This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
1
7
In reply to Big Ger:
What's the non-participation rate?
Do zero-hour contracts count as "employment", too?
On the surface, it is supposedly good, but unemployment figures tell very little of the actual story.
What's the non-participation rate?
Do zero-hour contracts count as "employment", too?
On the surface, it is supposedly good, but unemployment figures tell very little of the actual story.
12
1
In reply to Big Ger:
These figures are rarely reliable either. There's no central database saying exactly who is or isn't employed. A change of 8,600 either way is not statistically significant.
These figures are rarely reliable either. There's no central database saying exactly who is or isn't employed. A change of 8,600 either way is not statistically significant.
3
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Seeing as most people haven't had a decent pay rise for a decade no wonder companies can afford to hire more people on a crappy wage.
Seeing as most people haven't had a decent pay rise for a decade no wonder companies can afford to hire more people on a crappy wage.
6
2
2
3
In reply to Pete Dangerous:
Better than being unemployed though isn't it? Same goes for Zero hour contracts and all the rest of it, regardless of the money I'd rather be doing something than sat about the house all day wasting away.
Better than being unemployed though isn't it? Same goes for Zero hour contracts and all the rest of it, regardless of the money I'd rather be doing something than sat about the house all day wasting away.
9
6
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Better for them maybe. I'd prefer to have had a good pay rise and not be 10% worse off in real terms than 8 years ago. Selfish I know.
Better for them maybe. I'd prefer to have had a good pay rise and not be 10% worse off in real terms than 8 years ago. Selfish I know.
8
In reply to Big Ger:
Realism is preferable. Every government in living memory has been playing the "lets change the definition" game for unemployment numbers.
> Nice to see such positivism!
Realism is preferable. Every government in living memory has been playing the "lets change the definition" game for unemployment numbers.
7
1
In reply to Xharlie:
It's a long term decline so pretty reliable. It just shows how the UK was on the right track post Brexit...
It's a long term decline so pretty reliable. It just shows how the UK was on the right track post Brexit...
6
3
In reply to Big Ger:
Indeed.
I wonder if the doommongerers can shut up for 5 minutes or so.
> Good news, surely...
Indeed.
I wonder if the doommongerers can shut up for 5 minutes or so.
5
5
In reply to Roadrunner5:
I don't know why the govt doesn't just publish the cost of benefits*, since that's what they are trying to reduce. At least they must know how much has been spent every month.
* actually I can think of a few reasons why these are not advertised more widely (I'm sure they are published somewhere but my google-fu is weak today)
I don't know why the govt doesn't just publish the cost of benefits*, since that's what they are trying to reduce. At least they must know how much has been spent every month.
* actually I can think of a few reasons why these are not advertised more widely (I'm sure they are published somewhere but my google-fu is weak today)
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Errrrm.... The first line of the linked article states these values were for April to June, i.e pre-referendum.
I don't see how this figure is an indication of how the economy is doing post-referendum.
In fact, I don't see the point you are trying to make..... Maybe I'm getting confused, can you please explain?
Errrrm.... The first line of the linked article states these values were for April to June, i.e pre-referendum.
I don't see how this figure is an indication of how the economy is doing post-referendum.
In fact, I don't see the point you are trying to make..... Maybe I'm getting confused, can you please explain?
16
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/
Note that the large slice for welfare includes pensions.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/
Note that the large slice for welfare includes pensions.
Post edited at 14:09
1
In reply to marsbar:
Cheers - I was thinking of the total for all the benefits that go to the unemployed and low paid, to see if a reduction in joblessness equates to a reduction in spending, over the same time period as the OP (April - June)
edit to add: good point about the pensions - I presume a slice of those no longer unemployed includes those now receiving a pension!
Cheers - I was thinking of the total for all the benefits that go to the unemployed and low paid, to see if a reduction in joblessness equates to a reduction in spending, over the same time period as the OP (April - June)
edit to add: good point about the pensions - I presume a slice of those no longer unemployed includes those now receiving a pension!
Post edited at 14:22
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
A lot of the slaves on zero-hours ARE sat about the house everyday, hoping that their benefactors have work, that they didn't annoy their foreman or middle-manager or set a toe out of line and will be blessed with a shift. Furthermore, because their benefactors have them by the short-and-curly, they can't move forward in their careers or seek employment elsewhere.
Sure, having some employment is better than unemployment but zero-hours is inhumane, whichever way you cut it. It is slavery with spin, in truth, and the fact that they're "paid" anything at all does not change that - slaves were "paid" too, with food and lodgings.
