There are no unemployed people in Britain

[melthebell]

Oh so the figures are fixed! That's quite sensational news that would undoubtedly make the headlines. I suggest you forward all your evidence to the BBC or the Guardian. Please elaborate - how are they fixed exactly? Is the ONS not independent? Who was your whistleblower?

of course theyre fixed, its been happening for decades, they remove certain types of people from the stats.

 

from July

http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-lie-behind-the-unemployment-numbers-2017-7

 

The official unemployment rate in the UK right now is 4.5% — a record low. But, as the ONS makes clear, that number doesn't count part-time workers who want full-time jobs, "inactive" workers alienated from the workforce, people who retire, students, or those who work in the home. Once you wrap all those people in, the number of jobless people is actually 21.5% of the workforce, according to the ONS. (US unemployment numbers are calculated in a similar way.)

[Robin-H]

of course theyre fixed, its been happening for decades, they remove certain types of people from the stats.

 

from July

http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-lie-behind-the-unemployment-numbers-2017-7

 

That doesn't make the figures fixed or a lie (as the article you posted clearly explains).

 

That is how unemployment is measured in this country, and has been for decades. Any trend is therefore within the boundaries of how the data is measured, and so any claims that the Tory's are fixing the figures to hide the truth is just utter nonsense.

[Anna B]

If employment is so high, how come productivity is at an all time low?

 

The figures quite simply don't add up.

[Robin-H]

If employment is so high, how come productivity is at an all time low?

 

The figures quite simply don't add up.

 

Maybe because that's not even remotely true.

 

The tables can be found here.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity

 

Firstly, productivity is measured per person, so the total number employed doesn't really matter.

 

Secondly, productivity is nowhere near an all time low. It has stagnated since the recession, but is still double what is was in the 1970s.

[Supertramp]

If employment is so high, how come productivity is at an all time low?

 

The figures quite simply don't add up.

 

Why would more people being employed make productivity go up?

[ENG601PM]

If employment is so high, how come productivity is at an all time low?

 

The figures quite simply don't add up.

 

I hope that this will help you a little. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellors-speech-at-the-cbis-2015-annual-dinner

 

If the whole thing is too much you'll like this part.

 

Frankly, nobody knows the whole answer. But what I do know is that I’d much rather have the productivity challenge than the challenge of mass unemployment.

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2017 at 15:04 ----------

 

Secondly, productivity is nowhere near an all time low. It has stagnated since the recession, but is still double what is was in the 1970s.

Just you wait until Corbyn and McDonnell get their hands on UK industry and take us back to the good old days.

Edited November 20, 2017 by ENG601PM

[onewheeldave]

That doesn't make the figures fixed or a lie (as the article you posted clearly explains).

 

That is how unemployment is measured in this country, and has been for decades. Any trend is therefore within the boundaries of how the data is measured, and so any claims that the Tory's are fixing the figures to hide the truth is just utter nonsense.

 

The article clearly states that the definition of 'unemployment' used by economists and politicians is different to the definition used by non-economists/politicians i.e. as 'the number of people who want/need to work, who can't get work.'

 

Redefining 'unemployment' to mean something else than "the number of people who want/need to work, who can't get work" may well give much lower figures, but does not alter the fact that way more than 4.5% of the population are in a desperate position financially, due to being unable to find work.

[Robin-H]

The article clearly states that the definition of 'unemployment' used by economists and politicians is different to the definition used by non-economists/politicians i.e. as 'the number of people who want/need to work, who can't get work.'

 

Redefining 'unemployment' to mean something else than "the number of people who want/need to work, who can't get work" may well give much lower figures, but does not alter the fact that way more than 4.5% of the population are in a desperate position financially, due to being unable to find work.

 

Which was not the point raised. The claim was that the Tory's were 'fixing' the figures somehow. This is not true.

 

Unemployment is defined and charted by the ONS as it always has been. The definition of unemployment used is the one set out by the International Labour Organisation which is a United Nations Agency. It has nothing at all to do with the Tory's, and so the claim that they are fixing the figures is patently absurd.

[Mister M]

..................

[melthebell]

That doesn't make the figures fixed or a lie (as the article you posted clearly explains).

 

That is how unemployment is measured in this country, and has been for decades. Any trend is therefore within the boundaries of how the data is measured, and so any claims that the Tory's are fixing the figures to hide the truth is just utter nonsense.

i didnt say tories, ALL our governments have done it, as i said theres certain unemployed that simply do not get counted, they also change the rules on who can claim the benefits so theres less people on them. I suppose its creative accounting.