pottedplant Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 The ONS figures showed that the number of people employed full time rose by 113,000, offsetting a fall in part-time employment of 23,000. Because the public sector in its current form is unaffordable and unsustainable. but is it unnecessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 but is it unnecessary? Is what unnecessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Looks like things are heading in the right direction. There were 28.86 million people in employment aged 16 and over January 2010 There were 29.59 million people in employment aged 16 and over, up 212,000 on March to May 2012 and up 510,000 on a year earlier. There were 29.73 million people in employment aged 16 and over, up 154,000 on July to September 2012 and up 584,000 on a year earlier. 5.5 million people employed in the public sector 2000. 6.1 million people employed in the public sector 2005. 6.3 million people employed in the public sector 2009. 5.7 million people employed in the public sector 2012. It probably means there are more people here. I thought you didn't like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 It probably means there are more people here. I thought you didn't like that. That’s why we have growing unemployment and rising employment, the population is increasing faster than the economy can create new jobs, its easily solved if we had a government with the will to stop of slow the population growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 That’s why we have growing unemployment and rising employment, the population is increasing faster than the economy can create new jobs, its easily solved if we had a government with the will to stop of slow the population growth. Then how are we heading in the right direction? More workers producing less each, more unemployment, more people. Looks like the wrong direction. It's everything you argue against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Then how are we heading in the right direction? More workers producing less each, more unemployment, more people. Looks like the wrong direction. It's everything you argue against. I was referring to the fact that there are now more people working in the private sector to pay the wages of fewer people in the public sector. Clearly there is much to do to make the public sector affordable and sustainable; obviously we need more high paying full time jobs in the private sector and fewer high paying jobs in the public sector. Allowing the population to fall would also improve the sustainability of the public sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I was referring to the fact that there are now more people working in the private sector to pay the wages of fewer people in the public sector. Clearly there is much to do to make the public sector affordable and sustainable; obviously we need more high paying full time jobs in the private sector and fewer high paying jobs in the public sector. Allowing the population to fall would also improve the sustainability of the public sector. A falling population could make the public sector less sustainable. One of the important aspects of this is the age profile of the population. You know this and it pretty much destroys your anti-immigration arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillpig Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 It isn't true. Debt isn't down. The benefit bill is increasing. The million jobs. Debateable. Nearly 200,000 were simply transfers from public to private sector, jobs that already existed in the education sector. The Office of National statistics state (April 2013) that the debt is reduced by 8.9%. If you dispute this tell them not me. ---------- Post added 21-04-2013 at 10:07 ---------- I already have done. So have plenty of others. If you can show me evidence that our debt is down (as you claimed), I'd be very surprised. You stick to slinging mud. I'll stick to facts. Please see reply above, no mud slung, facts dear boy facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeMac Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 The Office of National statistics state (April 2013) that the debt is reduced by 8.9%. If you dispute this tell them not me. ---------- Post added 21-04-2013 at 10:07 ---------- Please see reply above, no mud slung, facts dear boy facts. I think you have deficit and debt mixed up, dear boy:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 The Office of National statistics state (April 2013) that the debt is reduced by 8.9%. If you dispute this tell them not me. Yes I absolutely dispute it because it's not true. Where are you getting your duff data from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.