Jobless Total Rises Again

[Realistbear]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/default.stm

Further rise in UK jobless total

The number of people out of work in the UK has increased yet again, official figures have shown.

The unemployed total rose by 77,000 to 1.61 million between February and April, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.

The increase pushed the unemployment rate up to 5.3%, from the previous figure of 5.2%.

The number of people out of work and claiming unemployment benefit increased by 5,800 in May to 950,900.

Of course, strong employment continues to keep demand for overpriced houses strong....

[CrashIsUnderWay]

so the 'real' unemployment rate is...8.5 mill? 9 mill?

[shermanator]

so the 'real' unemployment rate is...8.5 mill? 9 mill?

Look, I'm opening a new shop and went into the local boozer and asked the barmaid whether she could think of anyone who's looking for work - just as a cashier paying £6 p/h. Anyway, her sister was out of work, her sister in law ditto, her best mate ditto. I left my card with her and have had 3 applications already.

Added to this the number of self employed painters, decorators, odd job men working out of a transit - like a nation of Delboys and hustlers. The "gissa a job mate" refrain is rampant outside central London, believe me.

There just are not the jobs about and anyone who thinks "high employment levels" will sustain HPI is living with the fairies.

[kingofnowhere]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/default.stm

Of course, strong employment continues to keep demand for overpriced houses strong....

Indeed it does, from the ONS

The number of people in full-time employment was 21.61 million in the three months to April 2006, up 109,000 from the three months to January 2006.

Of this total, 13.95 million were men, up 63,000 over

the quarter, and 7.66 million were women, up 46,000

over the quarter.

Its the highest number since records started in 1971.

[warwickbloke]

Indeed it does, from the ONS

The number of people in full-time employment was 21.61 million in the three months to April 2006, up 109,000 from the three months to January 2006.

Of this total, 13.95 million were men, up 63,000 over

the quarter, and 7.66 million were women, up 46,000

over the quarter.

Its the highest number since records started in 1971.

Yeh but no but yeh

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5078652.stm

this article claims employment is up also at 28.94m, is this a rise of 7m?

also 77000 extra jobless but only 5800 claiming?

sounds like a touch of creative accounting here, or what exactly constitutes jobless.

[Realistbear]

Indeed it does, from the ONS

The number of people in full-time employment was 21.61 million in the three months to April 2006, up 109,000 from the three months to January 2006.

Of this total, 13.95 million were men, up 63,000 over

the quarter, and 7.66 million were women, up 46,000

over the quarter.

Its the highest number since records started in 1971.

.

Oh if only it were true. Sadly, the ONS stats show a somewhat bleaker picture as the latest summary demonstrates:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=12

The downward trend in the employment rate has levelled off while the trend in the unemployment rate continues to increase. The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance benefit has increased. The number of job vacancies has fallen. Growth in average earnings excluding bonuses has fallen while growth in average earnings including bonuses has increased.

1. Unemployment is increasing.

2. Number of people claiming unemployment has increased.

3. Job vacancies are down--meaning fewer jobs out there.

4. Earnings are down meaning less people to afford overpriced houses. Those who receive "bonuses" are doing okay--but these are fewer in number than those who are not on bonuses.

Edited June 14, 2006 by Realistbear

[Realistbear]

Put simply:

http://money.guardian.co.uk/businessnews/s...1797216,00.html

Jobless rate hits 5.3%

Charlotte Moore and agencies

Wednesday June 14, 2006

The unemployment rate hit its highest level in three and half years

in April while earnings growth remained subdued, official data shows today.

The Office for National Statistics said unemployment for the three months to April rose to 5.3% from 5.1%, its highest since September 2002. The number of unemployed was up 77,000 on the previous three months to 1.61 million.

[kingofnowhere]

Oh if only it were true. Sadly, the ONS stats show a somewhat bleaker picture as the latest summary demonstrates:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=12

The downward trend in the employment rate has levelled off while the trend in the unemployment rate continues to increase. The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance benefit has increased. The number of job vacancies has fallen. Growth in average earnings excluding bonuses has fallen while growth in average earnings including bonuses has increased.

