Look out. New welfare Target

[MrSmith]

It's an indicator that normally has a strong correlation with employment levels. It would be expected to rise if employment rises.

 

A mechanised factory producing cars, can increase production without increasing employment, GDP would rise but employment wouldn't.

 

A builder building and selling house would likely increase GDP by more than a waiter serving coffee, we could lose a builder and gain a dozen waiter without increasing GDP. Employment rises but there would be no increase in GDP.

 

Hiring a worker who accomplishes nothing raises GDP if the government does the hiring.

Hiring a worker who accomplishes nothing does nothing to GDP if the private sector does the hiring.

 

Why? Because GDP counts government salaries as “government expenditures” as soon as the government hires a person.

 

But the “consumption” and “investment” parts of GDP only count genuine purchases by the private sector.

 

 

Government hiring creates GDP by definition. Private hiring only creates GDP if the worker actually creates a product.

[I1L2T3]

A mechanised factory producing cars, can increase production without increasing employment, GDP would rise but employment wouldn't.

 

A builder building and selling house would likely increase GDP by more than a waiter serving coffee, we could lose a builder and gain a dozen waiter without increasing GDP. Employment rises but there would be no increase in GDP.

 

Hiring a worker who accomplishes nothing raises GDP if the government does the hiring.

Hiring a worker who accomplishes nothing does nothing to GDP if the private sector does the hiring.

 

Why? Because GDP counts government salaries as “government expenditures” as soon as the government hires a person.

 

But the “consumption” and “investment” parts of GDP only count genuine purchases by the private sector.

 

 

Government hiring creates GDP by definition. Private hiring only creates GDP if the worker actually creates a product.

 

Sorry to repeat:

 

It's an indicator that normally has a strong correlation with employment levels. It would be expected to rise if employment rises.

 

We are clearly not living in normal times and most economists can't explain the phenomenon we are seeing. As you say it's quite possible that the 1 million new jobs in the private sector are much less productive than would be expected. Maybe they are short hours. Maybe they are zero hours contracts. I know somebody who has re-entered the workforce this year doing cleaning and ironing. She has three employers but only works 19 hours a week total. That's three jobs taken by one person and that person is still only just working 50% of a normal full-time week.

[MrSmith]

Sorry to repeat:

 

It's an indicator that normally has a strong correlation with employment levels. It would be expected to rise if employment rises.

 

We are clearly not living in normal times and most economists can't explain the phenomenon we are seeing. As you say it's quite possible that the 1 million new jobs in the private sector are much less productive than would be expected. Maybe they are short hours. Maybe they are zero hours contracts. I know somebody who has re-entered the workforce this year doing cleaning and ironing. She has three employers but only works 19 hours a week total. That's three jobs taken by one person and that person is still only just working 50% of a normal full-time week.

 

Not forgetting that job losses in the public sector will lower GDP without affecting economic output.

 

As the public sector gets smaller so does GDP, yet we can still be producing the same or more.

[Anna B]

People in work are being targeted:

Housing benefits changes

Council tax credit changes

Conditionality when Universal Credit comes in

Benefits uprating limits (applies to things like maternity pay too)

 

Because working people are being targeted is it right that the Tories ask working people to direct their anger at the Philpotts? It's a clever trick really because it takes the heat off the Tories.

 

They couldn't have timed it better. Big news story involving the ultimate 'benefit scrounger, on the same day that welfare payments are reduced.

You could almost think they arranged it that way...

[Head first]

You seem to inhabit a parallel universe.By carefully using anecdotal experience you evade any challenge to your evidence leaving you free to make somewhat complacent comments.

 

What do you want, names, address's and telephone numbers of the people he's talking about so that you can varify what he's saying?

[MrSmith]

What do you want, names, address's and telephone numbers of the people he's talking about so that you can varify what he's saying?

 

Sadly if they were provided they would just be accused of having an agenda and being part of the great conspiracy.

[Vague_Boy]

And why should any half decent employer object to reasonable employment laws?

 

What would you consider reasonable?

 

Red Tape Hampering Million Young People Finding Work

 

Red Tape 'Strangling Youth Jobs Drive'

 

 

“Over-regulation and excessive red tape have made the labour market in this country inflexible. A labyrinthine network of rules and regulation has grown up that businesses must negotiate if they wish to hire new staff, and which lays them open to costly legal action should they wish to fire anyone.

