The lie about unemployment

[bensherman]

I heard some minister or another on radio yesterday, being asked about our effectively nil growth rate.

He tried to dodge the issue by claiming the economy was doing better than it looked because of the "fall in unemployment". Let's examine that.

The numbers of the employed are not of themselves important; they simply suggest those people are earning a living and being productive.

What blows away that thinking is that we have about 1.5m people on zero-hours contracts. Many, indeed most, of those have variable earnings or in effect nothing at all.

So the "unemployed" figure these days is not a reflection of prosperity.

Indeed if we HAVE such a high level of employment, something is wrong because our rate of growth is barely measurable.

[said]

I heard some minister or another on radio yesterday, being asked about our effectively nil growth rate.

He tried to dodge the issue by claiming the economy was doing better than it looked because of the "fall in unemployment". Let's examine that.

The numbers of the employed are not of themselves important; they simply suggest those people are earning a living and being productive.

What blows away that thinking is that we have about 1.5m people on zero-hours contracts. Many, indeed most, of those have variable earnings or in effect nothing at all.

So the "unemployed" figure these days is not a reflection of prosperity.

Indeed if we HAVE such a high level of employment, something is wrong because our rate of growth is barely measurable.

As you say - zero hours contracts. There are also a number of unemployed on short term training courses, at College, in part time work seeking full time work and also on short term contracts. When the numbers are counted - there is now more unemployment than at any time in UK history.
The government figures give 4.3% unemployed, Business Insider states the true figures are more than 21%. The percentage of unemployed male workers has tripled in the past 40 years, as more and more women are employed to replace their jobs.

[*concerned*]

is that we have about 1.5m people on zero-hours contracts.

That means they are employed then !

[said]

That means they are employed then !

Not exactly - it means that they are not free to sign on unemployed!

[dav]

Nothing new about zero hour contracts except the name. I was on one in 1985 and perfectly happy with it. No big deal; it's what creates a flexible workforce.

[silver fox]

Nothing new about zero hour contracts except the name. I was on one in 1985 and perfectly happy with it. No big deal; it's what creates a flexible workforce.

Flexible one way only, no damn good for anyone with financial commitments.

[dav]

Flexible one way only, no damn good for anyone with financial commitments.

Nope. Was flexible for me too. That's why I opted to stay. When I needed something more stable I trained and then applied for something else. Flexible working is always needed in some industries and folk need to take responsibility for their own choices. Aspire to something better and qualify for it if that will be more suitable. At the time, what is now called a zero hours contract was perfect for my situation. It certainly wasn't some kind of oppression.

[Hamble]

Flexible one way only, no damn good for anyone with financial commitments.

Another Corbyn false news story.


Quote
"In her speech on the steps of Downing Street, [Theresa May] also addressed insecure workers, saying ‘you have a job but that doesn’t always mean you have job security’. Does that mean that she’s proposing to... ban zero hours contracts as more than a dozen European nations have already done?”

Jeremy Corbyn, 20 July 2016


“Zero hours contracts are not allowed in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. It seems we’re the odd one out.”

Jeremy Corbyn, 16 June 2016




https://fullfact.org/law/zero-hours-...cts-uk-europe/

[bensherman]

I am not saying that zero hours contracts are somehow evil.

I can see situations in which they are good for both employer and employee.

What I am saying is that to include them in the "employed" category gives a misleading picture of prosperity in the UK.

[Albion102]

There are 1.9m students in higher education, of whom 25% do not progress onto skilled employment or further study. I would argue that the unemployment numbers are therefore understated by around 500,000 being people who don't really belong at university there who are never going to have to pay off their debts.

[dav]

There are 1.9m students in higher education, of whom 25% do not progress onto skilled employment or further study. I would argue that the unemployment numbers are therefore understated by around 500,000 being people who don't really belong at university there who are never going to have to pay off their debts.

Agreed. It is a scandal. Moreover, it has led to the dumbing down of courses to the level of the non-academic students who are now admitted.

[silver fox]

Nope. Was flexible for me too. That's why I opted to stay. When I needed something more stable I trained and then applied for something else. Flexible working is always needed in some industries and folk need to take responsibility for their own choices. Aspire to something better and qualify for it if that will be more suitable. At the time, what is now called a zero hours contract was perfect for my situation. It certainly wasn't some kind of oppression.

This is not always possible for many people, there are even numbers of employees who have had contracts transferred to agencies, umbrella companies, payroll companies then discovered that the full time job they had was suddenly an on demand job.

I assume that during your period of "flexible" working you had no concerns with eating or keeping a roof over your head and definitely no family to provide for.

The old style casual work has become an on demand position for the employer without the same freedom for employees, in days gone as a casual worker the employees had the choice of taking on other work at any time, now employers want a workforce they can call on just as and when.

[Alikado]

Apart from an Unemployed figure to get a true picture an Underemployed figure needs to be collated. How many people out there are on parttime contracts who want more hours but can't get them.

[Albion102]

Agreed. It is a scandal. Moreover, it has led to the dumbing down of courses to the level of the non-academic students who are now admitted.

I'm not somebody who normally agrees with Dav, but in this case I do. I also work deep in Higher Education, consulting work with some of the best institutions in the world (one client is #2 in the world in its subject, another is #1 in the world for its research) down to the likes of the two of the lowest ranking unis in the UK. They are lucky if they get 50% into skilled jobs. Amongst the things I see are huge numbers of kids who can't hack A'levels being given pathways into HE, only to drop out after a couple of years with £25-30k of debt, and places on sought after courses being taken by bright women who are only getting a degree so they can get a better husband (viz. have a nicer cousin chosen for them to marry).

[Albion102]

This is not always possible for many people, there are even numbers of employees who have had contracts transferred to agencies, umbrella companies, payroll companies then discovered that the full time job they had was suddenly an on demand job.

I assume that during your period of "flexible" working you had no concerns with eating or keeping a roof over your head and definitely no family to provide for.

The old style casual work has become an on demand position for the employer without the same freedom for employees, in days gone as a casual worker the employees had the choice of taking on other work at any time, now employers want a workforce they can call on just as and when.

Whilst it is true, the world has simply changed. I've several friends, noyw coming towards retirement who are working for the same company that they joined after uni. Back then, you took your pick as a graduate, and were made for life. They groomed you for a career and if you worked hard, you got one.

There is now a lot more change in the business environment, and in some ways it is good, but it does mean that the old certainties of a career are no longer there. Joining the gig economy, is just the extreme version of a portfolio career. For workers with in demand skills, it can be very lucrative. I'm leaving my current employer at the end of next month in order to reduce my daily commute from 4 hours of cycling and trains per day to a 10 minute walk. My current employer has already asked if I could do the occasional foreigner for them - £450 a day, they charge me out at £600. I'll quote ten days for something that will only take me five :-)