1. Unemployment is increasing.

2. Number of people claiming unemployment has increased.

3. Job vacancies are down--meaning fewer jobs out there.

4. Earnings are down meaning less people to afford overpriced houses. Those who receive "bonuses" are doing okay--but these are fewer in number than those who are not on bonuses.

It is true, it comes from this months ONS release. Employment in the UK is the highest it has ever been and is increasing, they are talking about the employment RATE, not the total employment numbers.

Anyway employment, not UNEMPLOYMENT is the driver for house prices.

For Example 1,000,000 houses and 1M people employed, will have a lower average house prices than 1,000,000 houses and 1.5M people empolyed and 0.5M unemployed.

Here is the total series for the number of people employed in the UK, in 1,000. You can see in the mid 90's that empoyment fell from 1990 29,100, to 1993 27,262. So the UK employed 2Million less, so its is surprising that house prices crashed.

1959	25,3821960	25,8401961	26,1351962	26,3281963	26,3631964	26,6811965	26,9641966	27,1411967	26,7751968	26,6241969	26,6561970	26,5581971	26,2201972	26,2091973	26,8311974	26,9211975	26,8311976	26,5951977	26,6351978	26,7991979	27,2201980	27,1711981	26,1511982	25,7001983	25,3921984	26,0841985	26,3861986	26,4271987	26,9491988	27,9111989	28,7881990	29,1001991	28,1831992	27,7111993	27,2621994	27,4051995	27,7651996	28,0911997	28,5661998	28,7201999	29,0792000	29,5362001	29,8422002	29,9852003	30,2832004	30,5722005	30,8101959 Q2	25,3821959 Q3	25,4861959 Q4	25,5771960 Q1	25,7301960 Q2	25,8401960 Q3	25,8851960 Q4	26,0691961 Q1	26,1681961 Q2	26,1351961 Q3	26,1971961 Q4	26,1241962 Q1	26,2721962 Q2	26,3281962 Q3	26,3061962 Q4	26,2371963 Q1	26,1511963 Q2	26,3631963 Q3	26,3861963 Q4	26,5281964 Q1	26,5801964 Q2	26,6811964 Q3	26,8031964 Q4	26,8801965 Q1	26,9361965 Q2	26,9641965 Q3	26,9841965 Q4	27,1031966 Q1	27,1491966 Q2	27,1411966 Q3	27,1471966 Q4	26,9011967 Q1	26,7501967 Q2	26,7751967 Q3	26,8131967 Q4	26,6901968 Q1	26,6461968 Q2	26,6241968 Q3	26,6491968 Q4	26,6581969 Q1	26,6501969 Q2	26,6561969 Q3	26,6531969 Q4	26,6241970 Q1	26,6551970 Q2	26,5581970 Q3	26,5041970 Q4	26,4421971 Q1	26,2401971 Q2	26,2201971 Q3	26,0321971 Q4	26,0191972 Q1	26,2141972 Q2	26,2091972 Q3	26,3261972 Q4	26,4991973 Q1	26,8431973 Q2	26,8311973 Q3	26,8641973 Q4	26,8911974 Q1	26,8641974 Q2	26,9211974 Q3	27,0191974 Q4	26,9621975 Q1	26,8751975 Q2	26,8311975 Q3	26,7641975 Q4	26,6911976 Q1	26,6141976 Q2	26,5951976 Q3	26,5871976 Q4	26,6281977 Q1	26,6351977 Q2	26,6351977 Q3	26,6581977 Q4	26,6841978 Q1	26,7551978 Q2	26,7991978 Q3	26,9021978 Q4	27,0831979 Q1	27,1111979 Q2	27,2201979 Q3	27,2981979 Q4	27,3451980 Q1	27,2681980 Q2	27,1711980 Q3	26,9101980 Q4	26,6151981 Q1	26,3531981 Q2	26,1511981 Q3	26,0201981 Q4	25,8551982 Q1	25,8021982 Q2	25,7001982 Q3	25,5611982 Q4	25,3921983 Q1	25,3331983 Q2	25,3921983 Q3	25,6481983 Q4	25,8331984 Q1	25,9681984 Q2	26,0841984 Q3	26,1721984 Q4	26,2811985 Q1	26,3451985 Q2	26,3861985 Q3	26,4271985 Q4	26,4241986 Q1	26,4011986 Q2	26,4271986 Q3	26,5081986 Q4	26,5851987 Q1	26,6601987 Q2	26,9491987 Q3	27,2091987 Q4	27,4921988 Q1	27,7141988 Q2	27,9111988 Q3	28,1591988 Q4	28,3921989 Q1	28,6911989 Q2	28,7881989 Q3	28,8871989 Q4	29,0001990 Q1	29,0101990 Q2	29,1001990 Q3	28,9971990 Q4	28,7811991 Q1	28,4711991 Q2	28,1831991 Q3	28,0241991 Q4	27,8711992 Q1	27,8601992 Q2	27,7111992 Q3	27,3061992 Q4	27,1571993 Q1	27,2781993 Q2	27,2621993 Q3	27,3211993 Q4	27,3831994 Q1	27,3811994 Q2	27,4051994 Q3	27,5911994 Q4	27,6721995 Q1	27,6851995 Q2	27,7651995 Q3	27,7591995 Q4	27,9001996 Q1	27,8941996 Q2	28,0911996 Q3	27,9941996 Q4	28,1161997 Q1	28,2801997 Q2	28,5661997 Q3	28,5361997 Q4	28,6751998 Q1	28,8331998 Q2	28,7201998 Q3	28,7101998 Q4	28,9181999 Q1	28,9761999 Q2	29,0791999 Q3	29,1671999 Q4	29,3812000 Q1	29,4272000 Q2	29,5362000 Q3	29,5872000 Q4	29,7402001 Q1	29,7892001 Q2	29,8422001 Q3	29,8402001 Q4	29,9752002 Q1	29,9742002 Q2	29,9852002 Q3	30,0292002 Q4	30,1222003 Q1	30,1682003 Q2	30,2832003 Q3	30,3842003 Q4	30,4892004 Q1	30,5242004 Q2	30,5722004 Q3	30,5582004 Q4	30,7472005 Q1	30,8322005 Q2	30,8102005 Q3	30,8272005 Q4	30,9262006 Q1	30,979

