Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Coalition destroys 200,000 jobs

The Chancellor needs to get his facts straight

The increase in short-time and part-time working, means incomes and, therefore, spending is continuing to fall. Figures from the ONS show that nearly 200,000 full-time equivalent jobs have been lost over the past year, giving a lie to what Gideon Obsborne's quoted statement that "there is some good news, that employment, in other words people in work, that number is still going up. We are creating jobs in this economy as well as jobs being lost." And these workers are supposed to be saving up to buy a home, pay for a private pension and save for a rainy day, as well as cope with rampant inflation which is further destroying the value of the earnings.

Posted by stuartking @ 08:01 PM (1998 views)
Please complete the required fields.



13 thoughts on “Coalition destroys 200,000 jobs

  • I call bullcrap. The subtitle of the article reads: “It’s hours of work that matter.” If your employer gives you the choice between a 20% reduction in hours, or a 100% cut (redundancy), most people choose the 20%. The evidence shows that for individuals, it’s having a job at all that matters, not so much the number of hours.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • The focus here is on aggregate spending/demand, not on what an individual might choose. Fewer hours, less pay, less spending/demand.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Drewster, it’s The New Statesman, so they are bound to exaggerate, but OT1H they make a good point.

    OTOH the NS would consider a reduction in the number of hours worked by a useless civil servant to be a reduction in PRODUCTIVE hours worked, which it clearly isn’t.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Yes, but it’s better in the long-term to keep people employed, keep their skills fresh. In the short-term it’s also better to keep them earning some money rather than become a drain on the taxpayer.

    I understand that in the here-and-now, total hours worked has fallen. But it’s still better than the alternative.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Stuart:- Elsewhere in the news we have the following statistic from the same story.

    ‘The number of jobs occupied by people born outside the UK grew by almost 300,000 over the three months to June, while the number of UK-born people in employment fell by 50,000.’

    Thats the three months to June, not seasonal crop harvesting time and not a whole year, 200,000 would slot into that rather nicely.

    Look at the bigger picture, politicians are frothingly irrelevant with such large scale mobility of lower cost labour with no strings or ties to the UK.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @ enuii,
    “politicians are frothingly………..”

    Wander round the new 2012 Olympic site and Westfields…hear the accents of the workers…hardly a single East Ender….(jobs for the local community – said Tessa) they nearly all seem to be East European.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sibley's b'stard child says:

    Ah yes Alan but if you read the small print, the promise was to employ x number of workers that lived locally, not necessarily born there…hey presto, corporate social responsiblity gets a nod while achieving precisely ‘fanny adams’.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Drewster: “it’s better in the long-term to keep people employed, keep their skills fresh. In the short-term it’s also better to keep them earning some money rather than become a drain on the taxpaye.”

    Ho hum, that depends what skills. In any event, paying a pointless civil servant is a far bigger drain on the taxpayer than paying unemployment benefit. AFAICS, a lot of these jobs are so useless, we’d be better off if we cut their salary by 50% and reduced their working hours by 100%, that way they can go and do something useful with all this free time, and they won’t starve or anything, as long as they can find another job which pays half what their old job did.

    SBC, you are either a genius or the actual civil servant who liaised with the CBI before the rule was invented.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • What are we saying here? That giving an eastern european a job doesn’t count when they do in fact live here? And besides, the locals compete in the same job market. There is no unnatural discrimnation in favour of employing eastern europeans apart from the fact that they turn up to their jobs regularly and join the job lines. Britons have every advantage here.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sibley's b'stard child says:

    Neither i’m afraid MW, just one of those juicy morsels one has read in the indeterminable past.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sibley's b'stard child says:

    That’s not quite the case though is it Chilli. Whether or not one believes the Olympics to be (yet another) monumental waste of public money, the whole development (as chimed by Jowell’s empty rhetoric) could have been a great opportunity to revitalise the local economy. Not least given that youth unemployment is, what, 20% I don’t quite see how the reliance on a transient workforce is in any shape or form the foundation of a sustainable future.

    Still, i’m sure the jobless in East London will be more than happy to chip-in together four adults to a household in order to be as competative as their EU counterparts.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • You are missing the point by trying to unpick factual issues, boy george is simply sitting down facing the wall, fingers in ears, sayng la la la la la la la la ……………

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • MW,
    Yes it doesn’t really apply to civil servants – either you’re doing a valuable job or you’re not. For cyclical companies (e.g. construction), if they’re just going through a standard recession then it makes sense to put their staff on a 4-day week, just to see them through the lean times. Some staff will leave to pastures new; if enough of them leave or if business recovers fast enough then the rest can return to 5-day weeks. I understand this is what happened in Germany; there might also have been some funding from the federal or state governments to support companies to retain staff in skilled jobs.

    As an employer, would you rather hire somebody who has been on the dole for 12 months, or somebody who has been working a 3-day week for 12 months? Once you’re unemployed it’s much harder to find work again.

    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>