OK, so Unemployment is down, yet the jobseekers claimant count is up?

Confused? yes I am, I'm struggling like a geordie in Maths lesson.

So how can the unemployment be down, yet the number for jobseekers is up?

Is it not time to include the following in the unemployment stats?


People on government training schemes
People in Further Education (college or university)
People on incapacity
People who take in work benefits (ie, people who are not funny self sufficient without benefits)
Carers



In other words, if you are not in a job, where you are not fully self funding.......(ie, no benefits), then you are classed as recieving benefits, and as such should be included in the stats.

We would then get a true picture of the scale on unemployment, this would cause an outcry and then force the government of the day to confront this problem - and who knows, develop manifacturing as the way to genuinely reduce the unemployment figures.

While we are hiding the truth, we won't confront the problem.

In roman times, if the Roman Emperor was naked, then the subjects (the people) got to see things they shouldn't have seen.

OK, so Unemployment is down, yet the jobseekers claimant count is up?

Confused? yes I am, I'm struggling like a geordie in Maths lesson.

So how can the unemployment be down, yet the number for jobseekers is up?

Is it not time to include the following in the unemployment stats?


People on government training schemes
People in Further Education (college or university)
People on incapacity
People who take in work benefits (ie, people who are not funny self sufficient without benefits)
Carers



In other words, if you are not in a job, where you are not fully self funding.......(ie, no benefits), then you are classed as recieving benefits, and as such should be included in the stats.

We would then get a true picture of the scale on unemployment, this would cause an outcry and then force the government of the day to confront this problem - and who knows, develop manifacturing as the way to genuinely reduce the unemployment figures.

While we are hiding the truth, we won't confront the problem.

In roman times, if the Roman Emperor was naked, then the subjects (the people) got to see things they shouldn't have seen.


Wont happen and even if it did the government cant make manufacturing jobs just like that,besides we cant compete with cheap labor costs so our manufacturing is a on a slow death anyway.

Is it not time to include the following in the unemployment stats?



People who take in work benefits (ie, people who are not funny self sufficient without benefits)
Carers



In other words, if you are not in a job, where you are not fully self funding.......(ie, no benefits), then you are classed as recieving benefits, and as such should be included in the stats.

.

Sorry SB, that will never happen. If we reveal the massive number of private sector workers who are receiving a top up from the state, we will expose the myth that the private sector is good and the public sector is bad. Some people might even twig why public sector wages have finally risen above private sector ones...

You know the myth it is being hawked around by all the right wingers at the moment. The argument runs that if you are a private sector employee, you are a wealth creator. If you are not, then you are not. Quite clearly a nonsense.

Wont happen and even if it did the government cant make manufacturing jobs just like that,besides we cant compete with cheap labor costs so our manufacturing is a on a slow death anyway.

british manufacturing may not be thriving at the minute but it is not yet dead, far from it

there is more to manufacturing success than just cheap labour.

innovation, quality and such like are all important and we have that in abundance over here.

apart from that as fuel prices continue to rise the cost of importing goods will rise too and that will more than offset the low cost of labour. also, all these cheap labour countries will find their labour costs increasing as the workers quite rightly demand a fair share of the results of their labour.

on the other hand, the idea of a factory employing thousands of people like in the good old days have gone forever modern technology and manufacturing process mean you can make the same amount with fewer people but that needn't be a problem. if we as a country concentrate on doing things better and faster and at a higher quality than anyone else then the orders and the jobs will follow.

Sorry SB, that will never happen. If we reveal the massive number of private sector workers who are receiving a top up from the state, we will expose the myth that the private sector is good and the public sector is bad. Some people might even twig why public sector wages have finally risen above private sector ones...

You know the myth it is being hawked around by all the right wingers at the moment. The argument runs that if you are a private sector employee, you are a wealth creator. If you are not, then you are not. Quite clearly a nonsense.



Would it not be better for the truth to be exposed?

Would it not be better for the truth to be exposed?

everyone knows the truth anyway

Would it not be better for the truth to be exposed?

Just think of all of the wealth creating entrepreneurs and their shattered dreams.

Have a heart, let the council workers take the blame.

OK, so Unemployment is down, yet the jobseekers claimant count is up?

Confused? yes I am, I'm struggling like a geordie in Maths lesson.

