StarSparkle   10 #109 Posted October 20, 2008 Call me paranoid, but sometimes I wonder whether or not the official figures the government gives us regarding migrant workers and unemployment might not actually be accurate.  Amazingly, I think you could well be spot-on here, Basil  StarSparkle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Wildcat   10 #110 Posted October 20, 2008 Unemployment dipped below the 1m mark this morning, for the first time in more than 25 years.....  The figures in your article don't correspond with the Govt figures, is the article you have copied and pasted from current?  http://www.dwp.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/2008/oct/stat151008.asp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
mr contrite   10 #111 Posted October 20, 2008 The figures in your article don't correspond with the Govt figures, is the article you have copied and pasted from current? http://www.dwp.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/2008/oct/stat151008.asp  The post was highlighting the different ways in which unemployment figures are portrayed, and the final paragraph stated.   Even back in 2001 the figures were contentious, the actual figures may have changed over the last 7 years, but the way that the unemployed are classified hasnt, yet you still prefer to believe the lower figures.    OK for classification purposes, what is the rate of unemployment?   900,000 or 5.7% or 1.79 million? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Wildcat   10 #112 Posted October 20, 2008 The post was highlighting the different ways in which unemployment figures are portrayed, and the final paragraph stated.  Even back in 2001 the figures were contentious, the actual figures may have changed over the last 7 years, but the way that the unemployed are classified hasnt, yet you still prefer to believe the lower figures.    OK for classification purposes, what is the rate of unemployment?   900,000 or 5.7% or 1.79 million?  I remember the figures being contentious (more so than today) in the 1980s.  I suspect the figures have always been contentious with some people wanting the numbers to include or exclude certain people.  The number of unemployed according to the latest release is given as 1.79 million.  The 5.7% is the ILO unemployment rate, the 1.79 million is the ILO unemployment numbers.  I don't know where the 900 thousand has come from. It could be a slight underestimate of the number of JSA claims (940,000 as of the end of September) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
mr contrite   10 #113 Posted October 20, 2008 I remember the figures being contentious (more so than today) in the 1980s. I suspect the figures have always been contentious with some people wanting the numbers to include or exclude certain people.The number of unemployed according to the latest release is given as 1.79 million.  The 5.7% is the ILO unemployment rate, the 1.79 million is the ILO unemployment numbers.  I don't know where the 900 thousand has come from.  Thankyou, precisely what i was trying to put over, it is impossible to have a debate when one poster continues to claim that we have less than 1 million unemployed, and blindly refuses to admit that the figures are skewed to look better for the govt, the 900,000 was whatever the figure for those claiming JSA, couldnt be bothered going back to check the precise figure so it is probably incorrect on my part.  My point is to use the figure to try and justify immigration, whilst blindly ignoring the real unemployment figures, does him no favours, and hopefully he will move away from the stupidity of cherry picking one set of figures to justify his argument. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Wildcat   10 #114 Posted October 20, 2008 Thankyou, precisely what i was trying to put over, it is impossible to have a debate when one poster continues to claim that we have less than 1 million unemployed, and blindly refuses to admit that the figures are skewed to look better for the govt, the 900,000 was whatever the figure for those claiming JSA, couldnt be bothered going back to check the precise figure so it is probably incorrect on my part. My point is to use the figure to try and justify immigration, whilst blindly ignoring the real unemployment figures, does him no favours, and hopefully he will move away from the stupidity of cherry picking one set of figures to justify his argument.  So long as the figures used are consistent and are what they claim to be and are the same across the period of time allowing a comparison, then there shouldn't be a problem.  I don't see how the difference between JSA claimants and the ILO figures makes any difference to the argument that Titanic was making.  It is not like what happened under Thatcher when the the way the figures were reported seemed to change regularly, as if specifically to make it look like there were less people made unemployed by the economic disaster that her VAT tax rises inflicted on our industries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Calhoun   10 #115 Posted October 20, 2008 Call me paranoid, but sometimes I wonder whether or not the official figures the government gives us regarding migrant workers and unemployment might not actually be accurate.As so very many migrant workers are here illegally - even the government estimates 600,000+, I expect we are infested with even more of them that we realise. Taking jobs that should be taken by british people - whatever action is required to drag the lazy sods from the dole quues to a place of work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
mr contrite   10 #116 Posted October 20, 2008 So long as the figures used are consistent and are what they claim to be and are the same across the period of time allowing a comparison, then there shouldn't be a problem.  I don't see how the difference between JSA claimants and the ILO figures makes any difference to the argument that Titanic was making. It is not like what happened under Thatcher when the the way the figures were reported seemed to change regularly, as if specifically to make it look like there were less people made unemployed by the economic disaster that her VAT tax rises inflicted on our industries.  Using those figures in this context gives a false impression.   Which British people?  So let us assume for one moment that Mr Contrite gets his wish and by next Monday all the migrant workers have gone home through choice.  By my reckoning our position would then be:  608,000 vacancies would still be there 930,000 people would be getting paid for looking for work 1.2 million new jobs would be created from people going home  So where are we to find the 900,000 "British people" we'd need from?  From an earlier post from Titanic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Titanic99   10 #117 Posted October 20, 2008 Thankyou, precisely what i was trying to put over, it is impossible to have a debate when one poster continues to claim that we have less than 1 million unemployed, and blindly refuses to admit that the figures are skewed to look better for the govt, the 900,000 was whatever the figure for those claiming JSA, couldnt be bothered going back to check the precise figure so it is probably incorrect on my part. My point is to use the figure to try and justify immigration, whilst blindly ignoring the real unemployment figures, does him no favours, and hopefully he will move away from the stupidity of cherry picking one set of figures to justify his argument.  I think you've been reading the Daily Mail for too long as you are starting to resort to lying in order to win an argument.  I would appreciate it if you could start posting accurate reactions to my comments.  For the umpteenth time the figures I quoted were the claimant count, there are a whole host of reasons why people can be unemployed and receive no JSA, these are generally of their own choice and unless you intend forcing people to work when they don't want to, then your argument is completely lost.  So once again, how do you intend filling the 900,000 shortfall in workers if you get your wish.  Options available to you now (updated)  Make those who through their own choice don't want to work Make the sick work Make us work longer hours Start children at an earlier age Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