A lot of the slaves on zero-hours ARE sat about the house everyday, hoping that their benefactors have work, that they didn't annoy their foreman or middle-manager or set a toe out of line and will be blessed with a shift. Furthermore, because their benefactors have them by the short-and-curly, they can't move forward in their careers or seek employment elsewhere.
Sure, having some employment is better than unemployment but zero-hours is inhumane, whichever way you cut it. It is slavery with spin, in truth, and the fact that they're "paid" anything at all does not change that - slaves were "paid" too, with food and lodgings.
20
2
In reply to Xharlie:
In truth, zero hours contracts do serve a purpose, they are convenient for people in some situations (e.g. postgraduate students contracts for teaching/marking/demonstrating work on top of their grants). So I'd be opposed to banning them outright.
However, as you say, equating zero hours contracts with meaningful full time employment is cruelly deceitful.
> Sure, having some employment is better than unemployment but zero-hours is inhumane, whichever way you cut it. It is slavery with spin, in truth, and the fact that they're "paid" anything at all does not change that - slaves were "paid" too, with food and lodgings.
In truth, zero hours contracts do serve a purpose, they are convenient for people in some situations (e.g. postgraduate students contracts for teaching/marking/demonstrating work on top of their grants). So I'd be opposed to banning them outright.
However, as you say, equating zero hours contracts with meaningful full time employment is cruelly deceitful.
7
In reply to Xharlie:
If you were in that situation I'd go looking for another job pronto, if it's as you describe they would have plenty of time to search. The truth of course is that for the majority of people on zero hours contracts, the job suites them just fine, they get the hours they need with the advantage of the flexibility many people require. In my younger days I worked as a climbing instructor for a year on what was essentially a zero hours contract, they didn't have to offer me hours, I didn't have to do them but there was generally enough work to make it worthwhile and the shifts would be fairly consistent as they would fit around when I was free and other people weren't and vise-versa, worked pretty well for everyone. I'm sure there is some poor sod out there who's employer is taking the piss but that's the case with most things in life, for the vast majority they are fine and even preferred in many cases.
As for the "slave" concept I sort of agree but that applied to pretty much everyone who spends the majority of what they earn each month on just the basic cost of living, even with a little savings, they'll get eaten up every so often when something big breaks. It's just a harsh fact of life that although overall living standards have improved most low paid workers always have been and will continue to be, basically slaves to the system.
If you were in that situation I'd go looking for another job pronto, if it's as you describe they would have plenty of time to search. The truth of course is that for the majority of people on zero hours contracts, the job suites them just fine, they get the hours they need with the advantage of the flexibility many people require. In my younger days I worked as a climbing instructor for a year on what was essentially a zero hours contract, they didn't have to offer me hours, I didn't have to do them but there was generally enough work to make it worthwhile and the shifts would be fairly consistent as they would fit around when I was free and other people weren't and vise-versa, worked pretty well for everyone. I'm sure there is some poor sod out there who's employer is taking the piss but that's the case with most things in life, for the vast majority they are fine and even preferred in many cases.
As for the "slave" concept I sort of agree but that applied to pretty much everyone who spends the majority of what they earn each month on just the basic cost of living, even with a little savings, they'll get eaten up every so often when something big breaks. It's just a harsh fact of life that although overall living standards have improved most low paid workers always have been and will continue to be, basically slaves to the system.
5
6
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Fair enough.
But zero-hours for a climbing gym isn't really like zero-hours for Big Corporation. Climbing gym owners are typically decent people and the scale of a climbing gym does not require the sausage-machine model of Big Corporation, in which the cost of staff-turnover is entirely mitigated and even embraced.
My wife did a zero-hours stint for a month or two between finishing her MSc and leaving the country. I've seen it from both sides.
Fair enough.
But zero-hours for a climbing gym isn't really like zero-hours for Big Corporation. Climbing gym owners are typically decent people and the scale of a climbing gym does not require the sausage-machine model of Big Corporation, in which the cost of staff-turnover is entirely mitigated and even embraced.
My wife did a zero-hours stint for a month or two between finishing her MSc and leaving the country. I've seen it from both sides.
3
1
In reply to Trevers:
I believe what you are referring to is the job claimant count for July, not unemployment statistics (which we don't have yet for July).
> These figures are rarely reliable either. There's no central database saying exactly who is or isn't employed. A change of 8,600 either way is not statistically significant.
