Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
2005

Unemployment Figures

Recommended Posts

Sky news are reporting unemployment is up by 12,000

I think in general unemployment would lower if the benefits system was reviewed , its to easy for people to claim benefit and not do anything constructive to find a job.I dont know about your area but the job centres and local papers are full of jobs every week ok not fantastic positions.However the whole system stinks! Apparently many of these benefit spongers say " I'd be worse off if i worked"Im not talking about genuine people here im talking about a large majority of people who will gladly sponge of the state and never work hence tax payers like me and others fund them! The Government should be looking at cutting taxes ( i wish) and making it a damn site worse for people on benefit so they would have to get a job! I had a job working with people on benefits and some of them were on up to £500 per week in benefits( with 2 kids ), no councul tax to pay , no rent etc - its shocking .I dont know about anyone else on here but i would prefer my tax to go to the NHS , Elderly and schools not Benefit spongers.If these spongers were dealt with i think you would find the unemployment figures would go down drastically!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The employment buffer (the number of excess unfilled jobs) must be getting depleted. Wasn't it something like half a mil unfilled positions a year or so ago? Well that buffer, which allowed those that were made redundant to get some sort of income to pay the bills may well have been severly eroded by economic migration. If this is the case then the combination of high debt load and unemployment will mean that repo's will increase rapidly - opening up the labour markets will have severe economic repercussions.

This was all totally forseeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong but was it not Gordon Brown who said

"We're all on the scratch now"

Hold on tight and wait for the next round of stealth tax rises to pay for new labour's overspending.

I agree with a previous poster who likened the UK economy to an elevator with a lunatic at the controls.

HOLD ON TIGHT FOLKS!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7th monthly rise...up to 1.42 million but apprently it is all ok..M Hodge telling us that it is actually good news!!!!

To that total you can add at least 650,000 men and 470,000 women (August 2003 estimates) who have been diverted from claiming unemployment benefits into claiming sickness benefits.

This comes from a study from Sheffield Hallam University (2004): The Diversion from Unemployment to Sickness Across British Regions and Districts

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To that total you can add at least 650,000 men and 470,000 women (August 2003 estimates) who have been diverted from claiming unemployment benefits into claiming sickness benefits. 

This comes from a study from Sheffield Hallam University (2004): The Diversion from Unemployment to Sickness Across British Regions and Districts

:blink:

Yes and then from sickness they go to invalidity then their partner claims carer's allowence ! Some of these maybe genuine but a lot are spongers hence why our tax is hefty!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To that total you can add at least 650,000 men and 470,000 women (August 2003 estimates) who have been diverted from claiming unemployment benefits into claiming sickness benefits. 

This comes from a study from Sheffield Hallam University (2004): The Diversion from Unemployment to Sickness Across British Regions and Districts

:blink:

And the 1,000,000 extra public sector 'non-jobs' that many people on here have discussed before (sorry, no links to back this up).

That takes us to around 3.5 million.

Funny that, because I remember Thatcher holding up three fingers or something to celebrate 3 terms in office, and those witty Labour folk suggested that she was indicating how many million unemployed people there are.

History appears to have repeated.

Unemployment is a nonsense statistic. There's just far too much scope for fiddling it with 'training schemes', 'long term sick', etc.

A better measure might be the ratio of those in employment (perhaps by counting those paying income tax) to the number of adults between the ages of 18 and 65, say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the 1,000,000 extra public sector 'non-jobs' that many people on here have discussed before (sorry, no links to back this up).

That takes us to around 3.5 million.

From Public Sector Jobs

As expected the ONS figures confirm that more than half a million extra jobs have been created in the public sector since Gordon Brown became Chancellor of the Exchequer, which has seen public sector employment rise by 11% to 5.74 million. Moreover, had the ONS been able to extend its data series to the final quarter of 2004 it is likely that the total rise would have been closer to 0.7 million.

So let's be conservative and say 500,000: grand total so far of 3,040,000 :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And those who are unable to claim any benefits such as 'job seekers allowance' :angry:

*sticks up 2 fingers to the local job centre*

We moved here 2.5 years ago because of my husbands job (armed forces so not really the choice of turning it down), I was told I wasn't entitled to it as I left my previous job voluntarily. Yeah right! If I hadn't left I would have been homeless with my family living nearly 200 miles away!

*Smiles at Chuz* :D

Edited by libitina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And those who are unable to claim any benefits such as 'job seekers allowance'  :angry:

*sticks up 2 fingers to the local job centre*

We moved here 21/2 years ago because of my husbands job (armed forces so not really the choice of turning it down), I was told I wasn't entitled to it as I left my previous job voluntarily. Yeah right! If I hadn't left I would have been homeless with my family living nearly 200 miles away!

Bit of a tangent libi but i presume that that is 2.5 years and not 10.5 years :)

hey is saying "that that" like i have done there permissable in the english language?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bit of a tangent libi but i presume that that is 2.5 years and not 10.5 years  :)

hey is saying "that that" like i have done there permissable in the english language?

More off on a tangent, for those of a grammatically pedantic nature!

Punctuate the following:

that that is is that that is not is not

CF

Oops, edited for spelling!

Edited by Control Freak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More off on a tangent, for those of a grammatically pedantic nature!

Punctuate the following:

that that is is that that is not is not

CF

Oops, edited for spelling!

Shouldn't the last 3 words be 'is it not'...>?

Edit:

That that is, is that that is not, is it not?

Edited by libitina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't the last 3 words be 'is it not'...>?

Edit:

That that is, is that that is not, is it not?

Nope (and Nope, consequently).

This was given as a (playful) test of grammar over two decades ago (O-Level).

Not sure what the answer is myself, by the way (long time ago to remember, but I am pretty sure that those were the words, in that precise order), so don't expect any teachers praise! :P

I am sure there must be some old school types who can muster up the answer. There is probably a semi-colon in there somewhere??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest growl

On a personel note. Some of you may recall how I told the story of how a freind of mine who lives up north lost his job as a head chef in a restaurant. This was over a month ago. He lost his job since the restaurant had to close down because of about three months poor business.

He found himself another job at another restaurant...much further to travel, about two weeks ago.

He started last week...and they finished him yesterday. So he had his new job one week. Why? Because they went over the books and decided to close one of a chain of three restaurants.

My point to the original story was that leisure activity goes first when money is tight. So all those people who enjoyed wineing and dineng are cutting back from going to the restaurants.

Its these type of jobs that rely on the leisure industry and of course all the outsourcng that is effecting the unemployment figures. Oh and by the way my local gym is still looking empty, and people are back from their holidays. Relatives have cancelled a visit because of high petrol prices and having to cut back. The signs of a recession are already here.

Oh and another point is that they should count the 'economically inactive' not unemployed. The figure is way higher. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 338 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.