Thursday, Dec 18, 2008
Where are your "sound fundamentals" now, Crash Gordon?
BBC News: Unemployment increases by 137,000 [in three months]
The number of people out of work in the UK rose by 137,000 to 1.86 million in the three months to October - the highest level since 1997. "I think what's interesting is the scale of job losses this early in the cycle," said George Buckley, an economist at Deutsche Bank. "Unemployment is normally a lagging indicator so to see so many job losses this early in the cycle is extremely worrying." "The latest unemployment figures are bleak and herald a return to the dark days of mass joblessness we hoped had gone forever." Managers are expected to be hit hard by job cuts, with the Management Consultancies Association forecasting up to 360,000 will lose their jobs by 2010. The Prince's Trust has also warned that young people have so far borne the brunt of job losses.
28 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. drewster said...
2. drewster said...
While bottom-feeding in the gutter press, I found this gem in the Daily Mail:
Ok I think I've worked out what's wring with this country: "Business analysts, marketing consultants, recruitment managers and personal assistants." Does anybody else feel like we're on Ship B? Where are the telephone sanitizers?
3. Geoffreyt said...
What is more, the UK has changed the mechanism by which it records people as 'unemployed'. this was done following the US changes in the 1990s during the Clinton years.
If the US was still measuring unemployment the way it was in the Clinton year, the reported rate of unemployment in the US would be 16.5%; inflation would have been over 9% in 2007, and the US would have reported negative economic growth for the last four consecutive years.
Put simply, the parasites who make up the political class, will simply redefine terms if the old term starts to show the failure of their 'leadership'. So the CPI gets 're-based' and 're-weighted' so that government doesn't have to adjust 'inflation indexed' pensions... computer software and hardware are 'hedonicised' in GDP calculations (such that falling nominal aggregate expenditure results in rising real expenditure on PCs and software); and so on.
Aggressive war is now 'liberation of the oppressed'; socialisation of losses is now 'capitalism'; next thing there will be a redefinition of the MASSIVE losses incurred as a result of Gordon 'SuperTrader' McBroon's sales of the UK's Gold at a 20-year low.
Feed all politicians to the pigs, and let people keep the 50p in the pound (when you include future government debt service obligations) that government steals or has stolen.
Cheers
GT
GT's Market Rant
4. drewster said...
Sorry to keep commenting on my own post, but there's more on unemployment:
5. Eternal Sceptic said...
but, but, but, the economy is in safe hands, and we now have a service economy.
Could this mean that everything done by government since thatcher came to power was carried out on a false premise.
It's a hell of a time to find out and implementing plan B could be a bit of a problem, because there does not appear to be one.
But there are some cheap tickets left for a trip of a lifetime on the Titanic. Guaranteed to hit plenty of rocks and maybe even the odd iceberg. roll up! roll up! last chance to sail with capn. crash gordon !
6. beartil2010 said...
Ship B - nice reference! Ha ha.
Mish, when calculating US unemployment, brings these extra numbers into account. US is at about 9% now and he is predicting about 12% or upwards.
UK will be the same. Serious issues!
7. bystander said...
Drewster does the employment rate of 74.2% of population include students/ apprentices etc.??
8. theboltonfury said...
@2 I'm not sure what you're point is?
Surely those jobs you are critiquing provide a better alternative than the 'professional benefit' spongers that sum up what is really wrong with this country - I would imagine the number in this category runs into many millions
Let's not start deriding those that are working just because their professions don't meet with individual approval
9. uncle tom said...
Anyone trying to plug the gap between employed and unemployed stats should remember that there still exist people called 'housewives'
Perhaps the nation would be a happier place (especially for children) if there were more of them..
~~~
Whatever - it is clear that the axe on employment is hitting as many (if not more) people on above average income as those on low incomes, which in turn raises the spectre of large numbers being suddenly unable to fund substantial mortgages.
What percentage of mortgagees have redundancy insurance??
- Anyone have a stat for that?
10. lierbag said...
One of the groundrules of political life, and used successfully for centuries, is that if you keep repeating a lie long enough, you can wear down critical resistance - and the insistence on factual analysis - to the point where the lie is accepted as a truism. You need only listen to Jack Straw's consistent denial of Iraq invasion illegality - and the WMD claims which got us there in the first place - for particularly potent examples of this.
Likewise, 'Gordon Brown is an economic wizard . . a safe pair of hands in troubled times'. They keep saying it - and the public keeps believing it - despite every concrete example you can offer that he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about, or doing. His revival in the polls has depended purely on this perception, yet few stop to consider that he laid the foundations for the UK's particular susceptibility to the present global crisis.
11. str 2007 said...
Well said lierbag
and thanks for posting this one drewster
12. d'oh said...
UT - you are a brave man making that statement in this PC age - however, it is a fact that many couples I know would prefer one person to be at home but cannot do this due to the fixed costs of living, i.e. house and land prices/rents which are based on the expectation of two paid workers per household. Only a few people are lucky enough to have jobs that enable self actualisation...for many it is a stressful drudgery.
13. matt_the_hat said...
The problem with the UK is that there are no entitlements just benefits - you have to go cap in hand to speak to some illiterate drop out about getting 40 something squid a week. No thank you, they can stick it up their ar$e.