mr contrite   10 #118 Posted October 20, 2008 I think you've been reading the Daily Mail for too long as you are starting to resort to lying in order to win an argument. I would appreciate it if you could start posting accurate reactions to my comments.  For the umpteenth time the figures I quoted were the claimant count, there are a whole host of reasons why people can be unemployed and receive no JSA, these are generally of their own choice and unless you intend forcing people to work when they don't want to, then your argument is completely lost.  So once again, how do you intend filling the 900,000 shortfall in workers if you get your wish.  Options available to you now (updated)  Make those who through their own choice don't want to work Make the sick work Make us work longer hours Start children at an earlier age   Well seeing as the accusations of lying are being levelled at me, i feel it only fair that i can accuse you of lying by falsely claiming that the difference between the claimant count and the unemployment figure is down to those not wishing to work, one example i used was of under 18s, lets see you refute that one.  British unemployment today posted its biggest rise since the country's last recession 17 years ago as the financial crisis filtered through to the jobs market.  Official figures showed unemployment measured by International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards rose by 164,000 in the three months to August from the previous quarter to stand at 1.79 million. The rise took the jobless rate up half a percentage point to 5.7%, also the biggest jump since July 1991.  "These numbers are truly horrendous and much worse than I had feared," said David Blanchflower, a labour market expert and member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee.  He told guardian.co.uk his earlier prediction that unemployment would rise to 2 million by Christmas now looked conservative. "Unemployment will be above 2 million by Christmas. I am particularly worried at the 56,000 rise in the number of young unemployed people. These are school leavers who are unable to get a job or claim benefits, which is why the claimant count has not risen even faster than it has," he said.  The number of Britons out of work and claiming jobless benefits rose by 31,800 last month to 939,000, the eighth monthly increase in a row, and August's rise was revised higher to 35,700. The City had expected a 35,000 increase for September.  This so-called claimant count measure is always lower than the broader, internationally recognised ILO measure which includes people not claiming benefits, because some unemployed people are not entitled to claim benefits, or choose not to do so.  There may be a smattering of truth in what you allege, but it certainly does not stretch to the full 900,000 difference between the claimant count, and the ILO figures, it would be nice to get an apology for the comment on me lying, although i wont be holding my breath. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Titanic99   10 #119 Posted October 20, 2008 Well seeing as the accusations of lying are being levelled at me, i feel it only fair that i can accuse you of lying by falsely claiming that the difference between the claimant count and the unemployment figure is down to those not wishing to work, one example i used was of under 18s, lets see you refute that one. British unemployment today posted its biggest rise since the country's last recession 17 years ago as the financial crisis filtered through to the jobs market.  Official figures showed unemployment measured by International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards rose by 164,000 in the three months to August from the previous quarter to stand at 1.79 million. The rise took the jobless rate up half a percentage point to 5.7%, also the biggest jump since July 1991.  "These numbers are truly horrendous and much worse than I had feared," said David Blanchflower, a labour market expert and member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee.  He told guardian.co.uk his earlier prediction that unemployment would rise to 2 million by Christmas now looked conservative. "Unemployment will be above 2 million by Christmas. I am particularly worried at the 56,000 rise in the number of young unemployed people. These are school leavers who are unable to get a job or claim benefits, which is why the claimant count has not risen even faster than it has," he said.  The number of Britons out of work and claiming jobless benefits rose by 31,800 last month to 939,000, the eighth monthly increase in a row, and August's rise was revised higher to 35,700. The City had expected a 35,000 increase for September.  This so-called claimant count measure is always lower than the broader, internationally recognised ILO measure which includes people not claiming benefits, because some unemployed people are not entitled to claim benefits, or choose not to do so.  There may be a smattering of truth in what you allege, but it certainly does not stretch to the full 900,000 difference between the claimant count, and the ILO figures, it would be nice to get an apology for the comment on me lying, although i wont be holding my breath.  Ok you've either deliberately lied or you've failed to read what i said, fact is I referred to the claimant count which you changed to the numbers of unemployed.  Again on the part that deals with the difference between the two, read what i said and you'll find that I indicated that this is generally through the persons choice.  So once again the conundrum that tears your argument on migrant workers apart goes unsolved.  Moving way from stats how about a real life example for you.  A number of weeks ago I had to have a wisdom tooth removed, this was done by a Polish dentist to my satisfaction., so in the world of Contritism where we have no immigrants next Monday morning, who will carry out these operations? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Wildcat   10 #120 Posted October 20, 2008 As so very many migrant workers are here illegally - even the government estimates 600,000+, I expect we are infested with even more of them that we realise. Taking jobs that should be taken by british people - whatever action is required to drag the lazy sods from the dole quues to a place of work.  How would you go about dragging the 'lazy sods from the dole quues to a place of work'? And what employer would want to run a business with a load of unwilling employees?  You aren't thinking of forced labour, the sort of thing you expect in a totalitarian regime like North Korea, are you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...