Growth in new jobs 'flat under Labour'

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Agent_Smith, Jan 31, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Code:
    The increase in the employment rate, one of the Government's most trumpeted achievements, has been "largely flat" for the past four years, according to the latest National Statistics.
    The Office for National Statistics said: "While employment levels have generally been increasing over the past four years, [b]the rate of increase has been no more than in line with population growth.[/b]"
    The most recent jobs figures show that [b]88,000 jobs were created in the year to September, although a large proportion of these came in education, health and public administration.[/b]
    theres a surprise. Labours new policy posters are based on twisted statistics :roll:
  2. No more than that story. Employment (and unemployment) are stock concepts - they measure the level at a point in time. Employment growth is a flow concept - it measures the rate of change in employment over time. If you are at or near the economy's full-employment level, growth in employment will be flat by definition - with the important exception that that level will follow changes in the population.
  3. Except when you also factor in the biggest growth in the public sector EVER and the continuing loss of manufacturing jobs.
  4. And the fact that Bliar and Brown are claiming that unemployment is at the lowest for 30yrs.

    Relative to what? to the number of public service workers or the level of people on disability benefit (thanks tone, its about 7million now! 8O )

  5. Actually, the Telegraph story puts it at "between 2.1m and 2.2m". It also says "the trend in the number of long-term sick has been fairly flat over recent years".

    Huge increase in public sector workers? Not really. The percentage of public sector jobs as a part of the whole economy is about 20% - and it was 21.3% in 1992. And a larger proportion than ever of public service jobs are in health and education.

    Don't get me wrong, I think Labour have done a lot of things wrong since 1997, but you can't really fault them on unemployment.
  6. Whilst that may be true as a proportion of GDP (the public sector was never known for its productivity), there are about 8M public sector workers out of a working population of about 35M, or a ratio of about 1:3.5 (public:private (rounded to nearest .5)) This means that you plus 6 mates pretty much directly pay the salary of 2 public sector workers. Whilst I am aware that many public sector workers are teachers, nurses and doctors, I'm betting that the vast majority are not, and I'm too lazy to google the figures.
  7. 60% of public sector employment goes to health and education. Some of these will be administrators, but you know how Gordon Brown has declared war on excess civil service jobs.
  8. Yes, by loudly declaring those retiring as "cuts", and then quietly employing even more (there are more managers than beds in the NHS now)...
  9. There are also more paper pushers in the MOD now than there are fighting men and women in the armed forces! 8O :evil: :evil:

    WTF do we need MORE paper pushers for? To bury our enemy in a pile of paper, ink and paper clips?

    There is no denying that gordon brown et al are grossly inflating the public sector to bouy up the flagging economy! for the last 3 yrs the public sector has gone recruited 200,000 NEW positions! (and no these are NOT front line services) They are mostly middle management, racial equality, deprivation minimisers, lesbo and gay representatives and all the other associated clingers on!

    lets get back to basic where the government has as little as possible control over an individuals life and liberty! Oh for laisez faire! :twisted:
  10. Some where I have the figures that indicate that in my ward there are more people on disability / sickness benefit than on job seekers allowance. There seems to be a keeness to push people away from JSA as this takes them out of the "official" unemployment figures.
  11. They do the same in the Netherlands... :roll:
  12. excellent emily, we have a mole :twisted:

    feel free to anonymously drop these figures somewhere that they can be seen by an innocent bystander! :)
  13. How would you put someone on disability benefit if they weren't really disabled? Have them effect a limp? Manufacture a cough? Pretend to be mentally ill?

    There are about three times as many on disability benefit than JSA. Without further information about why these people are on disability, I don't think you can say that the government is putting people on it to artificially lower unemployment rates.
  14. trust me, i know about 3 or 4 of them and they freely admit that if they wanted to, they could get their fingers out and get a job no prob, just that life is easier when you are encouraged to claim benefits to help with the figures!

    When someone who is unemployed visits the job centre they are asked all sorts of questions about why they cant fond a job. If they even remotely fit in the category of "has problems working" (mental, physical or just bone idle) they are encouraged to visit social services/doctor to get a disability benefit!

    Result= one less on the unemployment list, good look for the department of work and pensions :roll:
  15. Employment growth figures measure employment growth: full stop. They are not supposed to exclude public sector employees and they do not, anywhere in the world. Do you really think members of the armed forces are all unemployed? Police officers? If you exclude the public sector from the employment stats you get this result!

    BTW, the rise in incapacity benefit began when the Tories shut down industry in the 80s. Those were also the days of 17 revisions to the unemployment count in 17 years, all of which for some mysterious reason revised it down..