[Realistbear]

I think I understand what you are saying. As the UK population has increased so has the number of jobs.

The problem is that the rate of employment, or availability of work is declining. Meaning fewer jobs are available and more people are claiming unemployment benefit. This translates into a possible recession as jobs and spending are closely tied.

[warwickbloke]

I think I understand what you are saying. As the UK population has increased so has the number of jobs.

The problem is that the rate of employment, or availability of work is declining. Meaning fewer jobs are available and more people are claiming unemployment benefit. This translates into a possible recession as jobs and spending are closely tied.

Wasn't there also a bit of a boom & crash in the early 70's but these figures don't display the same trend then, why do we compare to just the last one?

[boo]

I think I understand what you are saying. As the UK population has increased so has the number of jobs.

The problem is that the rate of employment, or availability of work is declining. Meaning fewer jobs are available and more people are claiming unemployment benefit. This translates into a possible recession as jobs and spending are closely tied.

Did you also notice this in the bbc article

"The figures from the ONS also showed that the total number of people in employment also rose, to 28.94 million.

While the manufacturing sector continued to suffer, the biggest increases in jobs came in education, health and public administration. "

so bascially all the new jobs created are governemnt jobs paid for by us anyway!

[Bear Goggles]

It is true, it comes from this months ONS release. Employment in the UK is the highest it has ever been and is increasing, they are talking about the employment RATE, not the total employment numbers.

Anyway employment, not UNEMPLOYMENT is the driver for house prices.

For Example 1,000,000 houses and 1M people employed, will have a lower average house prices than 1,000,000 houses and 1.5M people empolyed and 0.5M unemployed.

Here is the total series for the number of people employed in the UK, in 1,000. You can see in the mid 90's that empoyment fell from 1990 29,100, to 1993 27,262. So the UK employed 2Million less, so its is surprising that house prices crashed.

So what you are saying is: If you increase the number of people in the country without increasing the number of dwellings then everyone ends up living in an overpriced hovel. Even if unemployment rises.

Welcome to Britain.

[kingofnowhere]

I think I understand what you are saying. As the UK population has increased so has the number of jobs.

The problem is that the rate of employment, or availability of work is declining. Meaning fewer jobs are available and more people are claiming unemployment benefit. This translates into a possible recession as jobs and spending are closely tied.

