interestrateripoff Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23692996 UK unemployment fell by just 4,000 in the three months to June leaving 2.51 million out of work, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in July fell more sharply, down by 29,000 to 1.4 million. The unemployment rate remains at 7.8%, still well above the 7% rate target set by the Bank of England. The Bank's governor, Mark Carney, says interest rates are unlikely to rise before that target is reached. The ONS said the figures meant unemployment was "broadly unchanged" from the first three months of the year. I'm glad the ONS clarified that point, that 4000 less means it's broadly unchanged. If this was the trend of 4000 per quarter how many years would it take to hit the target of just 7% unemployed? Still with more people working it can only boost house prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellerkat Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Still with more people working it can only boost house prices. An earlier tweet from @faisalislam http://twitter.com/faisalislam' rel="external nofollow"> ** ONS: Employment growth over the past half decade entirely down to 317k increase in employment of over 65s. 76k fewer under 65s . I suppose the greedy old grey-tops will be filling their boots surgical stockings with BTL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 (edited) Should please the City.......they need the unemployed apparently, so industry can stay competitive and also keep inflation down. Edited August 14, 2013 by crashmonitor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Carney will be pleased. Poor unemployment number = opportunity for more QE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durhamborn Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Millions are also in part time jobs looking for full time.Other millions are in full time trying to downsize to part time for tax credits.Lots of ESA and income support claims now move over to JSA,that alone will push the claimant count up by 2+ million from the old figures. The main claimant count figure is now meaningless.It can be moved up or down at will.Want it down,sanction more people,stop kicking ESA claims onto JSA ,stop moving single mothers onto JSA instead of income support. Want it up?,sanction less people,kick more off ESA and move single mothers over faster to JSA from income support. In the present set up I cant see how unemployment can go below 7% without massive changes to benefits and it looks like Carnage knows that as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Millions are also in part time jobs looking for full time.Other millions are in full time trying to downsize to part time for tax credits.Lots of ESA and income support claims now move over to JSA,that alone will push the claimant count up by 2+ million from the old figures. The main claimant count figure is now meaningless.It can be moved up or down at will.Want it down,sanction more people,stop kicking ESA claims onto JSA ,stop moving single mothers onto JSA instead of income support. Want it up?,sanction less people,kick more off ESA and move single mothers over faster to JSA from income support. In the present set up I cant see how unemployment can go below 7% without massive changes to benefits and it looks like Carnage knows that as well. I'd love to know the true rate of localised employment, minus the zombie/zero contract/temporary ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durhamborn Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 I'd love to know the true rate of localised employment, minus the zombie/zero contract/temporary ones. Me too but its very hard to work out.I think the best way it to take in anyone getting working age welfare payments.That doesn't take in all part time/0 hours contracts though. In some areas that's running at 70%+ and in most areas 40%+ If you count part time jobs as needing two to make a full time job id say real unemployment is running at 25%-35%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tin Foil Hat Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 I would include all those who are taking state benefits of whatever kind to top their wages like these tax credits and stuff because they are still not self sufficient financially and canT be said to be truly employed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoony Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23692996 I'm glad the ONS clarified that point, that 4000 less means it's broadly unchanged. If this was the trend of 4000 per quarter how many years would it take to hit the target of just 7% unemployed? Still with more people working it can only boost house prices. Yes I noticed all media news today could not cover this story without mentioning that the unemployment rate is still above the 7% target so interest rates will not go up!! Why is this ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 To get a better truer figure they should work it out by employable people X employable hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 (edited) Yes I noticed all media news today could not cover this story without mentioning that the unemployment rate is still above the 7% target so interest rates will not go up!! Why is this ? It'll be interesting to see if the gubberment will start adding those who they would normally not include in the standard JSA figures (ESA, Workfare, etc) to the unemployment figures, to actually stop the figure from dropping to 7%? Or am I just a bit too cynical, and they wouldn't dream of doing such a thing... Edited August 14, 2013 by Dave Beans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.