Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Realistbear

Worst To Come In 2010--retailers Face Meltdown

Recommended Posts

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/01092009/325/retai...worst-2010.html

Tuesday September 1, 11:10 AM

Reuters

Retailers may face worst in 2010

LONDON (Reuters) - Retailers will not feel the worst of the recession until next year, when rising unemployment will drive more than 5,000 of them out of business, according to a report published on Tuesday.

Accountants and business advisers BDO Stoy Hayward predicted 5,070 retailers will go bust in 2010, up from a forecast 4,630 this year.

"Unemployment has risen less than the economic contraction originally suggested, with a flexible labour market allowing employers to reduce hours and wages rather than make redundancies," said Tony Nygate, retail business restructuring Partner at the firm.

"These factors have helped maintain retail spending surprisingly well in the face of recession and have been instrumental in preventing even more retailers going into liquidation.

"However retailers can expect the worst of the recession to hit in 2010 when rising unemployment and structurally lower consumer credit will dampen prospects," Nygate said.

Retail is responsible for vast numbers of jobs. The knock on effect will knock out what is left of our manufacturing leaving only "service industries" and the world of the bank robbers. "Grim" is the understement of te year.

House prices? Down hard for the rest of this year with next year being perhaps the worst in recorded history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 5000 ?

Recession over. Nothing to see here......................... :ph34r:

<edited for terrible spelling error....>

Edited by Agentimmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange, most people hate going to shopping malls and most people hate working there. We have the same number of jobs but paying less through reduced hours. Yes you can suvive on min wage if you work 40 hours. What happens when you only work for 16?

Why do it then?

We are a nation of spineless morons stuck on the treadmill of perpetual debt. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange, most people hate going to shopping malls and most people hate working there. We have the same number of jobs but paying less through reduced hours. Yes you can suvive on min wage if you work 40 hours. What happens when you only work for 16?

Why do it then?

We are a nation of spineless morons stuck on the treadmill of perpetual debt. :huh:

Those workers reduced to 16 or more hours work will get their money made back up by working tax credits (posh speak for benefits).

The employers know this and often the employees are more than happy to cut hours and have more "me-time" for no less money. If you look at job ads you will see a heck of a lot advertised are part-time for 16 hrs only - these are highly sought-after jobs as you end up with full time earnings for part time work.

Yet another example of New-Lab fostering idle fecklessness amongst its voters, funded initially by North Sea gas revenues then latterly by city trading taxes - oh dear, who will fund the WTC bill after the election? My money is on big WTC cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that if and when the banks start to reduce credit card limits on any significant scale, it'll spell Armageddon for the retailers, especially those whose market is primarily in discretionary and leisure spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet another example of New-Lab fostering idle fecklessness amongst its voters, funded initially by North Sea gas revenues then latterly by city trading taxes - oh dear, who will fund the WTC bill after the election? My money is on big WTC cuts.

Most shocking statistic I heard recently is that the UK welfare bill is now larger than income tax revenue

So the government is paying out more cash in benefits to non-workers than it collects from workers

This is clearly not sustainable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 80's unemployment rose for two to three years after we 'technically' came out of recession. I don't think it will be any different this time, maybe worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/01092009/325/retai...worst-2010.html

Tuesday September 1, 11:10 AM

Reuters

Retailers may face worst in 2010

LONDON (Reuters) - Retailers will not feel the worst of the recession until next year, when rising unemployment will drive more than 5,000 of them out of business, according to a report published on Tuesday.

Accountants and business advisers BDO Stoy Hayward predicted 5,070 retailers will go bust in 2010, up from a forecast 4,630 this year.

"Unemployment has risen less than the economic contraction originally suggested, with a flexible labour market allowing employers to reduce hours and wages rather than make redundancies," said Tony Nygate, retail business restructuring Partner at the firm.

"These factors have helped maintain retail spending surprisingly well in the face of recession and have been instrumental in preventing even more retailers going into liquidation.

"However retailers can expect the worst of the recession to hit in 2010 when rising unemployment and structurally lower consumer credit will dampen prospects," Nygate said.

Retail is responsible for vast numbers of jobs. The knock on effect will knock out what is left of our manufacturing leaving only "service industries" and the world of the bank robbers. "Grim" is the understement of te year.

House prices? Down hard for the rest of this year with next year being perhaps the worst in recorded history.

