Wednesday, Sep 13, 2006

Sound fundamentals of the UK economy?.

BBC News: UK unemployment at six-year high

Unemployment rose by 93,000 between May and July to 1.7 million, its highest level since 2000, figures have shown.

Posted by kpjcomp @ 11:54 AM (579 views)
Add Comment
Report Article


1. C'mon Correction said...

Unemployment rises 5.8%, but benefit claims down 0.3%. - benefit reduction not worth commenting on is it? The figures are fudged as hell anyway - it's a wonder anyone takes any notice.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:14PM Report Comment

2. bidin'matime said...

Another piece in the jigsaw puzzle.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 01:19PM Report Comment

3. Northernlad said...

another piece of's much higher than this in reality. Get 'em on the sick! Hide it!

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 04:48PM Report Comment

4. george monsoon said...

its on its way...

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 07:05PM Report Comment

5. nearly30 said...

Interestingly - overall there was a 93,000 drop - but within the figures there was an increase for people aged 50 to retirement [+46,000] and a drop for people aged 16 to 17 [-17,000] and 24 to 34 [-27,000]. For me the figures of -44,000, as a combined figure, is the most alarming.
Overall, women contributed more to employment [+24,000]. Does this reflect a change to more short term, part-time working - maybe as the number of average hours worked remained low at 32 per week, despite the total number of hours worked actually rising!!!! National Stats says this is partly due to more women being employed and contributing 1.8M more hours.

I dare say all this 'flexible' working and 'dynamic' economy that Labour wanted - will just prove to create an economy of people nervous about their earnings - hastening the HPC!!!

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 08:37PM Report Comment

6. Bosscat said...

I think you have a point here nearly30. There is very little information available about the nature of the employment being created. Anecdotal evidence described on this and other sites suggests that job creation amongst the young is in lower paid work which while not temporary, is not career based either. Amongst the over 50's the gov'ts own information (and indeed legislation) suggests that it is of the "shelf stacking" type, with reliable hard working people appealing to certain companies who know they can exploit this because they know that there is little opportunity for to get employment which would be in line with their qualifications.
The link below shows how little some gov't ministers value the type of jobs being lost and believe that economic health can be sustained by retail alone.
The growth in employment numbers is not least boosted by employers now able to employ immigrant workers at lower wages. It's easy to see how an employer can employ more workers at lower wages to do the same jobs at lower cost to him. Equally some jobs which would not be economically viable in developed economies because of the higher overall wage levels become viable with low paid workers - such as agriculture.
This all adds to wage inflation suppression which is currently high on the gov't panic - sorry - to do list.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 09:53PM Report Comment

7. little professor said...

4000 more jobs to go in Britain as Norwich Union cuts and runs:

Thursday, September 14, 2006 08:16AM Report Comment

8. talking rot said...


Thank you for your comment on "MoneyWeek: Why one more itnerest rate may not be enough." I am not disputing the validity of the article. My concern [and frustration] stems from seeing a large number of articles within many quality publications which have predicted a House Price Crash on the basis of risks. Risks are things which MAY or MAY NOT happen. As a result many quality publications like MoneyWeek and The Economist, have rightly pointed out economic risks that MAY cause a House Price Crash.

The thing is, there is no sign of a House Price Crash in their area where I rent (Hampshire) or the area where I am looking to buy in a few years (North Yorkshire). Quality publications have made predictions on the basis of things [risks] occurring when there is no certainty that they will occur. As a result these predictions have not come true. We can only debate the likelihood of these risks occurring and what the outcome on House Prices MIGHT be.

I recall some learned economist stating "When the facts change, I'll change my mind" or something similar. It is a fact that there is no House Price Crash today. There are economic risks which MAY or MAY NOT cause one tomorrow. When the risks cease being a possible future event and become an actual current event, then the facts will have changed.

And Ill be able to afford that matchbox under the embankment Ive always dreamed of!

Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:29AM Report Comment

9. inbreda said...

TR - I see what you're saying, but bear in mind that the risks are still here - and like you say, they will be until things change. But how are they going to change? Look at the levels of debt in the UK - they're very real and not going to go away anytime soon. Therefore the risk of a HPC remains. If over a great many years inflation 'wears away' this debt, then the experts will change their mind and say there is little risk of HPC.

Compare this to playing the lottery. There is a small chance you'll win which is increased by either buying more tickets or playing every week. The possibility of winning only disappears once you stop buying tickets altogether.

Thursday, September 14, 2006 04:44PM Report Comment

Add comment

  • If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
  • If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines
Admin Password
Email Address

Main Blog | Archive | Add Article | Blog Policies