Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
cashinmattress

Jobless Hit The Booze Over Stress Of Recession

Recommended Posts

Jobless hit the booze over stress of recession

Job losses in the recession are making people drink more, research suggests.

Nearly four in 10 of 2,200 people polled had been made redundant or knew someone who had lost a job in the past six months.

One in 10 of those said they, or their unemployed friends, were boozing more to help them cope with the stress.

Half of those said they were downing more alcohol during the day, the survey by charity Drinkaware found.

Nearly three quarters said the increase in drinking was directly linked to redundancy, while 61% were worried about it.

Drinkaware's Chris Sorek said: "Alcohol can make the stress and other effects of redundancy much worse."

The charity's booklet on staying healthy after redundancy can be downloaded from drinkaware.co.uk.

Meh. Big box stores must be making a killing with their infamously cheap bevvy.

I wonder how the sales of rocket fuel (cheap a$$ cider etc) are holding up?

Fags, booze, and illegal drug trade ALWAYS booms in a recession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 4 in 10 were made redundant or know somebody who has made redundant. (Lets call it 40 in 100)

Of these 1 in 10 say they ,or their redunant mate, is boozing more "to cope with the stress". In other words we have only 4 in 100 made redundant are boozing more.

Unsurprisingly of these redundant people who are drinking more to cope with stress 3 out of 4 say the drinking/stress is down to the redundancy.

Which means only 3 in 100 of those made redundant are boozing more as a result of redundancy.

I'd say those numbers indicate a pretty sober set of people reacting to redundacy by avoiding the temptation to spend more on booze.

Of course the drink charity spins it the other way. Of course the Mirror can't do basic sums and publishes the spin verbatim. *sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's certainly true since being made redundant I have started drinking, in fact, I bought another bottle of Tesco own brand Bourbon only this morning.

I am not sure this due to stress.

I was pretty stressed out prior to losing my job, the uncertainty, fear, worry of being part of a buisness going into a nosedive. I couldnt get a good nights sleep for months - I should have hit the bottle then, but I had to get up at 5 am to make the 6 am start - drinking was out of the question.

Now of course, I dont have to get up early in the morning and I can put my feet up watch a bit of late nite tellly and have a little drinky. I go to bed when I feel like it - get up ditto - no need for the alarm clock.

Becoming jobless has lifted a weight off my shoulders.

I don't feel stressed at all - but yes, booze consumption definitely up! (hic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So 4 in 10 were made redundant or know somebody who has made redundant. (Lets call it 40 in 100)

Of these 1 in 10 say they ,or their redunant mate, is boozing more "to cope with the stress". In other words we have only 4 in 100 made redundant are boozing more.

Unsurprisingly of these redundant people who are drinking more to cope with stress 3 out of 4 say the drinking/stress is down to the redundancy.

Which means only 3 in 100 of those made redundant are boozing more as a result of redundancy.

Almost a good point but your maths fails where highlighted above. It's 1 in 10 of those made redundant or 4 in 100 of those polled. Still not a high figure.

There's a worse point though which is: The survey is utter crap methodologically.

They lump "I am redundant" and "I know someone who is redundant" into one category - the two things are hardly the same.

They lump "I am drinking more" and "I know someone who is drinking more" into another - once more the two things are hardly the same.

That's even before one asks how people are expected to accurately assess the alcohol intake of their acquaintances.

Or how they are expected to determine those acquaintances' motivation for drinking.

"This guy I know lost his job and he looks like he might drinking more... at least I'm sure he had a hangover yesterday... my guess is that it could be the stress of redundancy doing it. Either that or it might have been his birthday the night before."

"Quick, tick this box. That's another person in our survey who is drinking more because of redundancy"

If I'd done that in my GCSE maths it would have been marked down as a confused and pointless exercise.

Edited by Selling up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Almost a good point but your maths fails where highlighted above. It's 1 in 10 of those made redundant or 4 in 100 of those polled. Still not a high figure.

There's a worse point though which is: The survey is utter crap methodologically.

They lump "I am redundant" and "I know someone who is redundant" into one category - the two things are hardly the same.

They lump "I am drinking more" and "I know someone who is drinking more" into another - once more the two things are hardly the same.

That's even before one asks how people are expected to accurately assess the alcohol intake of their acquaintances.

Or how they are expected to determine those acquaintances' motivation for drinking.

"This guy I know lost his job and he looks like he might drinking more... at least I'm sure he had a hangover yesterday... my guess is that it could be the stress of redundancy doing it. Either that or it might have been his birthday the night before."

"Quick, tick this box. That's another person in our survey who is drinking more because of redundancy"

If I'd done that in my GCSE maths it would have been marked down as a confused and pointless exercise.

I agree with all your comments about their methodology. Its certainly confused and pointless research. Much research thrown out solely for the purposes of creating a PR story falls into this category. Perhaps because few journalists can do basic sums or interpet figures. (The few who can are real gems in my experience.)

I hesitate to argue since we concur on so much. I'm afraid my maths doesn't read the original quote that way. I was raised on the mantra of good exam technique is to carefully read the question and answer precisely what is written. ;)

We have :- "Nearly four in 10 of those polled...... had been made redundant or knew someone who had.... "

Immediately followed by :- "One in 10 of those said ..."

Significantly it does not say "One in ten of those polled". The underlined qualifier is absent. This absence means the one in ten refers to the subset identified in the previous sentence.