I believe what you are referring to is the job claimant count for July, not unemployment statistics (which we don't have yet for July).
1
In reply to Xharlie:
My understanding is that the law was changed last year to prevent the use of exclusivity clauses in this sort of contract. So, if that's the case, and keeping in mind that someone in that position is also entitled to the minimum wage, holiday pay etc I can't really see what the problem is. Personally I've worked freelance, or through my own business for over 20 years and in that time had no guarantee of work, no sick pay, no holiday pay and it's suited me just fine. People should have the choice in this sort of thing, and personally i dislike the trend of turning employers into surrogate parents, although I believe employers should be legally obliged to treat employees reasonably.
> A lot of the slaves on zero-hours ARE sat about the house everyday, hoping that their benefactors have work, that they didn't annoy their foreman or middle-manager or set a toe out of line and will be blessed with a shift. Furthermore, because their benefactors have them by the short-and-curly, they can't move forward in their careers or seek employment elsewhere.
My understanding is that the law was changed last year to prevent the use of exclusivity clauses in this sort of contract. So, if that's the case, and keeping in mind that someone in that position is also entitled to the minimum wage, holiday pay etc I can't really see what the problem is. Personally I've worked freelance, or through my own business for over 20 years and in that time had no guarantee of work, no sick pay, no holiday pay and it's suited me just fine. People should have the choice in this sort of thing, and personally i dislike the trend of turning employers into surrogate parents, although I believe employers should be legally obliged to treat employees reasonably.
5
In reply to Xharlie:
About 2.5% of the workforce are on zero hours contracts and about 36% of them say they would like to work more hours, so less than 1% of the workforce.
If the 2008 recession had happened under the labour system of the 1970s we would probably have had 20% unemployment and all that this would imply. Maybe some people think that preferable.
> What's the non-participation rate?
> Do zero-hour contracts count as "employment", too?
>
The Labour participation rate is about 78% which is roughly the same as Germany and marginally lower than the Netherlands and Scandanavians but higher than the US and virtually every other EU country.About 2.5% of the workforce are on zero hours contracts and about 36% of them say they would like to work more hours, so less than 1% of the workforce.
If the 2008 recession had happened under the labour system of the 1970s we would probably have had 20% unemployment and all that this would imply. Maybe some people think that preferable.
Post edited at 20:18
6
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
Agreed, and thankfully instead it happened under the labour system of Gordon Brown. If it had happened a year or so later under Cameron who knows how long it would have taken to recover the economy.
> If the 2008 recession had happened under the labour system of the 1970s we would probably have had 20% unemployment and all that this would imply. Maybe some people think that preferable.
Agreed, and thankfully instead it happened under the labour system of Gordon Brown. If it had happened a year or so later under Cameron who knows how long it would have taken to recover the economy.
4
3
In reply to john arran:
By "labour system" I meant labour laws and regulation etc, which were a function largely of the changes made in the 80s and 90s and maintained by Blair and Brown.
There is no particular reason to think Cameron's government wouldn't have done much the same as Brown in terms of intervention. After all, the Fed under Bush adopted a similar response.
> Agreed, and thankfully instead it happened under the labour system of Gordon Brown. If it had happened a year or so later under Cameron who knows how long it would have taken to recover the economy.
By "labour system" I meant labour laws and regulation etc, which were a function largely of the changes made in the 80s and 90s and maintained by Blair and Brown.
There is no particular reason to think Cameron's government wouldn't have done much the same as Brown in terms of intervention. After all, the Fed under Bush adopted a similar response.
Post edited at 21:02
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Labour put a lot of people onto long term benefits which weren't job seekers allowance who weren't part of the official unemployment figures, and said unemployment had dropped.
( In a way it was a good thing for me, because it ment I could be left in peace to get better and become more skilled through volunteering before (currently) looking into getting into paid work again. )
Labour put a lot of people onto long term benefits which weren't job seekers allowance who weren't part of the official unemployment figures, and said unemployment had dropped.
( In a way it was a good thing for me, because it ment I could be left in peace to get better and become more skilled through volunteering before (currently) looking into getting into paid work again. )
2
In reply to Big Ger:
The number of people with degrees who aren't finding work which would mean it'd been worthwhile to have gone to university, and the increasing number of people who are working zero hours contracts, part time jobs, and as low paid self employed people, probably paints a less cheery and fuller picture than 'unemployment drops'.
You could say there's rising employment and economic growth, and then there's rising employment and economic growth. Current economic times aren't all 'that' cheery in the UK.
