[parmnion]

Are we doing well?

[Withano]

3.8%

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Withano

3.8%

Fake news.


Employment Rate in the United Kingdom remained unchanged at 76.10 percent in June from 76.10 percent in May of 2019. Employment Rate in the United Kingdom averaged 71.29 percent from 1971 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 76.10 percent in December of 2018 and a record low of 65.60 percent in March of 1983.

[Toy Soldier]

Employment figures are largely meaningless (unless there's a glaring lack of employment), because it says nothing about the type of employment.

E.g. An economy with 35% unemployment where a large proportion of those employed are in well paying careers with good prospects is doing much better than an economy with 25% unemployment where most of those employed are in minimum wage slog.

[Marsh.]

0%

[Withano]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Fake news.


Employment Rate in the United Kingdom remained unchanged at 76.10 percent in June from 76.10 percent in May of 2019. Employment Rate in the United Kingdom averaged 71.29 percent from 1971 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 76.10 percent in December of 2018 and a record low of 65.60 percent in March of 1983.

That’s the employment rate...

You literally asked a question
Got an answer
Said the answer was wrong
Looked for the answer
Got an answer for a different question

Reevaluate everything you’ve done one thing this morning is my advice.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Withano

That’s the employment rate...

You literally asked a question
Got an answer
Said the answer was wrong
Looked for the answer
Got an answer for a different question

Reevaluate everything you’ve done one thing this morning is my advice.

I'm a busy man...I do apologise.

[joeysteele]

Truth is now we don't know.

I would like to see the employment/unemployment figures in different ways now.

Someone employed should be someone in full employment on full time hours.

Someone on part time is not fully employed.

Someone on zero hours contracts, which some on them prefer, really are close to NOT being employed at all.

So I'd like to see 3 sets of figures to get the true picture.

1), Those out of work, re the unemployed.

2), Those only in partial employment, part time and zero hour contracts.

3), Then those in FULL time hours employment.

Only then do we then have any true employment/unemployment figures.

Otherwise the saying, there are lies, damn lies and statistics, is the best way to describe the figures we get at present.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Truth is now we don't know.

I would like to see the employment/unemployment figures in different ways now.

Someone employed should be someone in full employment on full time hours.

Someone on part time is not fully employed.

Someone on zero hours contracts, which some on them prefer, really are close to NOT being employed at all.

So I'd like to see 3 sets of figures to get the true picture.

1), Those out of work, re the unemployed.

2), Those only in partial employment, part time and zero hour contracts.

3), Then those in FULL time hours employment.

Only then do we then have any true employment/unemployment figures.

Otherwise the saying, there are lies, damn lies and statistics, is the best way to describe the figures we get at present.

Out of work is 3.8 percent...

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Out of work is 3.8 percent...

Technically yes. But the stats for what is considered "employment" are totally skewed, to be considered "not unemployed" only requires ONE HOUR (and that's on average) of paid work per week.

Is that "employment" in any meaningful sense? One 5-hour shift a month on a zero hour contract? I would argue "no", and I would argue that meaningful employment stats would only include jobs that pay the equivalent of 16h @ min wage / week (currently just over Ł130 a week).

You'd get a much clearer picture of the employment situation that way.

Like I said, you can't measure the success of an economy based purely on "how many people have work". The type of work and available opportunities / prospects are just as important.

[bitontheslide]

I don't know the exact figure but there will be a wad of tory mp's joining the ranks shortly

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I don't know the exact figure but there will be a wad of tory mp's joining the ranks shortly

Nah, they all have full coffers & multiple properties, they'd just be classed as self-employed.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Technically yes. But the stats for what is considered "employment" are totally skewed, to be considered "not unemployed" only requires ONE HOUR (and that's on average) of paid work per week.

Is that "employment" in any meaningful sense? One 5-hour shift a month on a zero hour contract? I would argue "no", and I would argue that meaningful employment stats would only include jobs that pay the equivalent of 16h @ min wage / week (currently just over Ł130 a week).

You'd get a much clearer picture of the employment situation that way.

Like I said, you can't measure the success of an economy based purely on "how many people have work". The type of work and available opportunities / prospects are just as important.

Wasn't the zero hour contract thing brought out to help people who couldn't take full time employment because of family commitments etc....?

Also just to add a further 31 thousand people found work in 3 months from April to July.

[Rob!]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Are we doing well?

Originally Posted by parmnion

Fake news.


Employment Rate in the United Kingdom remained unchanged at 76.10 percent in June from 76.10 percent in May of 2019. Employment Rate in the United Kingdom averaged 71.29 percent from 1971 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 76.10 percent in December of 2018 and a record low of 65.60 percent in March of 1983.

So if you were capable of finding the answer yourself, the point of this thread is...?

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Rob!

So if you were capable of finding the answer yourself, the point of this thread is...?

Are we doing well.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Are we doing well.

Best for over 40 years, or was it 45?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Are we doing well.

I think you think the answer is "yes", and you want everyone to say "yes" because of the <4% stat, when the reality is much more murky than that. Pay is poor, housing costs are sky high, LOTS of unstable part time/short term employment and huge numbers of families need their income topped up with in-work benefits. So in my opinion, to answer the question, no, not really.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think you think the answer is "yes", and you want everyone to say "yes" because of the <4% stat, when the reality is much more murky than that. Pay is poor, housing costs are sky high, LOTS of unstable part time/short term employment and huge numbers of families need their income topped up with in-work benefits. So in my opinion, to answer the question, no, not really.

This for me too.

It's ridiculous that someone only working up to 10 hrs a week.
Is classed even as employed.

You can do anything with statistics.
All governments have too.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think you think the answer is "yes", and you want everyone to say "yes" because of the <4% stat, when the reality is much more murky than that. Pay is poor, housing costs are sky high, LOTS of unstable part time/short term employment and huge numbers of families need their income topped up with in-work benefits. So in my opinion, to answer the question, no, not really.

You could also say the 3 whatever percent are happy to have thier income topped up?


Therefore it's arguable that a lot of families are happy to have thier wages topped up by the government.

[joeysteele]

Well since the whole point of employment is to have people off benefits.

Perhaps the true unemployment/employment figures should be presented as.

Those receiving work related benefits along with those who by law, not needing top up benefits.

Then judge the not in full employment figures alongside those who are.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Well since the whole point of employment is to have people off benefits.

Perhaps the true unemployment/employment figures should be presented as.

Those receiving work related benefits along with those who by law, not needing top up benefits.

Then judge the not in full employment figures alongside those who are.

What about the percentage of people relying on criminality to live. ..that must be .9 at least...

[parmnion]

Actually I get your point now..

Isn't it the government offering these extra benifit that encourage people into employment joey?