 

“If the government is to ensure growth and job-creation, it needs to enact specific reforms that will free-up businesses and give them more control over their own affairs. Small businesses, in particular, are hampered by current conditions as the burden of complying with these myriad rules and regulations are proportionally much more draining of their resources.

 

“There is much the government can do within the framework of the EU, and it needs to make this its priority if it is to get the economy back on track.”

LINK

 

As a small business owner myself there is NOT THE SLIGHTEST CHANCE of me taking anyone on.

 

It's just too much hassle.

 

 

Why are we not hounding the government daily and aggressively to do something about the lack of jobs

 

Why is it the government's responsibility?

 

The state already makes up 47% of the economy (compared to a mere 20% for a so-called Communist state like China) LINK.

 

Should we aim for 60%? 70% A shame we can't pay for it.

 

UK's debts 'biggest in the world' [bBC News, 21 November 2011]

 

Compared to China, which is lending America vast amounts of money

 

China Doesn't Fear The Fiscal Cliff, Buys Massive Amount Of U.S. Debt

 

The difference is that while the UK is crippled by an ever increasing state sector (which it can't afford), China has encouraged private industry rather than have the government try and create jobs itself.

 

Perhaps they've realized that governments just aren't very good at that sort of thing.

[gnvqsos]

A mechanised factory producing cars, can increase production without increasing employment, GDP would rise but employment wouldn't.

 

A builder building and selling house would likely increase GDP by more than a waiter serving coffee, we could lose a builder and gain a dozen waiter without increasing GDP. Employment rises but there would be no increase in GDP.

 

Hiring a worker who accomplishes nothing raises GDP if the government does the hiring.

Hiring a worker who accomplishes nothing does nothing to GDP if the private sector does the hiring.

 

Why? Because GDP counts government salaries as “government expenditures” as soon as the government hires a person.

 

But the “consumption” and “investment” parts of GDP only count genuine purchases by the private sector.

 

 

Government hiring creates GDP by definition. Private hiring only creates GDP if the worker actually creates a product.

 

Where did you study Economics?This institution needs closing down given the frequent fallacies that flourish in your flowery fantasy.

[lipschitz]

The annoying thing about all of this, the way the government are hitting everyone working or unemployed, the cuts to council services and the way the media are reporting it all, is the fact that there is the money there to sort it all out. The government seem to do a good job of directing our attention to matters which they know will get people ranting, while they pour countless millions of our tax money into overseas projects that really don't have any effect.

I'm talking about the department for intenational development which gets a budget this year of £8950 million. They say it it just something like 1% of GDP that is being given to overseas projects. Well, that's alright then! Comic relief has just raised about £75M for projects in this country and overseas. They show us films in Africa about malaria and aids and schools which need building. All very sad yes, but also if you check out the DFID website, all projects which are already having millions thrown at them for no apparent improvement.

I am not saying that all this aid should stop, but I am saying that it's about time the government got our situation in order before paying out millions on projects that show no real result because all these charities are still filming the poverty and suffering. For anyone who wants to take the time, check out the DFID website. Although the website is now part of the .gov websites and is more difficult to find. Convenient, I think, that it is now buried a little more deeply in the system and takes more navigating to find. Find the 'what we do' page and look at the world map. See the amazing amounts of money thrown at the countries on it, then say that people on benefits are sucking us dry.

Frankly, I don't care if someone wants to live their life on the crap money that benefits pay, I would rather have my generous salary, nice car, holidays abroad while they choose to fester on benefits. It would annoy me more if these people could afford nice holidays and the finer things in life. If they choose to live an existance which does not allow them to broaden their life experiences and see things outside of our country, then it's their loss. For me, seeing this world we live in is far more important than a 60 inch plasma and the latest x-box game or an ipad.

Also if someone is working part time and they are told to find another part time position, who deems them to be trying hard enough? If it is a benefits advisor, who oversees their opinion on the effort made to find something else?

[pottedplant]

That dosn't prove by a long chalk that:

 

"Proper reliable full-time employment seems becoming a thing of the past"

 

Almost everyone I know is in reliable full time employment..

 

Are they? Conversely nearly everyone I know (including many bank workers, medics, public servants, teachers............) may currently be working full time - but certainly don't believe the situation to be reliable.