To not believe the official unemployment figures?

[caddywally]

Unemployment in the UK is apparently the lowest it's been since the 70s, but I'm not seeing anything in the real world that backs this up.

Most jobs I see advertised pay minimum wage. Real wages haven't substantially in a while. My partner has spent the last 4 months applying for job after job and has only just managed to find one - a zero hours contract through an agency who keep anything he's paid above minimum wage.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but does anyone else think it doesn't add up?

Apologies, typo in the post above! Meant to say "real wages haven't risen substantially".

If you are a sahp you are technically unemployed but they don’t count that! I never believe the tosh they spout in any case 😂

Underemployment is the problem. It doesn't get reported on as much.
uk.businessinsider.com/ons-underemployment-double-unemployment-rate-2017-9

ONS stats in rather user-unfriendly form: www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/underemploymentandoveremploymentemp16
(because it's not as much of a headline issue)

fantasmagoria1 I don't even know how they calculate the rate - is it done by people on JSA? What if you're a SAHP and not claiming any benefits that would suggest you're looking for a job, but would like to have one?

I totally agree. And if two part timers are "sharing" effectively one job which would pay over the tax threshold, that's no tax being paid. When the job is actually valuable enough to pay tax on. And the govt wonders why there's little improvement in the deficit.

What if you're a SAHP and not claiming any benefits that would suggest you're looking for a job, but would like to have one?

No it wouldn't. Lots of stay at home parents are happy to be staying at home and don't want a job. Unemployment figures have always been defined as those fit and able to work, of working age, and who are actively seeking employment.

The government chat shit about everything

pennycarbonara That makes a lot of sense!

DontCallMeCharlotte I didn't think of that, but that's a very good point.

The figures given relate to unemployed people who are in receipt of state benefits. I have been unemployed for 7 years but receive no benefits so I don't figure in the equation! It's quite ridiculous.

Zero hours workers are not counted as unemployed, even when getting close to literally zero hours. Self-employed people earning little or nothing are not counted as unemployed. Not sure what people on workfare are counted as.

YANBU.

YANBU. It's all about jigging numbers about to make it all look good and creating as much of an us v. them mentality to make sheeple think it's all a bed of roses whilst the rich keep getting richer. Anyone who falls for such drivel is a complete eejit.

Its not just unemployment that is at a record low.
Employment is at a record high.

That is all different and separate from how much they are getting paid.

I'm glad you all agree with me! So many people have been telling me there's near full employment at the moment and finding a job should be easy, but it's frustrating to hear as in reality it's far from it!

What everyone else said - it's not untrue but it's missing the point as it doesn't include underemployment (which, to be fair, is harder to measure anyway). High employment is supposed to be good because it pushes wages up. However there has been a boom in zero hours and part time jobs and a hell of a lot of people are not working full time but would take more hours if they could get them. So there's no upwards pressure on wages and in the meantime tax revenues are down and in work benefits are only decreasing because the government is happy pushing more working people into poverty.

It's all about massaging the stats to suit the message the govt wants to put out...

Walkingdeadfangirl Even ignoring the wage issue, I'm still not convinced as it's so difficult to get a job. I guess it links into what the posters above said re underemployment.

Walkingdead Employment and wages are inextricably linked in any free-ish market. If there are more jobs than people companies have to pay more to get people to work for them. If there are more people than jobs then companies can pay less as they don't have to compete with others to attract employees. It's basic supply and demand.

caddywally, surely that is what happens when we have full employment, its difficult to get a job, they are all taken!

It is a biased sample: you need to be claiming JSA.
Stay and home parents and those who are disabled are not counted.

Walkingdeadfangirl My understanding is it should be easier to get a job. By full employment they mean almost everyone seeking a job has a job, rather than all positions have been filled.

Biologifemini Ah, thanks. I didn't know whether you had to be a JSA claimant or if they did a survey or something.

What biologi said

Plus the whole underemployment figures

The employment figures for all EU countries are calculated using a survey of sample households in the relevant country.
My job involves conducting these interviews. ( The UK might change their method of collecting this data when Bexit is complete).
If a person works for 1 hour per week they are considered to be employed.
To be unemployed you must be available and looking for work.
Upthread someone mentioned under employment and I think that this is true. Even if more people are employed many aren't 'good' jobs.

By full employment they mean almost everyone seeking a job has a job, rather than all positions have been filled
But that doesn't take into account all the people who dont want the jobs on offer. I know plenty of people who are unemployed but refuse to pick fruit, a well paid job this summer.

Fruit picking is a great example of supply and demand in the employment market. In recent years fruit farmers have done well out of employing Eastern European seasonal workers who are willing to work a shit job for a short period of time in order to save up money to take home with them.

Now those workers are less interested in coming to the UK, farmers are struggling because the people now available to do tedious, back-breaking work are settled down with families and caring responsibilities. In my area fruit picking jobs involve presenting yourself at a city centre location very early in the morning and being driven on a minibus to a remote location to work all day. This is fine if you're young and renting a city centre flat with friends short term. It's not fine if you live further out and don't have your own transport, and/or you have caring responsibilities. If you don't have a car you'd have to have someone give you a lift into the city centre for the bus or spend 2 hours wages a day on taxis (it's too early in the morning for public transport to be running), you might need to call in favours to look after small children (it's too early for paid childcare), if there was an emergency you'd be out in the middle of nowhere with no way to get back, and for all hassle that you'd be paid barely more than minimum wage and a bad back at the end of it. And it's seasonal work with no chance of progression so after a few weeks you're back to square one and have all the fun of restarting your UC claim.

Employers therefore need to pay a LOT more to make this worth doing. Where they're not, they'll struggle to recruit people. That's capitalism!