Wednesday, Dec 16, 2009
Trying to make a bad thing look good as usual!
BBC: UK Jobless total continues to increase!
Best bit:
"It's noticeable that the rise in employment was due to an increase in part-time jobs outweighing full-time employment, " he continued.
So lets say if a million people are unemployed in full time work it counts the same as if a million people are employed in part time work, although clearly these are not the same "degree" of employment!????
Posted by brickormortis @ 11:01 AM (972 views) Add Comment
9 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. Exiges said...
I found this bit interesting
"The ONS added that public sector employment increased by 23,000 in the third quarter of the year to just over 6 million. Employment in central government rose by 31,000, mainly because of growth in the number of NHS jobs."
I wonder how the figures would look if the government wasn't hiring people into non-revenue-generating jobs left right and centre ?
2. timmy t said...
The more worrying factor is not how many are employed in part-time jobs but how many are employed in temporary jobs. There are an awful lot of companies who literally hire thousands of people in November and December to cope with Christmas, only to let them go after the sales.
3. cat and canary said...
The BBC's bias is shocking.
The real facts are:
> youth uneployment 952,000, worst on record, up 6,000
> total unemployment up 21,000, at 7.9%, worst in 13 years and still rising
> and perhaps worst, number of people who are of working age but are "economically inactive" is....1 in 5.
the only 2 pieces of good news are those which were reported by the BBC (!), which are
1) the pace of job losses has dropped from the initial blow out phase of ~1000 jobs/day, to around 300/day now. But given that the public sector axe is probably being sharpened, this slowing down of job loss rate sadly doesn't imply a turnaround in the jobs market.
2) the number of JSA claims has dropped by 6,300.......... 0.4% of the total claimants, which is just noise
4. nomad said...
I've just listened to Yvette Cooper saying that unemployment has been kept down to 8 or 9% through her government's spending policies, as opposed to the 1970s when it reached 10%. With her next breath she went on to admit that unemployment figures would continue to rise next year.
Not far to go to hit 10% Yvette - better start up the printing presses again.
5. str 2007 said...
Thanks Cat & Canary
I just heard the news on the BBC - words to the effect of 'unemployment peaking' and thought that sounds odd. I bet some clever so and so on HPC has the accurate information.
6. cat and canary said...
cheers str2007.... and if it wasn't for loads of clever so & so's on HPC, i'd be in negative equity right now!!!
====
...what a pile of spin the BBC article is!!!
> the ONS report data compares Q3 with Q2 data
(http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk1209.pdf)
(http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0909.pdf)
the unemployment rate rose slightly from 7.87% to 7.93% but the headline data doesn't paint a true picture anymore because of part time work...
one bit of BBC selective spin is "the number in employment is 53,000 higher"
...the full picture is....
1) 53,000 more people in work
2) number of men in part time work unchanged
3) number of women in part time work up 122,000
4) therefore (BBC!)....number of men and women in FULL-TIME work is down by 69,000!!!
69,000 less full time jobs in 3 months... assuming 22 working days/month thats a full-time job-loss rate of about 1045 jobs/day!
i.e. ..therefore lots of women (perhaps former housewives/young mothers) are going out to find part time work (presumably to replace full time jobs lost by their husbands?) ..Doesn't paint a picture of sound public finances does it???
As for the number of JSA claims dropping by 6,300 between Oct and Nov, that October figure is still 22,600 higher than in July!)... so why the 6,300 drop recently? Christmas part time work by any chance?!
7. Exiges said...
From the Daily Mail..
"The number of full-time employees has collapsed, plunging 85,000 during the same period - but part-time employees have jumped by 123,000"
8. maihem said...
I'm nominally in "full-time" employment but if I only worked my contract hours I'd only be working about 1700 hours a year out of 8760. That's about 20% employed...
Hardly "full"-time. If I worked "half"-time I'd be working 10% of my time - not a big change.
The real key is that full timers "trade" their transformational capacity instead of isolating themselves then only transforming elements of the world around them for the effect it has upon themselves. Not that I'm NET productive by trading of course (though I might be if I'm not smart enough to be sustainably NET consumptive - which would be my ideal position) - I use the money to get others to trade /their/ transformational capacity purely for the effect it has on me.
The difference between full-time and part-time becomes visibly smaller when considered as trade because part-timers do exactly the same as full-timers but they spend 90% of their time doing it for themselves instead of 80%. If you consider the off-hours as trades with myself (the "identity trade") we /all/ work 100% of the time.
What is the difference? Money -> Account -> Tax revenue.
For we the workers, part time or full time makes no differences - for the government though, it's a big fat hairy deal.
This is why the tories tried to bring in a poll tax - to collect tax against the identity trade allowing part-time work to be in the government's interest - so the government could then permit 100% employment against less effort and still maintain revenue. Maximum voter happiness and maximum government revenue capability -> rich politicians.
I probably sound like a labour shill at this point but I'm actually libertarian :)
9. William Wallace said...
Isn't it a criminal offence for the BBC to claim it is a "news" organisation when it clearly is manipulating and misleading the population that rely on it for accurate news before the vote in the supposed democracy?