Bob E has had a look at the stat's:
-----------------------------------
Which is, probably, just a personal one - being as I am so damn thick - and relates to the "employment figures" which were released this a.m and have been somewhat overshadowed by the Mighty Ding's speech, even though they contain yet more "good news".
Anyway - the ONS press release includes the statement
"The unemployment rate was 7.7%, down 0.1 on the quarter. There were 2.49 million unemployed people, down 37,000 on the quarter."
They then break that down further as follows, Between June to August 2012 and September to November 2012:
* the number of people in full-time employment increased by 113,000
* the number of people in part-time employment fell by 23,000
So that means 90,000 net new jobs entered into by persons aged between 16 and 64 "entering work".
* the number of unemployed people fell by 37,000, and
* the number of economically inactive people, aged from 16 to 64, fell by 13,000
Which in total is 50,000, so that means 40,000 persons aged between 16 and 64 who were not previously recorded as either unemployed or Neet "entered work". And that figure could be slightly higher allowing for "deaths" amongst both those classified as "employed, unemployed, or Neet" previously.
I am left concluding they can surely only be young persons actually reaching the age of 16 in the three months of the "survey period" minus the number of people reaching retirement age (and actually retiring). Or visiting extra-terrestrial aliens.
Luxury Crackpottery
15 minutes ago
11 comments:
Or immigrants of course.
AC, fair point. Quite possibly true. Longer term stat's have suggested the same thing - for every one immigrant here coming over taking our homes there were nine who came here and took our jobs. To express it in racist terms.
I can see why someone would rather employ a cheerful, keen immigrant over a grumpy, workshy native, but, given that there are also keen, cheerful natives looking for work, then the only reason I can think for the number of immigrants "coming over here and taking our jobs" is that the keen, cheeful natives are in the wrong place, which means, as usual, it's too high land prices that are to blame, currently, because they are gumming up what should be a falling market and making it difficult for people to be mobile. Whilst high home ownership may be a good thing, this is definitely a downside.
B, correct, hence and why London (with the most jobs) also has the highest immigrant population, they are the only people who will put up with sharing a room.
And half the white British people in London are from elsewhere in the UK, of course, including yours truly.
"they are the only people who will put up with sharing a room."
Of course! why didn't I think of that? Two generations ago, sharing a room was quite normal for young people sharing a house. I suppose it was the sexual revolution that put paid to that.
B, two to a room is bearable if it's a couple who get along well.
When I was a migrant worker on minimum wage in the US I shared a room with two other people in a 2-bed flat. We all put up with it not because we suddenly lost our sense of standards but because we knew (hoped?!) that it would be short term.
Maybe the newcomers to London hope that they will quickly end up as Mayor and get their own house?
Talking about Northerners coming to London for jobs, it does amuse me when they moan about London being too crowded.
BE
BE; "Talking about Northerners coming to London for jobs, it does amuse me when they moan about London being too crowded."
The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze. It's like all these people complaining about The Tube being
a) too crowded
b) too unreliable
c) too expensive
d) too heavily subsidised.
They'd get a nasty shock if state control of rail fares and subsidies were both removed. Mind you, the trains wouldn't be so crowded.
B, yes, but at least rents would come down accordingly.
Yes, you and I know that and know that the subsisides to the railways end up in the pockets of the directors and landlords, but they don't know it, and they don't want to know it either.
On the subject of room sharing or lack of it, this is another reason for the so-called "housing shortage" in a time of low actual homelessness. Now it's pretty much de rigeur for each child to have their own room as well as adults being unwilling to share. In my first year at uni I had to share a room if I wanted to stay in college-provided accommodation. I wonder if that still goes on.
Post a Comment