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

Never Worked Households At Record High

Recommended Posts

Rising all the time

The number of UK households in which no one has ever worked has hit its highest level ever.

A total of 370,000 households are without any member who has ever had a paid job, the highest level on record, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reporte d .

The statistics agency has tracked the number of households which have never worked over every April to June period for the past 16 years.

The number has been rising steadily since records began in 1996, more than doubling from 178,000 that year to the current 370,000 level.

The latest yearly increase of 18,000 households took the proportion of households which have never worked to 1.8pc of the total, or around one in every 55. That meant that 2.6pc of all British children living in households where none of the adults has ever worked, representing some 307,000 children.

The trend holds even when student households, which are for obvious reasons are less likely to have worked, are excluded. The current estimate of 297,000 was again the highest on record, according to that measure.

The figures will raise pressure on the Government to address the UK's problem of long-term unemployment, particularly as the total number of households without anyone working at the moment as opposed to households where no one has ever worked has actually dropped back.

Overall, the number of households with no one working fell by 38,000 to 3.88m or 18.8pc of all households, said the ONS. The figure peaked at 3.92m last year.

The North East was the region with the highest proportion of workless households at 24.9pc, while the South East had the lowest at 14.1pc.

A household is defined as having never worked if no one aged 16 or more is in employment and the household's members state that they have never had paid work, other than casual or holiday work.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8734892/Never-worked-households-at-record-high.html

Edited by Redhat Sly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unemployed again. I now get 5.1% more housing benefit this year than I did last year. blink.gif

My rent is based upon September inflation, if we have deflation above 0.5% my rent could fall next year!

Please cease spending for one month, help lower my rent and cut the housing benefit bill. If my rent falls I shall have a greater incentive to work!

Deflation please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are not going to work while they have all they need provided for them - simple. We need a sound monetary system too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More people realising working and saving is for mugs in the UK.

If workers deduct from their wages what they would get in benefits and then calculate their real hourly rate it's not worth the effort. The more you try support yourself, the more they take away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More people realising working and saving is for mugs in the UK.

If workers deduct from their wages what they would get in benefits and then calculate their real hourly rate it's not worth the effort. The more you try support yourself, the more they take away.

I was on 80p an hour before my contract ended, trying to find something else now, but even at same rate of pay it's dropped to about 75p per hour.

One day I was off sick, my hourly rate for that week dropped to -20p per hour, and I was unable to pay for the £7.40 prescription. Social safety net, what social safety net. At least i can afford to visit dentist now I'm not working, I have the time to walk there too ph34r.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about those that get paid twice what they are worth or those that get paid for a full days pay but only work for half or even those that are getting paid full pay but are not at work...surely they must also be getting paid for doing nothing.... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A total of 370,000 households are without any member who has ever had a paid job

I'm surprised it's that low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is weird. The same edition of the Torygraph running with "Never worked" households at record high also has another article titled Number of UK workless households falls.

Shome mishtake shurely?

Differnt categories. 'Never worked' is exactly that, and I suppose the only way that pool increases is with the fruit of overactive loins now growing up and doing exactly what mummy and daddy did.

Workless households are those where someone has at some point worked, but at the moment there is no-one working. I guess it means that those who wants jobs/are employable are increasingly finding work, whether or not the work they find is what they are really looking for is another matter, of course.

Edited by cheeznbreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Differnt categories. 'Never worked' is exactly that, and I suppose the only way that pool increases is with the fruit of overactive loins now growing up and doing exactly what mummy and daddy did.

Workless households are those where someone has at some point worked, but at the moment there is no-one working. I guess it means that those who wants jobs/are employable are increasingly finding work, whether or not the work they find is what they are really looking for is another matter, of course.

I don't think its as simple as that. We have a vast global excess of labour. Youth unemployment in spain = 45%, portugal = 25%, italy = 30%, etc, etc. Even with these numbers there is no real shortage of goods and services being produced by our economies. Such is our modern levels of productivity. The 2000's boom just took this excess and put them to work mostly making/doing things our economies did'nt need. The modern equivalent of one person digging holes and another filling them in. What else do you call the vast tower blocks and holiday villa's in spain or the 50% of our youth sent to university?

So since companies have this vast multitude to choose from in any one country they pick what they believe (probably broadly correct but definitely not 100% correct choices) is the top x% of the people they need to produce the goods and services required. Anyone not initially chosen probably has about 1-2 years to get chosen or is deemed not employable. In truth there is no such thing since everyone can be trained and made use of, but why choose any of this group when you have such an excess of labour from which to choose? Some of this group will struggle on from low paid temp job to low paid temp job others will give up completely giving rise to the 'never worked' households. This group will breed and create more 'never worked'. Moreover, because of the labour surplus there is zero incentive for companies (or even the government who just make token gestures), to make any effort to bring any of these or their offspring into the workforce. And even if they did they would just displace someone already in work.