They may not have intended to say that. It may well be a typo or an ingorant sub-editor. They may be as poor with their maths and use of English as they are with their research.

Whether lax journalism and/or poor research I suggest that the calculation, based on what is written, is one in ten of 4 in 10, which is 4 in a hundred.

Sorry to be such a pedant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots of people are stressed because they don't have their own land, so if they lose their job there is no means for them to provide for themselves.

Hmmm. What the hell does that mean?

How many people in the UK 'own' the land on which they pay council taxes for?

Just stop paying your taxes and see how long you 'own' that land for!

bozo.jpg

Bozo says you always pay rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I was made redundant I have virtually stopped drinking.

It's not always fun being a contrarian, but you can have a decent meal at home for the price of one pint in a pub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots of people are stressed because they don't have their own land, so if they lose their job there is no means for them to provide for themselves.
Hmmm. What the hell does that mean?

(...)

I suspect nik is talking about avoiding poverty, specifically "entitlement": the methods used to gain access to food and other essentials. If a person has forgone personal production of goods for exchange in favour of exchanging their labour for food money and that ceases (they lose their job and can't get another one), then they must have access either to the means of direct production, or aid.

Put more simply: Unless others provide for them, people who have neither a job nor means of growing food will starve.

How many people in the UK 'own' the land on which they pay council taxes for?

Just stop paying your taxes and see how long you 'own' that land for!

[clown!]

Bozo says you always pay rent.

Ahh, but I see you understand already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect nik is talking about avoiding poverty, specifically "entitlement": the methods used to gain access to food and other essentials. If a person has forgone personal production of goods for exchange in favour of exchanging their labour for food money and that ceases (they lose their job and can't get another one), then they must have access either to the means of direct production, or aid.

Put more simply: Unless others provide for them, people who have neither a job nor means of growing food will starve.

Ahh, but I see you understand already.

But isn't the job of a poacher one which brings with it an air of 'danger' and 'villainy'?

Come on, who didn't love the poacher in Withnail and I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But isn't the job of a poacher one which brings with it an air of 'danger' and 'villainy'?

Come on, who didn't love the poacher in Withnail and I?

Poaching is simply the utilisation of personal endowments to gain extra-legal (direct) entitlement to the produce of land.

I'm all in favour of it, though the sad-eye power of a dying bunny has limited my personal experience.

(If you are trying to flog me some eeeeels, you can hop it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm. What the hell does that mean?

How many people in the UK 'own' the land on which they pay council taxes for?

Just stop paying your taxes and see how long you 'own' that land for!

bozo.jpg

Bozo says you always pay rent.

What Timm said, ultimately all wealth is derived from the Earth and if you have none you are stuffed. Essentially most of us are tenant farmers which is OK when labour is expensive but not so good when only a small part of the cost is production and the rest is rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not surprising, but drinkings a sure fire way to make them feel even more depressed.

yeah, drinking makes me feel depressed and then sick.

occasioanlly i drink alot and its like an incredible charge, very addictive, but then you dont wake up the next day and everyothing is crap.

im 39 so i dont think i can do what i used to do.

drinking is a waste of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But isn't the job of a poacher one which brings with it an air of 'danger' and 'villainy'?

Come on, who didn't love the poacher in Withnail and I?

I hadn't realised that cooking eggs could be so glamorous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Almost a good point but your maths fails where highlighted above. It's 1 in 10 of those made redundant or 4 in 100 of those polled. Still not a high figure.

There's a worse point though which is: The survey is utter crap methodologically.

They lump "I am redundant" and "I know someone who is redundant" into one category - the two things are hardly the same.

They lump "I am drinking more" and "I know someone who is drinking more" into another - once more the two things are hardly the same.

That's even before one asks how people are expected to accurately assess the alcohol intake of their acquaintances.

Or how they are expected to determine those acquaintances' motivation for drinking.

"This guy I know lost his job and he looks like he might drinking more... at least I'm sure he had a hangover yesterday... my guess is that it could be the stress of redundancy doing it. Either that or it might have been his birthday the night before."

"Quick, tick this box. That's another person in our survey who is drinking more because of redundancy"

If I'd done that in my GCSE maths it would have been marked down as a confused and pointless exercise.

If you'd done that in your GCSE maths Id be highly surprised seeing as most of the exams are multiple choice with 2 obvious wildly wrong answers therefore leaving the average candidate a 50/50 of getting a correct answer by pure guess work ;):P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest มร หล&#3
Hmmm. What the hell does that mean?

How many people in the UK 'own' the land on which they pay council taxes for?

Just stop paying your taxes and see how long you 'own' that land for!

bozo.jpg

Bozo says you always pay rent.

Quite. The whole thing is set up to keep you a prisoner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't apologise for being a pedant!

You have to read "news" articles like that nowadays!

The message seems to be "we are a nation of boozers", and that's bad!

But the "facts" seem a little lacking, so thanks for pointing out more "non news"! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...so (so to recap my previous post) being unemployed isn't stressing me out at all, and drinking is a hobby I have taken up since being made redundant as getting p*ssed up was incompatible with my full time job.

However, while I was working I never stuffed myself with a big mortgage or maxed out my credit cards on foreign holidays and flat tellys or took out PCP loans on 4x4's.

I saved most of my money, paid cash for the stuff I needed and I am 100% solvent.

Perhaps it is the inability to service their 'lifestyle' DEBT that is stressing out the newly unemployed and driving them to the bottle - not unemployment itself which is survivable.

Edited by Son of Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   288 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.