There are no unemployed people in Britain

so the government stopped under 18s claiming unemployment benefit a fair few years ago, so they then are not counted in the statistics as being unemployed? yes?

I'm not sure I follow.

You can count as being unemployed if you are 16 or over . Stopping unemployment benefits for people under 18 would not stop people from being counted as unemployed, if they meet the criteria.

You're not classed as unemployed if you are instead classed as economically inactive, such as people who are studying or can't work due to long term illness.

There are different statistics that measure these figures.

If they can't claim any benefits then it's very unlikely that they will be registered with the benefits office as looking and available for work.

A very neat way of excluding them from being counted, without actually excluding them at all.

---------- Post added 23-11-2017 at 09:11 ----------

OK but my comment still stands by using the alternative measure.

 

GDP per head (adjusted for inflation) in 1970 was less than half what it is now. It has more than doubled by using that measure.

 

I'm still unsure how Anna B can claim productivity is at an 'all time low'..

 

 

https://www.economicvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ercchart0514.gif

Agreed, it saw a sharp fall in 2008, and is still below that level, but it's not at an all time low by any measure.

If they can't claim any benefits then it's very unlikely that they will be registered with the benefits office as looking and available for work.

A very neat way of excluding them from being counted, without actually excluding them at all.

 

---------- Post added 23-11-2017 at 09:11 ----------

 

 

Agreed, it saw a sharp fall in 2008, and is still below that level, but it's not at an all time low by any measure.

I think two issues are being conflated here.

There is the number of unemployed people in this country, which is measured using the internationally recognised definition, and then there is the number of people receiving jobseeker's allowance

The two of these are not the same - the government could suddenly decide to stop paying jobseeker's allowance to anyone, but that wouldn't change the unemployment figures.

If they can't claim any benefits then it's very unlikely that they will be registered with the benefits office as looking and available for work.

A very neat way of excluding them from being counted, without actually excluding them at all.

 

---------- Post added 23-11-2017 at 09:11 ----------

 

 

Agreed, it saw a sharp fall in 2008, and is still below that level, but it's not at an all time low by any measure.

It depends why they are unemployed. After six months your JSA allowance runs out but you still have to sign on if you want your National Insurance contributions paid/ credited. Hubby had to do that a few years ago.

I think two issues are being conflated here.

 

There is the number of unemployed people in this country, which is measured using the internationally recognised definition, and then there is the number of people receiving jobseeker's allowance

 

The two of these are not the same - the government could suddenly decide to stop paying jobseeker's allowance to anyone, but that wouldn't change the unemployment figures.

I don't know if it's the same now, but a few years ago a relative of mine took early retirement in his fifties. I think he got unemployment pay for a while then signed on as unemployed til he was 60 to qualify for full state pension when he turned 65.

According to Hammond disabled people are to blame for Britain's low productivity too.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/philip-hammond-causes-storm-with-remarks-about-disabled-workers

Which is exactly what I was thinking when the news came out about Britain's low productivity - I didn't think anything of how little was invested in R&D, or further education, or Government's failure in this role. I went straight after disabled people.

According to Hammond disabled people are to blame for Britain's low productivity too.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/philip-hammond-causes-storm-with-remarks-about-disabled-workers

 

Which is exactly what I was thinking when the news came out about Britain's low productivity - I didn't think anything of how little was invested in R&D, or further education, or Government's failure in this role. I went straight after disabled people.

He said, and I quote..

"It is almost certainly the case that by increasing participation in the workforce, including far higher levels of participation by marginal groups and very high levels of engagement in the workforce, for example of disabled people – something we should be extremely proud of – may have had an impact on overall productivity measurements."

He clearly didn't 'go straight after disabled people', indeed he stated that having disabled people in the workforce is something that we should be extremely proud of.

He was merely pointing out that having more people from marginal groups in the workforce effects productivity. This seems logical to me.

Would you rather he refrain from making statements, even if true, if there is the possibility that some might take offence to them?

According to Hammond disabled people are to blame for Britain's low productivity too.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/philip-hammond-causes-storm-with-remarks-about-disabled-workers

 

Which is exactly what I was thinking when the news came out about Britain's low productivity - I didn't think anything of how little was invested in R&D, or further education, or Government's failure in this role. I went straight after disabled people.

Keep grasping those straws . Just a thought but does anyone think ,the now infamous , disabled Mp from Sheffield , would come out of wherever he his hiding and comment on this ?

He clearly didn't 'go straight after disabled people', indeed he stated that having disabled people in the workforce is something that we should be extremely proud of.

 

He was merely pointing out that having more people from marginal groups in the workforce effects productivity. This seems logical to me.

In reality, disabled people tend to be more productive workers than non-disabled people.

Albeit for a very sad reason- they push themselves harder because, in the current climate of employer prejudice towards disabled applicants (in part because said employers believe, wrongly, that disabled people are less productive) they know how lucky they are to be in work.

Combined with the abysmal state of the benefits system which has led to many thousands of disabled people committing suicide after ATOS assessments.

Keep grasping those straws . Just a thought but does anyone think ,the now infamous , disabled Mp from Sheffield , would come out of wherever he his hiding and comment on this ?

Not sure which straws I'm grasping at.

UK productivity levels are lowest in G7, and other G7 countries also have disabled people in the workforce, indeed some of those countries (France Germany and Japan), have quota systems in place for disabled people in work.

And why wouldn't Blunkett comment on Hammond's comments? It's a free country.

...................