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

The City Is Back: Number Of People Working In London's Financial Sector Soars Past Its Pre-Crash Peak

Recommended Posts

More workers than ever are employed in finance and professional services in London, new figures from TheCityUK show today, confirming that the capital has bounced back from the credit crunch.
The City was hit hard in the global financial crisis, with banks shedding tens of thousands of jobs and spending billions restructuring and rebuilding their finances. But seven years on from the peak of the boom – and the collapse of Northern Rock, which heralded the beginning of the crash in the UK – London has reached a fresh peak, and is now a bigger employer of financial and professional services staff than ever before.
A total of 703,900 are employed in the sectors, and that figure is expected to rise to 714,500 by the end of the year. This means the jobs lost in the financial crisis have now been recovered – at its previous peak in 2007 the industries employed 691,700 workers. That figure crashed to a low of 635,900 but has at last clawed its way back up to a new record high as the economy prospers.
Over 2014, headcount in the finance and professional services sectors will have grown by 3.1 per cent, accelerating from the 2.4 per cent seen last year. The biggest growth over the first half of 2014 came in accounting and management consultancy, where headcount jumped by five per cent to 254,300.
Next was fund management, with growth of 4.5 per cent taking the number employed to 25,300.
By contrast headcount in banking slid 0.4 per cent to 143,300, and the workforce in legal services shrank 1.3 per cent to 105,500. Since the crash, the balance of hiring has also shifted – 51 per cent of workers in the sectors are now in professional services, while finance accounts for 49 per cent, the opposite of the figures seen seven years ago. By region the balance has moved slightly in favour of the City.
The workforce in the City itself has risen by 6,800 from 2007 to 2014, to 236,900 today. In Canary Wharf the total has slipped by 300 to 76,500.And the total for the rest of London increased by 5,700 to 390,500.


http://www.cityam.com/1413779482/exclusive-city-back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because prostitution and drug dealing are now officially counted, we can see where the growth came from..."professional services"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing that we experienced the largest increase in our standard of living from 1945->~1969 with a Financial services that was a tiny fraction of what it is today but more or less in line with its massive growth since the 80's the average person's share of wealth has decreased and since the late 90's their actual standard of living has decreased...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing that we experienced the largest increase in our standard of living from 1945->~1969 with a Financial services that was a tiny fraction of what it is today but more or less in line with its massive growth since the 80's the average person's share of wealth has decreased and since the late 90's their actual standard of living has decreased...

Not amazing at all. Very predictable. The city creates nothing. It simply acts as a middle man between buyer and seller, bidding up prices by means of a loan. In the 60s or 70s if you wanted to buy a car, all your purchase money would go to the retailer and manufacturer. Now the banks take a cut before it gets to the retailer and manufacturer.

Si1 saying they'll pay back what they owe is contrary to logic. Their business IS taking out of the system, not putting in. The more of them there are, the more parasitism there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bounced back? Only thanks to Osborne's Keynesian profligacy. Even so, swillers make up a significantly smaller percentage of the total working population than in 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bookmaker always wins, especially when the odds are stacked in their favour....

I suppose it helps with the trickle down....employing maids, childminders and gardeners next.

Edited by winkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bookmaker always wins, especially when the odds are stacked in their favour....

I suppose it helps with the trickle down....employing maids, childminders and gardeners next.

Well, It helps London...by thieving from the rest of the country.

And then they must thieve some more via housing benefit.

London is a cancer. It absolutely must be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, It helps London...by thieving from the rest of the country.

And then they must thieve some more via housing benefit.

London is a cancer. It absolutely must be killed.

No, that is taking it far too far.....a balance is the healthier way, spread the load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Approx 8 million people in London.

UK working age percentage is around 62% from http://www.agediscrimination.info/statistics/Pages/CurrentUKpopulation.aspx

Central London postcodes are more like 80% from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business-transparency/freedom-of-information/previous-foi-requests/people--population-and-community/population-and-working-age-population-of-the-following-few-london-postcodes/index.html

So let's say 70% of London population are of working age = 5.6 million

The parasite sectors employ about 700k from the @cityam front page article.

So that's about 12.5% of the workforce.

I just wanted to work that out for myself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bookmaker always wins, especially when the odds are stacked in their favour....

I suppose it helps with the trickle down....employing maids, childminders and gardeners next.

If I am right I get a bonus if wrong a government subsidy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
with banks shedding tens of thousands of jobs and spending billions restructuring and rebuilding their finances.

Because the tax payer bailed most of them out and propped up the economy by printing money. They owe their existence to the tax payer, especially Lloyds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The City is back? Return on equity isn't and the BoE is now demanding cuts in banksters' pay as a consequence. :)

Banks will have to cut pay in response to lower profits, a senior policymaker at the Bank of England has said.

Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank's deputy governor for financial stability, told an audience in London that new rules requiring banks to hold extra funds in reserve had meant reduced returns to shareholders, but that this had not fed in to pay.

"The sluggish adjustment in pay [since the crisis] may well reflect the expectation that returns in banking are set to increase in the future," he said.

"There are good reasons why they may do so. But, given lower levels of leverage, it is unlikely that we will see, or want to see again, the returns on equity that we saw before the crisis. In the new world, paybills may well have further to adjust.”

Six years on from the financial crisis that forced politicians into taxpayer-funded bail-outs of Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds, regulators have forced banks to substantially increase the financial safety nets they hold against loans.

Sir Jon said this increase – of up to seven times on certain measures – means that a bank makes far less money for every pound it holds than it did before the crisis. He warned that trying to make up for this “by taking excessive risk” would not be tolerated in a post-crisis world.

In addition, steps taken to remove the implied government support in the event of a failure that big banks have enjoyed have increased the cost of borrowing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11174412/Bank-of-England-tells-bankers-to-get-used-to-lower-pay.html

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:   224 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.