Hi The rate could decline, but there could be more Jobs.To be extreme Population 20M and 10M jobs, employment rate 50%. Population 25M, jobs 11M employment rate 44%.

If the number of houses is fixed at say 5M, then the population 25M will have a higher average house price, because there is another 10% more earners chasing the same number of houses, and so the equilibrium price will shift up, and the bottom earner wont be able to afford a house.

Yep, I know this is being a bit simplistic, but thats why Empoyment, and not unempoyment is the main driver for house prices.

[OzzMosiz]

Hi The rate could decline, but there could be more Jobs.To be extreme Population 20M and 10M jobs, employment rate 50%. Population 25M, jobs 11M employment rate 44%.

If the number of houses is fixed at say 5M, then the population 25M will have a higher average house price, because there is another 10% more earners chasing the same number of houses, and so the equilibrium price will shift up, and the bottom earner wont be able to afford a house.

Yep, I know this is being a bit simplistic, but thats why Empoyment, and not unempoyment is the main driver for house prices.

Good points. But when a larger proportion of these jobs (than historically usual) are government jobs paid for by tax, if production jobs are lost there is no one left to pay the salaries.

[warwickbloke]

Good points. But when a larger proportion of these jobs (than historically usual) are government jobs paid for by tax, if production jobs are lost there is no one left to pay the salaries.

I know it's obvious but adding rising unemployment, longer living pensioners, rising immigration on benefits & kids in full time education till they leave university:

paints a pretty bleak picture don't it.

Lots of Nu labour voters though.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Just GIMME SOME TRUTH

In work numbers increasing - yes, but how many of these new jobs are part time, temporary, interim, pay minimum wage, etc.

Perhaps Radical Statistics have something on this.

[kingofnowhere]

Just GIMME SOME TRUTH

In work numbers increasing - yes, but how many of these new jobs are part time, temporary, interim, pay minimum wage, etc.

Perhaps Radical Statistics have something on this.

The number of people in full-time employment was

21.61 million in the three months to April 2006,

up 109,000 from the three months to January 2006.

Of this total, 13.95 million were men, up 63,000 over

the quarter, and 7.66 million were women, up 46,000

over the quarter.

The number of people in part-time employment was

7.33 million in the three months to April 2006, up

21,000 from the three months to January 2006. Of this

total, 1.65 million were men and 5.68 million were

women.

Lots of other info, including regional breakdowns of empoyment (The midlands have falling employment, IIRC realist is from there so that should cheer him up. The SE also, but that has to be comapred with London that's rising fast and many people who live in the SE have jobs in the Smoke)

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/

[Realistbear]

As jobs are lost in the UK the Eurozone is doing better, seems that the cylce is coming around again with the UK once again becoming the poor man of Europe:

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnew..._10006215.shtml

Employment grew by 427,000 persons in the eurozone and 612,000 in the EU25 in Q1 2006

By Finfacts Team

Jun 14, 2006, 12:34

According to provisional national accounts estimates by Eurostat, the seasonally adjusted number of persons employed in the eurozone1 rose by 0.3% (427,000 persons) during the first quarter of 2006. During the same period, the number of persons employed in the EU25 also grew by 0.3% (612,000 persons). In the fourth quarter of 2005, growth rates were +0.3% in the euro area and +0.2% in the EU25.

The unemployment rate was 5.3 per cent, up 0.2 over the quarter and up 0.6 over the year. The number of unemployed people increased by 77,000 over the quarter and by 199,000 over the year, to reach 1.61 million.

The claimant count was 950,900 in May 2006, up 5,800 on the previous month and up 96,700 on the year.

The average number of job vacancies for the three months to May 2006 was 594,100. This was down 9,200 on the previous quarter and down 39,700 over the year.

The redundancy rate for the three months to April 2006 was 6.0 per 1,000 employees, up from 5.7 from the previous quarter.

Whereas in the UK the downward trend in the employment rate has levelled off while the trend in the unemployment rate continues to increase. The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance benefit has increased. The number of job vacancies has fallen. Growth in average earnings excluding bonuses has fallen while growth in average earnings including bonuses has increased.*

_________________

* http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=12

Edited June 14, 2006 by Realistbear