalanced in the UK; and that's basically what has screwed our economy, and society: the way we distribute wealth.
avatar
sickchip

Posts : 1152
Join date : 2011-10-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by Ivan on Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:01 pm

sickchip. To give you some idea of the ethos of this government, the current initiation requirement of the Bullingdon Club is to burn a £50 note in front of a tramp. That says so much about the way that Bullingdon boys think, and two of them are in Downing Street and another is Mayor of London.

We're in a race to the bottom. Ever since Thatcher, the Tory Party has been infested with the ideology of Milton Friedman, and they want to take us back to before the days of Roosevelt's New Deal, when the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes rose to prominence. They intend to make us (but not them) "competitive in world markets", so the aim is that we all work for the same pay and under the same conditions as the poor sods in Asian sweat shops. Give the Tories another 18 years in power and we'll be right back to Victorian values.

If you haven't already done so, please read 'The Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein, one of the three most powerful books I've ever read; it explains it all.
http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t601-the-shock-doctrine-by-naomi-klein
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7175
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by sickchip on Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:13 pm

Ivan,

Indeed! But, as I've said elsewhere here, it is the British electorate who unbelievably, in the 21st century, are still willing to avail themselves to the whims of aristo toff bully boys.

What does that tell you about the british mentality?

I read the 'shock doctrine' some time ago.....decent recommendation all the same.
avatar
sickchip

Posts : 1152
Join date : 2011-10-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by Phil Hornby on Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:24 pm

I think we must be more tolerant of tlttf.

I am inclined to the belief that he is on work experience as a budding Daily Mail journalist and he is driven to demonstrate that his capacity for 'making it up' is the match for even the most grizzled of the said publication's professional dissemblers.

Alas, however, it may be that his fate is the make it no further than The Sun, given his inability to seek to produce even the most basic fib with any credibility... Very Happy
avatar
Phil Hornby
Blogger

Posts : 3980
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Drifting on Easy Street

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by sickchip on Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:27 pm

He'll probably be better paid at the Sun. Smile
avatar
sickchip

Posts : 1152
Join date : 2011-10-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by Ivan on Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:33 pm

sickchip wrote:-
What does that tell you about the british mentality?
If you can indoctrinate a very large segment of the population to revere a family who hold their position through no reason other than accident of birth, it’s only a short step to persuading them to allow out-of-touch, rich and arrogant bully boys to govern them.

The article below by Laurie Penny says it all. We’re encouraged to express outrage over a woman whose family costs the British state some £30,000 a year, yet most people accept the £30 million paid to Mrs Windsor per annum, on top of her family’s land-based income and travel and living expenses.

Laurie writes:-

“The morality of having a child at state expense is not what I want to discuss here: the key difference between Kate Middleton and Heather Frost is that the Duchess’ future children will never be at risk of poverty, whereas Frost’s are. In fact, in the sixth richest country in the world, over a quarter of children and young people live in poverty. The morality of that uncomfortable little statistic is never questioned, because Frost’s real crime in the ledger of proto-fascist tabloid morality is not the fact that she has a lot of children, but the fact that she is poor. Every millionaire in Britain will be receiving a £42,000 tax cut come April, and none of them are being shamed for it on the front page of ‘The Sun’.”

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2013/02/kate-middleton-benefit-scrounging-mother-moves-palace-taxpayers-expense

avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7175
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by sickchip on Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:47 pm

Cheers for the link, Ivan.

The hypocrisy and double standards are enough to repulse, and depress, any reasonable, and logical, mind.
avatar
sickchip

Posts : 1152
Join date : 2011-10-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Employment statistics

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum