ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
in thinking the unemployment figures are not accurate?(32 Posts)
We keep hearing how unemployment figures are falling however, there is a rise in food banks, job losses etc. Surely these figures must be being fudged but why? Its not helping out economy in anyway is it? Forgive me for being daft about this but I'm just puzzled.
YANBU they don't class people who are on the world are programme or those that have been sanctioned as unemployed. There will also be those who are on courses they're not counted either.
No the figures lie. That's all the bastards are bothered about. The damned numbers.
Workfare not world are, stupid kindle.
I completely agree,,
I think they have people on 0 hours contracts that maybe are not getting work or hours.
People now not eligible for work benefits so they are believed to be in employment.
I think it's all abig con and it really annoys me..
Every government fudges them
Zero hour contracts... Soon unemployment will be zero (but lots of people still won't earn anything).
The economy is in a real mess; employers are choosing to employ very cheap labour so that can make a quick profit rather than investing for the long-term.
I agree, sanctions which are happening more and more, work programmes and the rest.
It's all a pile of lies, and those that are finding work are still on tax credits or some sort of benefit because they're not on a sustainable wage.
It has always been the case though under every government eg people enrolled in certain schemes to keep them off the jobless total. Youth Contracts, Work Programmes and such like were the old government's way of dealing with it for example because it limited the time people claimed JSA before switching them to something else and making them disappear from the figures.
To get a true picture you'd need to know how many adults available for work have been given all of the hours they want - not just that they are in work. And you'd have to include people enrolled on schemes as a direct result of not being able to get any work in the first place as effectively being jobless. I don't think they'd know these figures in great detail and of course it suits all governments to massage the numbers.
the figures don't just include those on benefits.
Food banks are also used by those in work
All government figures and stats tend to be bollocks.
Yes, a con. Just like back in the 80s with various schemes that hid true unemployment. These days, though, the problem is far worse due to the number of people who are part-time, self-employed, casual workers or on zero-hours contracts. There must be loads more. Shocking in this day and age.
Working people are much more likely to be in poverty than those on benefits.
So the rise of food banks is more to do with people in work not being paid enough and not having enough money to make ends meet, not people being unemployed.
I think they are correct. I was made redundant last year and was not out of work at all, I temped for 4 months and then got a perm job which was incredibly quickly given that I was looking for part time.
YANBU - employment statistics are, as they have always been, as close to fabrication as makes no difference to the average person, even if the figures are achieved by shuffling things around rather than rolling dice, the effect is the same.
PS: While I agree with you, don't set any store by the gibberish about food banks. As the demand for free food per head of population is likely to approach 1, the use of an increase in supply from a baseline that never approached full provision as a stat proving of, well, anything is as spurious as fuck. Every politician who uses changes in food banks is pretty much knowingly lying, since they will have had this pointed out to them at every stage by government employees, researchers etc.
^ should read "as a stat proving, well, anything"
I volunteer at our church anti-poverty project with food bank, furniture bank etc.
It's quite frightening how many folk officially in work still need help on this level. But it's true. Minimum wage is not a living wage!
I volunteer at a food bank and you will surprised at the number of people who come in that do work but just can not afford to eat after paying the bills and travel, even childcare has come up time and time again as a problem.
Benefit sanctions and the repercussions there are the biggest problem I've seen at the moment, then it's wages just not going far enough due to the cost of rising bills. It's wrong. We shouldn't even have food banks ffs. It's bad enough having to go to a food bank if you are on benefits or had them santioned, but because you are working? That's a whole new level of wrong and the strongest indication that the Gov need to sort this out...can you imagine what is going through peoples head when their wages are not bringing in enough to feed their family and are having to resprt to food banks? That's going to do your self esteem, confidence and morale a world of good isn't it? Not.
You can even argue that as we have working people coming in, the argument of these (very, very few) people who just will not get a job because it's not worth it are in fact true. The "better off in work" ideal that everyone keeps spouting is obviously not the case if this is happening...and it is, on a big scale.
As a rule of thumb I double the official numbers of unemployment in my head and halve the national average wage for a true reflection!
Disclaimer: no evidence, no supporting statistics...just life experience!
I received contribution-based JSA for 6 months after I was made redundant. When it stopped, I guess I was classed as "one less unemployed person". In fact, I was still unemployed, although I no longer qualified for benefits. I think that's how they can make it sound as though numbers of unemployed are falling, when they may not be
There has also been a sharp rise in those who are trying to combat their own unemployment by registering as self employed. This means that they are counted as 'employed', whether or not they are actually earning enough to live on from it.
I've not heard of that before DoJo.
Why are people doing that? Oh hang on...is it something to do with WTC and HB? If so I can see why people are doing it...in fact...that's bloody clever really. It's not right, but still...
I know every government fudges the figures but it is actually quite socking by just how much they seem to be spouting about the reduction in unemployment figures.
I'm lucky that I have a reasonably paid job even though I work very hard in difficult shifts and lucky enough to have hung onto my house when my ex left. However, I'm not rich and I certainly can't do all the things I'd like to do (also thwarted by bloody ex not having any contact with DS) and I have no idea how people survive in London it's bad enough in Brighton. Anyway my point is I can understand why some people stay on benefits because minimum wage is not a living wage.
I think the thing that concerns me the most is that they are thinking of increasing the interest rate once unemployment gets below a certain level but people are already struggling and in lots of debt as it is and this will only makes things worse. Surely by fudging the figures like this is going to result in a poorer population if it causes interest rates to rise. I remember the 80's and it wasn't pretty with 15-6% interest rates. Although I realise it great for those with savings, pension etc.
People in power seem to be talking about a recovering economy but I just don't see it myself and think its going to get worse.
Sanctions, zero hour contracts, "training schemes", "self employment", there is a lot of figure-fiddling going on.
I work in a benefits office so I see it day to day and these optimistic articles infuriate me.
The reasons Prosseco listed are why the Bank of England aren't raising interests rates even though growth is hitting the level when they said they would. There are too many variables behind the statistic that make it an unreliable figure to base decisions on that should have a sound economic validity behind them.
Tories really want to get in next election so you might see some flash in the pan, trick of the hand policies or figures introduced before then to make you think you're better off than you are.
Tis a sad day when you trust a banker more than a government.......
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.