So how can the unemployment be down, yet the number for jobseekers is up?

Is it not time to include the following in the unemployment stats?


People on government training schemes
People in Further Education (college or university)
People on incapacity
People who take in work benefits (ie, people who are not funny self sufficient without benefits)
Carers



In other words, if you are not in a job, where you are not fully self funding.......(ie, no benefits), then you are classed as recieving benefits, and as such should be included in the stats.

We would then get a true picture of the scale on unemployment, this would cause an outcry and then force the government of the day to confront this problem - and who knows, develop manifacturing as the way to genuinely reduce the unemployment figures.

While we are hiding the truth, we won't confront the problem.

In roman times, if the Roman Emperor was naked, then the subjects (the people) got to see things they shouldn't have seen.

Stop being Geordiest please

everyone knows the truth anyway



I don't believe they do.

Many people believed Sadam had weapons of mass destruction back in 2003, because the powers that be, said he had.....this despite the fact no clear evidence was presented to prove it (prior to the war)

Many people in the UK cannot see the truth and believe everything they are told

The reason so many people are recieving top ups on their wages is because the government allowed immigration in order to depress wages and sustain the housing bubble.

Public sector people are no different, other than that all their wage is a top up, and their wages are artificially higher than normal private sector folk.

The reason so many people are recieving top ups on their wages is because the government allowed immigration in order to depress wages and sustain the housing bubble.



You don't really believe that do you?

From a different angle, private companies pay the minimum possible to get the job done. The state picks up the balance to ensure that the employes have a decent standard of living. State subsidisation of private enterprise. While those in charge make a killing.

Happ Hazard does have a point though - although that is a different thread.

The more people who want a dwindling product, sends the prices up. If all of a sudden there was a shortage of chicken (or any other food stock) I can't imagine Morrisons or Tescos not increasing the price.

With regards the immigration, if more people are applying for one job and people are prepared to work for less money, then the wage that particular job role commands goes down

Sorry SB, that will never happen. If we reveal the massive number of private sector workers who are receiving a top up from the state, we will expose the myth that the private sector is good and the public sector is bad. Some people might even twig why public sector wages have finally risen above private sector ones...

You know the myth it is being hawked around by all the right wingers at the moment. The argument runs that if you are a private sector employee, you are a wealth creator. If you are not, then you are not. Quite clearly a nonsense.

Why is it quite clearly a nonsense?

I don't believe they do.

Many people believed Sadam had weapons of mass destruction back in 2003, because the powers that be, said he had.....this despite the fact no clear evidence was presented to prove it (prior to the war)

Many people in the UK cannot see the truth and believe everything they are told

i haven't met anyone who believed that he had weapons of mass destruction

i haven't met anyone who believed that he had weapons of mass destruction

It wasn’t an unreasonable assumption that he had some when he had defiantly used them in the past.

During the regime of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq used, possessed, and made efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built.

After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)

The topic on unemployment figures is a classic example of the 3 types of lies...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

So what do people think the true unemployment figure is? 6m? 8m?

The published records should be the number of people in full-time employment. That would of course exclude all those sectors in the OPs post. But it would also exclude the many who have been forced into part time hours when previously they were full time.

But, as everybody has said, it won't happen. While the media can sneer at little old Greece, Ireland, Italy etc. I shouldn't think we're that far ahead.

So what do people think the true unemployment figure is? 6m? 8m?

The published records should be the number of people in full-time employment. That would of course exclude all those sectors in the OPs post. But it would also exclude the many who have been forced into part time hours when previously they were full time.

But, as everybody has said, it won't happen. While the media can sneer at little old Greece, Ireland, Italy etc. I shouldn't think we're that far ahead.



The employment rate for those aged from 16 to 64 for the three months to May 2011 was 70.7 per cent, unchanged on the quarter. The number of people in employment aged 16 and over increased by 50,000 on the quarter and by 309,000 on the year to reach 29.28 million. The number of people in employment is 293,000 lower than the pre-recession peak of 29.57 million recorded for the three months to May 2008.
If my maths is correct 70.7% is 29,280,000 in work there must be 12,123,427 not in work. They won’t all be claiming benefits.

If my maths is correct 70.7% is 29,280,000 in work there must be 12,123,427 not in work. They won’t all be claiming benefits.

And they won't all be in full-time work, either.