As productivity continues to increase the percentage x needed to produce the required goods and services most of us desire decreases. Thus more and more will be thrown on the scrapheap and deemed unemployable, which is exactly what we are seeing, along with more part-time work as less hours are needed to produce y amount of goods.

Someone will probably say in reply to this post 'how come foreign workers can find jobs?' But that just proves my point, an excess of labour where the top x% are chosen. It matters not that it is primarily wage arbitrage that allows this group to be in the top x%. It only matters that employers view these to be part of the top x%.

Another thing someone will probably mention is the 'lump of labour' fallacy. But that itself is a fallacy. It is based solely on prior historical data not on any scientifically proven or provable empirical data. In fact it is easy to prove that the 'lump of labour' fallacy is itself a fallacy. Ask yourself this - does any one individual desire an infinite amount of goods and services. The answer is of course not would you want 40 homes never mind an infinite amount of them? or 300 LCD TVs.... or 100 cars.... And if there is a limit to what any one individual wants then there must be a limit to what society in general wants, and therefore at some point the need for our economies to produce more goods ends. At that point no more jobs need be made or people be employed. In fact once this point is reached due to rising productivity the trend I postulated above should be observed. The only question is when this point is reached or has it already been reached?

Edited by alexw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As productivity continues to increase the percentage x needed to produce the required goods and services most of us desire decreases. Thus more and more will be thrown on the scrapheap and deemed unemployable, which is exactly what we are seeing, along with more part-time work as less hours are needed to produce y amount of goods.

More people are cutting hours because of tax credits, it's pointless working full time. Then they are a net drain on the state instead of contributing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More people are cutting hours because of tax credits, it's pointless working full time. Then they are a net drain on the state instead of contributing.

....we should all be working less hours imo....why should some be working max hours plus overtime when many just as capable would love to be doing their overtime but can't.....more people doing less must be better...share share alike..... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....we should all be working less hours imo....why should some be working max hours plus overtime when many just as capable would love to be doing their overtime but can't.....more people doing less must be better...share share alike..... ;)

In an ideal world but with living/housing costs in the UK that isn't possible if you plan on supporting yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think its as simple as that. We have a vast global excess of labour. Youth unemployment in spain = 45%, portugal = 25%, italy = 30%, etc, etc. Even with these numbers there is no real shortage of goods and services being produced by our economies. Such is our modern levels of productivity. The 2000's boom just took this excess and put them to work mostly making/doing things our economies did'nt need. The modern equivalent of one person digging holes and another filling them in. What else do you call the vast tower blocks and holiday villa's in spain or the 50% of our youth sent to university?

So since companies have this vast multitude to choose from in any one country they pick what they believe (probably broadly correct but definitely not 100% correct choices) is the top x% of the people they need to produce the goods and services required. Anyone not initially chosen probably has about 1-2 years to get chosen or is deemed not employable. In truth there is no such thing since everyone can be trained and made use of, but why choose any of this group when you have such an excess of labour from which to choose? Some of this group will struggle on from low paid temp job to low paid temp job others will give up completely giving rise to the 'never worked' households. This group will breed and create more 'never worked'. Moreover, because of the labour surplus there is zero incentive for companies (or even the government who just make token gestures), to make any effort to bring any of these or their offspring into the workforce. And even if they did they would just displace someone already in work.

As productivity continues to increase the percentage x needed to produce the required goods and services most of us desire decreases. Thus more and more will be thrown on the scrapheap and deemed unemployable, which is exactly what we are seeing, along with more part-time work as less hours are needed to produce y amount of goods.

Someone will probably say in reply to this post 'how come foreign workers can find jobs?' But that just proves my point, an excess of labour where the top x% are chosen. It matters not that it is primarily wage arbitrage that allows this group to be in the top x%. It only matters that employers view these to be part of the top x%.

Another thing someone will probably mention is the 'lump of labour' fallacy. But that itself is a fallacy. It is based solely on prior historical data not on any scientifically proven or provable empirical data. In fact it is easy to prove that the 'lump of labour' fallacy is itself a fallacy. Ask yourself this - does any one individual desire an infinite amount of goods and services. The answer is of course not would you want 40 homes never mind an infinite amount of them? or 300 LCD TVs.... or 100 cars.... And if there is a limit to what any one individual wants then there must be a limit to what society in general wants, and therefore at some point the need for our economies to produce more goods ends. At that point no more jobs need be made or people be employed. In fact once this point is reached due to rising productivity the trend I postulated above should be observed. The only question is when this point is reached or has it already been reached?

Not sure we're in disagreement. However, it's unlikely unemployed youth will move out of home to become a household unless they have another source of income ie benefits. Other unemployed youths will surely stay at home, although perhaps those at uni are potentially counted in the stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember seeing recently the singer Jamelia on BBC Three programme looking into the social perception of single mothers on benefits. While I do agree there is huge amount of prejudice against single mothers (I know quite a few hard working single mothers), I also found unsettling that numerous institutions appeared in the programme refused to acknowledge, out of PC, that there is indeed significant financial incentives for single mothers NOT to work.

