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

Uk Unemployment Falls To 2.12M

Recommended Posts

Sadly, I actually remember the hoo haa and shame of it rising above 1 million!

Little did we know.

Unemployment-since-19715.png

The number of times the method of counting the unemployed has changed means that it is difficult if not impossible to compare 2014 with 1975.

I suspect that the the level of unemployment is nearer 3 million than 2 million because of factors such as exclusions from the count due to benefit sanctions, numbers on sickness etc.

In the US if the methodology of 1994 was used today, the jobless rate would be somewhere near 25% instead of the less than 9% the official stats record.

Edited by 1929crash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of times the method of counting the unemployed has changed means that it is difficult if not impossible to compare 2014 with 1975.

I suspect that the the level of unemployment is nearer 3 million than 2 million because of factors such as exclusions from the count due to benefit sanctions, numbers on sickness etc.

In the US if the methodology of 1994 was used today, the jobless rate would be somewhere near 25% instead of the less than 9% the official stats record.

For once I agree with you.

Back in the 80's the unemployment figure became a number which had a lot of media attention. Result : politicians fiddle the number until it barely has any relevance any more.

The other was/is the basic income tax rate. Back in the good old days you could tell pretty much whether you were being taxed more or less via the way the government increased or decreased this rate. Now tax has been obsucrified into a hge number of different taxes and thresholds so no one actually knows how much they are being taxed any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For once I agree with you.

Back in the 80's the unemployment figure became a number which had a lot of media attention. Result : politicians fiddle the number until it barely has any relevance any more.

The other was/is the basic income tax rate. Back in the good old days you could tell pretty much whether you were being taxed more or less via the way the government increased or decreased this rate. Now tax has been obsucrified into a hge number of different taxes and thresholds so no one actually knows how much they are being taxed any more.

I know what you mean by the last sentence, but is there really such a word as obsucrified? If not, there ought to be. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For once I agree with you.

Back in the 80's the unemployment figure became a number which had a lot of media attention. Result : politicians fiddle the number until it barely has any relevance any more.

The other was/is the basic income tax rate. Back in the good old days you could tell pretty much whether you were being taxed more or less via the way the government increased or decreased this rate. Now tax has been obsucrified into a hge number of different taxes and thresholds so no one actually knows how much they are being taxed any more.

Indeed, it's one of these 'Westminster village' things that the Basic Rate of income tax is sacrosanct and can never rise.

Scary thing is that in the 1970s, an unemployment rate around 4-6%, or over a million people was seen as a national crisis. But nowadays, even with a downgraded measure there would be celebrations at the number getting that low.. and people wonder why pay rises don't exist, retail sales keep 'disappointing' and the deficit remains so high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unemployment is around 7 million i would say.500k joined the unemployed this year (self employed earning nothing but tax credits).

The country produces more wealth than back in say 71 by a massive amount.The problem is though global capital and rentiers capture most of it.

Once China and India reach western levels and start to consume things should be fine.So in around 30-60 years.Be a low/middle skilled worker before that time is reached its not pretty.

The interesting part will be when welfare cracks.Where i live welfare really has passed the mark where the claiments (50%+ of the area population) have a much higher standard of living than the local workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, I actually remember the hoo haa and shame of it rising above 1 million!

Little did we know.

EDIT: The 3 major periods of administration (2 Labour and 1 Tory) have all experienced a rise over their course. The 2 smaller periods at the beginning and the end seem fairly flat.

Unemployment-since-19715.png

but the labour jobs are all government jobs,they have a habit of expanding to fit the ever increasing amounts of legislation and micromanagement that labour also bring.

they seem not to have the nack of making the distinction between make-work jobs and ones that produce tangible benefit.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but the labour jobs are all government jobs,they have a habit of expanding to fit the ever increasing amounts of legislation and micromanagement that labour also bring.

but the labour jobs are all government jobs,they have a habit of expanding to fit the ever increasing amounts of legislation and micromanagement that labour also bring.

they seem not to have the nack of making the distinction between make-work jobs and ones that produce tangible benefit.

it would also be a lot easier for them to reduce the unemployment count further to employ red-flag wavers in front of every car, and have an army of health and safety inspectors to ensure such mandates were properly enforced.

that is not to say that these jobs would be in any way productive.

unemployment etc need to be measured in GDP per capita, that's the true measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it amazing that they raise the retirement age and tell us it's because we are living longer, and we all fall for it. With millions of unemployed there is no need for people to work till they drop.

It's more to do with cutting labor cost by having more workers. Keep the 1% in the manor they have become accustomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wages down 1.6% in real terms over the last 12 months.

I have not checked that calculation but some posters have touched on structural labour market of relatively well paid jobs being replaced by jobs at the lower end. There was a big thread on the longer term implications. The MPC has this as economy has more spare capacity as a whole. For me it is a bit more of problem for the long term across mortgage term eg 25years as finding the capital and interest payments for mega mortgages may be tough For some. Carney mentioned that risk to the wider economy.

We'll have to see whether wage growth picks up. Again in the big thread posters are looking at the foward indicators

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:   209 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.