Thursday, July 16, 2009

Labour won’t take their pain…

UK Unemployment Record Rise, a Jobless Debt Fuelled Economic Recovery?

''...the mainstream press focus has been on the headline unemployment data and the benefits claimant count, however the real number of unemployed stands far higher when taking into account all those of working age (16 to 64) as illustrated below with the total at 7.915 million...''

Posted by hpwatcher @ 05:44 AM (1100 views)
Please complete the required fields.



11 thoughts on “Labour won’t take their pain…

  • “however the real number of unemployed (7.15 million) stands far higher when taking into account all those of working age (16 to 64)”

    This article lifts its figures wholesale from the National Statistics office but it implies that some insight has gone into acquiring the ‘real’ number of 7.15 million unemployed

    My wife does not work and nor does my sister or my brothers wife. They do not want to work but they are pretty far from economically inactive. I know many people who have happily taken early retirement and several people who are taking a sabbatical from work. Adding these people to an unemployed statistic makes no sense. The same goes for the disabled, people in jail, people travelling the world, the idle rich, the idle poor, students, househusbands and housewives

    The official statistics are flawed but they are more useful than this 7.15 million number

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sorry, I meant 7.915

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Will Hutton suggested in “The State We’re In” (1996) that the real rate of unemployed (or economically inactive) is roughly three times the unemployment rate at any given time.

    He’s still not far off the mark according to Market Oracle.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • paul: The Will Hutton thing infers that a very high proportion of the economically inactive rejoin the workforce in boom times. i.e if the unemployment number is 1 million then the economically inactive number reduces from 7 million to 3 million. If it is true then 4 million of the currently inactive don’t really want to be. Thats a lot of frustrated people

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Flashman – and why count only those aged 15-64 as economically active or inactive? There are many fit people over 65. Some racehorse trainers are in their 70s (one gets up before 4am and works 10-12-hour days, others have strings of 100+ horses) and at least one is in his 80s. The thing that dies at age 64 or younger is the will to work for somebody else.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • icarus: true enough. God knows how this demographics thing will pan out. We cant afford to support the retired, so they’ve got to carry on working….but there wont be a any jobs for most of them. I think the highly skilled older folks will be asked to work until they drop and the less skilled older folk will cause the government to consider a euthanasia bill

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • flashman – nor can we afford……better stop there or we’ll be into a different subject (the words ‘bank bailouts’ and ‘military’, especially with regard to the US, spring to mind).

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Governments have been hiding the real unemployment figures for years.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • shipbuilder says:

    The truth, of course, is that we can afford to support the retired and indeed all of us could work shorter hours, just not under our current system, where increases in productivity go into a few pockets rather than increasing the ‘leisure’ time of all of us. It’s just whether we choose to do things that way.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • shipbuilder says:

    [img]http://idlenest.freehostia.com/images/race.gif[/img]

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • shipbuilder says:

    I guess that didn’t work.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • 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 HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>