In fact, they were forced, by the clever BBC leading question / suggestive interrogation, into claiming that there is no “scientific evidence” shows that there are single mothers milking the system.

But how can you gather “scientific evidence” to prove that? By asking single mothers “are you milking the system?” Of course, they will say no, even if they say completely opposite when with friends and other single mothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an ideal world but with living/housing costs in the UK that isn't possible if you plan on supporting yourself.

Fair enough...but what about those therefore that can't support themselves for reasons beyond their control....your extra work doing overtime will indirectly be supporting them. :unsure:

Edited by winkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think its as simple as that. We have a vast global excess of labour. Youth unemployment in spain = 45%, portugal = 25%, italy = 30%, etc, etc. Even with these numbers there is no real shortage of goods and services being produced by our economies. Such is our modern levels of productivity. The 2000's boom just took this excess and put them to work mostly making/doing things our economies did'nt need. The modern equivalent of one person digging holes and another filling them in. What else do you call the vast tower blocks and holiday villa's in spain or the 50% of our youth sent to university?

So since companies have this vast multitude to choose from in any one country they pick what they believe (probably broadly correct but definitely not 100% correct choices) is the top x% of the people they need to produce the goods and services required. Anyone not initially chosen probably has about 1-2 years to get chosen or is deemed not employable. In truth there is no such thing since everyone can be trained and made use of, but why choose any of this group when you have such an excess of labour from which to choose? Some of this group will struggle on from low paid temp job to low paid temp job others will give up completely giving rise to the 'never worked' households. This group will breed and create more 'never worked'. Moreover, because of the labour surplus there is zero incentive for companies (or even the government who just make token gestures), to make any effort to bring any of these or their offspring into the workforce. And even if they did they would just displace someone already in work.

As productivity continues to increase the percentage x needed to produce the required goods and services most of us desire decreases. Thus more and more will be thrown on the scrapheap and deemed unemployable, which is exactly what we are seeing, along with more part-time work as less hours are needed to produce y amount of goods.

Someone will probably say in reply to this post 'how come foreign workers can find jobs?' But that just proves my point, an excess of labour where the top x% are chosen. It matters not that it is primarily wage arbitrage that allows this group to be in the top x%. It only matters that employers view these to be part of the top x%.

Another thing someone will probably mention is the 'lump of labour' fallacy. But that itself is a fallacy. It is based solely on prior historical data not on any scientifically proven or provable empirical data. In fact it is easy to prove that the 'lump of labour' fallacy is itself a fallacy. Ask yourself this - does any one individual desire an infinite amount of goods and services. The answer is of course not would you want 40 homes never mind an infinite amount of them? or 300 LCD TVs.... or 100 cars.... And if there is a limit to what any one individual wants then there must be a limit to what society in general wants, and therefore at some point the need for our economies to produce more goods ends. At that point no more jobs need be made or people be employed. In fact once this point is reached due to rising productivity the trend I postulated above should be observed. The only question is when this point is reached or has it already been reached?

excellent post... Should we be moving to the 4 day week to keep more of us 'employed'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More people are cutting hours because of tax credits, it's pointless working full time. Then they are a net drain on the state instead of contributing.

Sorry but this is mostly just myth dressed up as fact.

It might have been even slightly believable, but then you just need to look at all the other economically developed nations to spot exactly the same employment trends occurring irrespective of benefit levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough...but what about those therefore that can't support themselves for reasons beyond their control....your extra work doing overtime will indirectly be supporting them. :unsure:

My extra work?

I don't want people to have to do extra work. I want cheaper living costs which are largely driven by housing being too expensive that only helps banks. I would like people cutting hours because they can afford to, not just because they have realised they can get as much from the state and so profit from the work of others.

There will always be some who cannot support themselves for genuine reasons but at the moment people who could, are being paid more than what they could earn or encouraged to work less for the same amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember seeing recently the singer Jamelia on BBC Three programme looking into the social perception of single mothers on benefits. While I do agree there is huge amount of prejudice against single mothers (I know quite a few hard working single mothers), I also found unsettling that numerous institutions appeared in the programme refused to acknowledge, out of PC, that there is indeed significant financial incentives for single mothers NOT to work.

In fact, they were forced, by the clever BBC leading question / suggestive interrogation, into claiming that there is no “scientific evidence” shows that there are single mothers milking the system.

But how can you gather “scientific evidence” to prove that? By asking single mothers “are you milking the system?” Of course, they will say no, even if they say completely opposite when with friends and other single mothers.

Your looking at it the wrong way. It IS impossible to get scientific evidence for the above. Because to get scientific evidence you need to carry out repeatable experiments where you have controls against which you can compare. Unless you can build a dozen UK's and do this it is impossible. Not that the BBC should crow about 'see there is no scientific evidence' it should be admitted that it is impossible to obtain such.

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.

  • 334 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.