I disagree. I wish I didn't but I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the creditless, shopless, jobless, recoveryless negative recovery.

lucky for us the UK is not potless.

we got...and...um...well theres ARMS sales....banking of course, insurance and other productless gambles, then theres selling houses to each other....

what we really need is a baker in every village, making fresh bread for less than a euro, fresh, 7 days a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The employers know this and often the employees are more than happy to cut hours and have more "me-time" for no less money. If you look at job ads you will see a heck of a lot advertised are part-time for 16 hrs only - these are highly sought-after jobs as you end up with full time earnings for part time work.

So are the employers cutting working hours out of the kindness of their hearts in order to give their morally corrupt employees more 'me time"?

The determination on this site to blame the victims for the fallout of the bankers f*ck up is extraordianry. Maybe an alternate possibility is that people take part time work out of need and a reluctance to become full time benefit 'scroungers'?

People really can't win here can they- if they can't get work they're scrongers, if they take part time work it's because they're lazy and want to subsidise their income from the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are the employers cutting working hours out of the kindness of their hearts in order to give their morally corrupt employees more 'me time"?

The determination on this site to blame the victims for the fallout of the bankers f*ck up is extraordianry. Maybe an alternate possibility is that people take part time work out of need and a reluctance to become full time benefit 'scroungers'?

People really can't win here can they- if they can't get work they're scrongers, if they take part time work it's because they're lazy and want to subsidise their income from the state.

You missed the point I was making - some folks will turn down a full time job (or not apply for one) and will actively seek a p/t job as the money is the same, or only a little less - the government has rigged it so the p/t employee's money is made up by the taxpayer. Here it is, set-out in simple terms so you can get it:

full time 40 hrs = z pay earned and no Jeremy Kyle show watching

part time 16 hrs = x pay earned + y WTC paid by gov = z total earnings + unlimited Jeremy Kyle show watching and the bonus of more pie-eating/cigarette smoking time

Get it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed the point I was making - some folks will turn down a full time job (or not apply for one) and will actively seek a p/t job as the money is the same, or only a little less - the government has rigged it so the p/t employee's money is made up by the taxpayer. Here it is, set-out in simple terms so you can get it:

full time 40 hrs = z pay earned and no Jeremy Kyle show watching

part time 16 hrs = x pay earned + y WTC paid by gov = z total earnings + unlimited Jeremy Kyle show watching and the bonus of more pie-eating/cigarette smoking time

Get it now?

I got it. benefit culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed the point I was making - some folks will turn down a full time job (or not apply for one) and will actively seek a p/t job as the money is the same, or only a little less - the government has rigged it so the p/t employee's money is made up by the taxpayer. Here it is, set-out in simple terms so you can get it:

full time 40 hrs = z pay earned and no Jeremy Kyle show watching

part time 16 hrs = x pay earned + y WTC paid by gov = z total earnings + unlimited Jeremy Kyle show watching and the bonus of more pie-eating/cigarette smoking time

Get it now?

And why would this be?

Surely the government is turning 1 job into 2 and so keeping unemployment down? Don't you think that working 16 hours a week is 100 times better than not working at all? Do you think that if the system was changed then Asda and Aldi would suddenly increase surply of full-time jobs to meet demand?

We know it can't last as more and more workers will wake up to the fact that it's not worth flogging your guts out for a few extra baubles. This theme is repeating more and more on this site, and needs to.

Anyway, It'll all collapse soon enough...protect yourselves etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And why would this be?

Surely the government is turning 1 job into 2 and so keeping unemployment down? Don't you think that working 16 hours a week is 100 times better than not working at all? Do you think that if the system was changed then Asda and Aldi would suddenly increase surply of full-time jobs to meet demand?

We know it can't last as more and more workers will wake up to the fact that it's not worth flogging your guts out for a few extra baubles. This theme is repeating more and more on this site, and needs to.

Anyway, It'll all collapse soon enough...protect yourselves etc.

It's the NI regime that fuelled the proliferation of part-time. Employers don't want employees that pay NI, this ocurred after the government raised employer's NI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the NI regime that fuelled the proliferation of part-time. Employers don't want employees that pay NI, this ocurred after the government raised employer's NI.

This is another factor......unintended consequences or intended consequences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is another factor......unintended consequences or intended consequences?

I wouldn't be surprised if some government commissioned study concluded that three part-time jobs are better than one full-time.

I also wouldn't be surprised if they also engineered it to precipitate more part-time positions to get more single mothers back into the job market once their children had reached school age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't be surprised if some government commissioned study concluded that three part-time jobs are better than one full-time.

I also wouldn't be surprised if they also engineered it to precipitate more part-time positions to get more single mothers back into the job market once their children had reached school age.

TO DO WHAT -THERE ARE NO JOBS IN OUR JOBLESS RECOVERY!!!!!

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   292 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.