The effects of Brexit seem to be leading to manufacturing taking a hit due to higher costs from the weaker pound.
> Nice to see such positivism!
The number of people with degrees who aren't finding work which would mean it'd been worthwhile to have gone to university, and the increasing number of people who are working zero hours contracts, part time jobs, and as low paid self employed people, probably paints a less cheery and fuller picture than 'unemployment drops'.
You could say there's rising employment and economic growth, and then there's rising employment and economic growth. Current economic times aren't all 'that' cheery in the UK.
The effects of Brexit seem to be leading to manufacturing taking a hit due to higher costs from the weaker pound.
Post edited at 22:07
In reply to Timmd:
This view on the number of people with degrees not finding work . I have never seen the stats to back this up, is it people with say photography degrees who have not been able to find jobs doing photography. Or is it people with mechanical engineering degrees not able to find jobs in engineering . Can you expand on your comment?
This view on the number of people with degrees not finding work . I have never seen the stats to back this up, is it people with say photography degrees who have not been able to find jobs doing photography. Or is it people with mechanical engineering degrees not able to find jobs in engineering . Can you expand on your comment?
1
In reply to neilh:
I mean people with three degrees working in cafes, as an extreme example I've come across.
Hunger and things to do tonight/this week mean I'll probably not come back to this thread. Haven't had dinner, and have a house full of boxes, and my childhood home to finish clearing (and a couple of dozen other things to do...).
I mean people with three degrees working in cafes, as an extreme example I've come across.
Hunger and things to do tonight/this week mean I'll probably not come back to this thread. Haven't had dinner, and have a house full of boxes, and my childhood home to finish clearing (and a couple of dozen other things to do...).
Post edited at 22:12
In reply to Timmd:
I mean people with three degrees working in cafes, as an extreme example I've come across.
When their customers are about to leave, do they say: 'When Will I See You Again'?
I mean people with three degrees working in cafes, as an extreme example I've come across.
When their customers are about to leave, do they say: 'When Will I See You Again'?
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
It's an interesting hypothetical. All of the Conservative policy since 2010 has pushed in the opposite direction (reduced public spending, contractionary economic policies etc. - everything that gets branded austerity) which makes it seem like a Keynesian response would not have been their approach.
However, that ignores the political position - that the conservatives used overspending / debt as a stick to beat Labour with by calling them profligate (even though spending in a time of an economic crash is good sense). They had then to follow the course of cutting spending when in power, even when it was damaging to the economy. If they had been in power at the time of the crash, they wouldn't have had that political imperative, so they could have taken an approach that wasn't contrary to mainstream macroeconomics.
As a side note, I also find it interesting that Osborne did tacitly accept it was damaging by reducing the rate of deficit reduction when the economy worsened, and May has also said that the govt will spend if necessary given the brexit slump. This is quite a departure from the "austerity as an economic good in itself" arguments that were being peddled in 2010, and I think it is a wonder that the hypocrisy of the tory govt isn't being pressed more on this. Oh for a better organised opposition...
It's an interesting hypothetical. All of the Conservative policy since 2010 has pushed in the opposite direction (reduced public spending, contractionary economic policies etc. - everything that gets branded austerity) which makes it seem like a Keynesian response would not have been their approach.
However, that ignores the political position - that the conservatives used overspending / debt as a stick to beat Labour with by calling them profligate (even though spending in a time of an economic crash is good sense). They had then to follow the course of cutting spending when in power, even when it was damaging to the economy. If they had been in power at the time of the crash, they wouldn't have had that political imperative, so they could have taken an approach that wasn't contrary to mainstream macroeconomics.
As a side note, I also find it interesting that Osborne did tacitly accept it was damaging by reducing the rate of deficit reduction when the economy worsened, and May has also said that the govt will spend if necessary given the brexit slump. This is quite a departure from the "austerity as an economic good in itself" arguments that were being peddled in 2010, and I think it is a wonder that the hypocrisy of the tory govt isn't being pressed more on this. Oh for a better organised opposition...
1
In reply to Timmd:
That is extreme. But I would suggest that somebody with 3 degrees working in a cafe may have other issues that are nothing to do with unemployment rates, zero hours etc.
That is extreme. But I would suggest that somebody with 3 degrees working in a cafe may have other issues that are nothing to do with unemployment rates, zero hours etc.
4
In reply to andyfallsoff:
But my point was about the benefits of a flexible labour market to maintaining employment.
