[Xose]

An article published by the UK Govenrment's National Statistics office in Sept this year has me wondering if the unemployment figure has ever been explained or if, like the inflation %, it's only what they massage and want it to be.

Here's the article....

National Statistics Online

Does that mean that it was all a lie - both partners didn't have to go to work to get a mortgage in the 70's, 80's, 90's. The vast majority of families had to have both parents working or ends didn't meet? According to this report, with only 75%, falling to 72.5% with the crisis, of the employable population actually active in the employment sector, the UK was very much in the life in the 50's and still continues to be.

Or - are they massaging the real unemployment figueres?

Rgds,
Citizen Smith

 

[Claire la richarde]

National Statistics Online

Does that mean that it was all a lie - both partners didn't have to go to work to get a mortgage in the 70's, 80's, 90's. The vast majority of families had to have both parents working or ends didn't meet? According to this report, with only 75%, falling to 72.5% with the crisis, of the employable population actually active in the employment sector, the UK was very much in the life in the 50's and still continues to be.

Or - are they massaging the real unemployment figueres?

Rgds,
Citizen Smith

Well, it depends what you mean by "unemployment". The officials figures are the numbers of people claiming unemployment benefits.

You get a better idea of the number of people of working age who are not working by looking at the economic inactivity figures.

And of course, paid employment and economic activity aren't shared fairly. Many couples do both work. However, as you can see from this story on the BBC, more than one in six households have no-one working - and that's apart from pensioner households.

BBC NEWS | Business | One in six UK homes 'has no work'

"More than one in six UK homes which house at least one person of working age does not have anyone in employment, official statistics show.

This is the highest rate since 1999, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.

The number of workless households hit 3.3 million in April to June, a 240,000 rise compared with a year earlier. A workless household is defined by the ONS as a home which includes at least one person of working age, where nobody aged 16 or over is in employment.

As a result, the workless household figure is higher than the number of people who are counted unemployed - 2.35 million - as it includes people such as early retirees, full-time students or those receiving disability benefit who are not included in the official unemployment statistics.

The proportion of households where no adults work rose by 1.1% in April to June 2009 compared with the same period a year earlier, to 16.9% - or nearly one in six working-age households."

So no, we aren't back in the fifties. What we have is an increasing socio-economic polarisation, with greater and greater differences between the top earners and most people in paid employment, never mind the economically inactive.

 

[mrypg9]

Well, it depends what you mean by "unemployment". The officials figures are the numbers of people claiming unemployment benefits.

You get a better idea of the number of people of working age who are not working by looking at the economic inactivity figures.

And of course, paid employment and economic activity aren't shared fairly. Many couples do both work. However, as you can see from this story on the BBC, more than one in six households have no-one working - and that's apart from pensioner households.

BBC NEWS | Business | One in six UK homes 'has no work'

"More than one in six UK homes which house at least one person of working age does not have anyone in employment, official statistics show.

This is the highest rate since 1999, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.

The number of workless households hit 3.3 million in April to June, a 240,000 rise compared with a year earlier. A workless household is defined by the ONS as a home which includes at least one person of working age, where nobody aged 16 or over is in employment.

As a result, the workless household figure is higher than the number of people who are counted unemployed - 2.35 million - as it includes people such as early retirees, full-time students or those receiving disability benefit who are not included in the official unemployment statistics.

The proportion of households where no adults work rose by 1.1% in April to June 2009 compared with the same period a year earlier, to 16.9% - or nearly one in six working-age households."

So no, we aren't back in the fifties. What we have is an increasing socio-economic polarisation, with greater and greater differences between the top earners and most people in paid employment, never mind the economically inactive.

These figures underline the very serious and urgent question of how to fund pensions for an increasingly aging population.

 

[ars338]

I think the key term is "employable population".
I would think that includes college students, early retirees and others who could be employed but are not actively seeking a job for a variety of circumstances.

 

[jojo]

I think the key term is "employable population".
I would think that that includes college students, early retirees and others who could be employed but are not actively seeking a job for a variety of circumstances.

There are also an awful lot of folk who are quite happy simply to be unemployed and actively avoid getting a job

Jo xx

 

[Maxman]

There are also an awful lot of folk who are quite happy simply to be unemployed and actively avoid getting a job

Jo xx

Well some are better off money wise , so can you blame them