14. uncle tom said...
d'oh,
What goes around, comes around - sooner or later the women of this world will realise that feminism was the biggest own goal in history..
15. titaniccaptain said...
@uncle Tom
"Anyone trying to plug the gap between employed and unemployed stats should remember that there still exist people called 'housewives'
Perhaps the nation would be a happier place (especially for children) if there were more of them.."..........................Best quote on HPC in a long time.
The sooner we go back to some traditional values the better.....we need a sense of family, community and patriotism (Which is not a dirty word it keeps us competitive as a nation instead of this who cares rot which has set in).
At a time when the whole country is looking into the abyss maybe we should understand this simple thing...........no one need go without....ever......but we have to pull together to get through the next few years...we have lived off the fat of other countries and debt for too long.....now its time to start to pay back..........we may all like to think that we are somehow above and not linked to our enviroment but that lie can only remain in place until our tummys are empty, the house is cold and the children are sick...........
................the me me me individualism has been found wanting.......
16. matt_the_hat said...
14. uncle tom - agree totally, women of this world sold their freedom cheaply.
As a man I want my wife to have the choice about going to work (I never did), unfortunately now she has to, mortgages/rents used to be covered by a single salary, they now have their equal rights - slavery to the capitalist - children maybe next.
17. mark wadsworth said...
The official figure for unemployment is meaningless. In round figures, there are 38 milion working age adults, 30 million in jobs or self employed, 5 million on welfare (whether you call it Incapacity benefit, Income support or Jobseekers allowance) and 3 million housewives and students. That's why a citizen's income scheme would work perfectly well - all it would do is extend welfare to the 2 million housewives (students usually get grants or something).
As d'oh said, drawback number 345 of high house prices is that young couple both have to work to be able to afford one (average FTB age now mid-30s, apparently) and they certainly don't have the option of mum staying at home with kids (if she wants), even assuming that they can afford kids.
That Daily Express front page worries me - why should Rachel Stevens have to 'fight' to be in the Strictly final? I thought she was through, big brown eyes, dimples and all?
18. matt_the_hat said...
17. mark wadsworth - the statistic that's really worrying the politicians is 29/65 = 0.45, i.e 45% of people are keeping the other 55% and the boomers haven't even started retiring - game over
19. str 2007 said...
UT
feminism - biggest own goal in history - so true.
TC
yup, with you on the traditional values thing.
Costing me a fortune my beliefs, but the kids are happy.
Myself, I can't understand women who have a kid and bung it into full time nursery at 6 months old.
20. doom&gloom said...
Sadly a large proportion of today's stay-at-home mum's now are the ones on benefit.
UT - mortgage redundancy insurance is only as reliable as the company backing it. Interested to know what claims level these companies model to stay afloat.
21. mytimeisnigh said...
The UKs benefits system encourages lone mothers to stay at home, producing more children, living on welfare payments. Offer state funded, good quality nursery placements instead and get lone mothers out working and setting the good example of having a work ethic, to the offspring of the ever growing under class.
22. matt_the_hat said...
19. str 2007 - 'Myself, I can't understand women who have a kid and bung it into full time nursery at 6 months old.' - natural instinct and survival
21. mytimeisnigh - I presume your not part of the 'under class' - the Indian's call theirs the 'untouchables' - maybe if we called the brothers and sisters this world would be a better place
23. Dave said...
Middle class unemployment for the first time is very stressful for the people who have probably always worked paid their taxes have their own house(not council)which means mortgage.They will find this very hard to cope with.
24. Shipbuilder said...
16. matt_the_hat said...
"14. uncle tom - agree totally, women of this world sold their freedom cheaply.
As a man I want my wife to have the choice about going to work (I never did), unfortunately now she has to, mortgages/rents used to be covered by a single salary, they now have their equal rights - slavery to the capitalist - children maybe next."
In terms of work, equal rights should always have been about trying to inject some feminine sensibility into a male world obsessed with greed, status and 'work ethic'. One parent at least should be at home. Progress should have meant that that could be the man or the woman.
25. shipbuilder said...
17. mark wadsworth said...
"The official figure for unemployment is meaningless. In round figures, there are 38 milion working age adults, 30 million in jobs or self employed, 5 million on welfare (whether you call it Incapacity benefit, Income support or Jobseekers allowance) and 3 million housewives and students. That's why a citizen's income scheme would work perfectly well - all it would do is extend welfare to the 2 million housewives (students usually get grants or something)."
Citizens income - absolutely. Paid for by LVT? I'm with you there. Why bother with complicated tax systems when money can be given to people directly to spend on what they want and pay for as little or as much that they wish to consume? It makes perfect sense.
26. mytimeisnigh said...
Matt, you presume correctly, I most certainly am not a member of the underclass.
27. Shipbuilder said...
It would be wrong to assume or infer that feminism enabled or caused the situation where both parents work. The reality is that it was required by our economic system dependant on expansion no matter what.
"If you tolerate this your children will be next."
28. matt_the_hat said...
26. mytimeisnigh - then you must also take the credit for the extraordinary skill with which your sole entered the correct persons boll0ck (i.e. not one of those underclass ones) and chose the sperm that won the 250000000 to one race to a non-underclass egg.