> It's an interesting hypothetical. All of the Conservative policy since 2010 has pushed in the opposite direction (reduced public spending, contractionary economic policies etc. - everything that gets branded austerity) which makes it seem like a Keynesian response would not have been their approach.
>
Well, we won't know but as a "needs must" I think they'd have done whatever was needed doing to stop a meltdown. I rather doubt Brown dreamt it up himself without BOE or Treasury input, although I'll acknowledge that he acted promptly and decisively.But my point was about the benefits of a flexible labour market to maintaining employment.
Post edited at 22:33
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I agree they probably would. Which is why I'm less forgiving of the tories for hammering Labour for doing the same....
> Well, we won't know but as a "needs must" I think they'd have done whatever was needed doing to stop a meltdown. I rather doubt Brown dreamt it up himself without BOE or Treasury input, although I'll acknowledge that he acted promptly and decisively.
I agree they probably would. Which is why I'm less forgiving of the tories for hammering Labour for doing the same....
Post edited at 22:36
2
In reply to postmanpat: but I think you would also agree it would be better if new jobs were what you would describe as 'quality'. Do you believe that is the case? Are there any data on trends in productivity? Just creating lots of poor jobs , including large numbers of folk with precarious finances on zero hours contracts is not going to get the country anywhere good in the long run
Has anyone ever seen maps of where jobs are being created?
Has anyone ever seen maps of where jobs are being created?
1
In reply to wbo:
Yes, it would be better if everybody had a well paid steady job that they enjoyed. There is an inevitable trade off between job security and higher wages, which leads to higher unemployment, and labour flexibility which leads to more employment but not necessarily security.
As noted above only 2 .5% of the labour force is on zero wage contracts and two thirds of them are satisfied with their hours worked, so it's really quite a small issue in the greater scheme of things.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that everything in the garden is rosy but given the UK's employments stats are amongst the best in Europe both in absolute terms and in terms of growth since 2008 there are worse things to complain about.
Yes. North East and Ni stand out as quite poor but otherwise surprisingly broad based recovery geographically.
> but I think you would also agree it would be better if new jobs were what you would describe as 'quality'. Do you believe that is the case? Are there any data on trends in productivity? Just creating lots of poor jobs , including large numbers of folk with precarious finances on zero hours contracts is not going to get the country anywhere good in the long run
Yes, it would be better if everybody had a well paid steady job that they enjoyed. There is an inevitable trade off between job security and higher wages, which leads to higher unemployment, and labour flexibility which leads to more employment but not necessarily security.
As noted above only 2 .5% of the labour force is on zero wage contracts and two thirds of them are satisfied with their hours worked, so it's really quite a small issue in the greater scheme of things.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that everything in the garden is rosy but given the UK's employments stats are amongst the best in Europe both in absolute terms and in terms of growth since 2008 there are worse things to complain about.
> Has anyone ever seen maps of where jobs are being created?
Yes. North East and Ni stand out as quite poor but otherwise surprisingly broad based recovery geographically.
In reply to wbo:
What is a " quality " job anyway? If you have come from Eastern Europe looking for work as there are none locally, then I suspect any job is quality. It's a Meaningless phrase .
What is a " quality " job anyway? If you have come from Eastern Europe looking for work as there are none locally, then I suspect any job is quality. It's a Meaningless phrase .
1
In reply to Short&Savage:
Ok, so my entire comment was, and I quote:
Now, can you point out to me, where I claimed the figures were "an indication of how the economy is doing post-referendum"? Or Pre-"April June"?
You don't see the point I was trying to make? I think you must be confused.
Let me re-post it for you, in bold this time; Unemployment drops, Good news, surely.
> Errrrm.... The first line of the linked article states these values were for April to June, i.e pre-referendum.
> I don't see how this figure is an indication of how the economy is doing post-referendum.
> In fact, I don't see the point you are trying to make..... Maybe I'm getting confused, can you please explain?
Ok, so my entire comment was, and I quote:
Now, can you point out to me, where I claimed the figures were "an indication of how the economy is doing post-referendum"? Or Pre-"April June"?
> In fact, I don't see the point you are trying to make..... Maybe I'm getting confused, can you please explain?
You don't see the point I was trying to make? I think you must be confused.
Let me re-post it for you, in bold this time; Unemployment drops, Good news, surely.
4
3
In reply to Timmd:
If you have three degrees, and can only find work in cafes, then somewhere, something has gone incredibly wrong.
> I mean people with three degrees working in cafes, as an extreme example I've come across.
If you have three degrees, and can only find work in cafes, then somewhere, something has gone incredibly wrong.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I dream of owning a Bugatti veyron.
> Yes, it would be better if everybody had a well paid steady job that they enjoyed.
I dream of owning a Bugatti veyron.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
You haven't got one? I blame the government.
> I dream of owning a Bugatti veyron.
You haven't got one? I blame the government.
3
In reply to Big Ger:
Not really. That's either a college lecturer in the making, or someone who lacks the necessary professional ambition (or willingness to compromise in career choice) to match their intellectual gifts. Or maybe they're just taking it easy before embarking on a brilliant career. Either way, working in a cafe seems a natural stopover. It's unlikely to be a long term destination.
> If you have three degrees, and can only find work in cafes, then somewhere, something has gone incredibly wrong.
Not really. That's either a college lecturer in the making, or someone who lacks the necessary professional ambition (or willingness to compromise in career choice) to match their intellectual gifts. Or maybe they're just taking it easy before embarking on a brilliant career. Either way, working in a cafe seems a natural stopover. It's unlikely to be a long term destination.
1
In reply to Short&Savage:
His threads are mostly all the same, a one liner with a random link. There is no point, he's just a waiting for someone to try to make sense of it, and then have a go at them for doing so.
> In fact, I don't see the point you are trying to make..... Maybe I'm getting confused, can you please explain?
His threads are mostly all the same, a one liner with a random link. There is no point, he's just a waiting for someone to try to make sense of it, and then have a go at them for doing so.
Post edited at 07:35
7
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
Please explain to us all, how a link to a BBC page on the subject is in any way "random"?
Oh that's right, your are the little liar who accused me of posting links "mainly from hard right wing magazines", when anyone who cared to look will see the majority of my links are from the BBC and Guardian websites.
What I do Rom, just so you don't tell any more porky pies, is start topics on which I am interested, by posting a link and a brief comment.
That way i do not prejudice the debate from the off.
Clear now?
> His thread are mostly the same, a one liner with a random link. There is no point, he's just a waiting for someone to try to make sense of it, and then have a go at them for doing so.
Please explain to us all, how a link to a BBC page on the subject is in any way "random"?
Oh that's right, your are the little liar who accused me of posting links "mainly from hard right wing magazines", when anyone who cared to look will see the majority of my links are from the BBC and Guardian websites.
What I do Rom, just so you don't tell any more porky pies, is start topics on which I am interested, by posting a link and a brief comment.
That way i do not prejudice the debate from the off.
Clear now?
Post edited at 07:26
1
6
In reply to Big Ger:
Well I do apologise, indeed I may be a bit dazed and confused after finishing a night shift (hazards of this employment malarkey you know).
Even so, I still don't see how a bit of economic data showing that things were going ok BEFORE the country made the biggest decision on economic policy in decades is 'good news'.
Surely whether it is 'good news' or not we will only know in a few months time, no??
Well I do apologise, indeed I may be a bit dazed and confused after finishing a night shift (hazards of this employment malarkey you know).
Even so, I still don't see how a bit of economic data showing that things were going ok BEFORE the country made the biggest decision on economic policy in decades is 'good news'.
Surely whether it is 'good news' or not we will only know in a few months time, no??
3
In reply to Short&Savage:
Weird post. Presumably good economic data is good economic data whenever it happens, and so it is good news?
In terms of it's relevance to brexit, the argument had been made that the uncertainty before the vote might be negative for the economy. This data suggests it wasn't. Isn't that good news?
> Even so, I still don't see how a bit of economic data showing that things were going ok BEFORE the country made the biggest decision on economic policy in decades is 'good news'.
> Surely whether it is 'good news' or not we will only know in a few months time, no??
Weird post. Presumably good economic data is good economic data whenever it happens, and so it is good news?
In terms of it's relevance to brexit, the argument had been made that the uncertainty before the vote might be negative for the economy. This data suggests it wasn't. Isn't that good news?
1
5
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes but in the context of the availability of other more recent data (e.g PMI, value of pound, house prices etc) which shows a potential post-referendum downturn in the economy, I really don't see how a bit of older data which shows how things were beforehand is that relevant.
Personally I am still sitting on the fence on how things are going to be economy-wise, but posting a bit of headline about older economic data without any explanation and calling it 'good news' smacks of someone who hasn't read beyond the headline.
Yes but in the context of the availability of other more recent data (e.g PMI, value of pound, house prices etc) which shows a potential post-referendum downturn in the economy, I really don't see how a bit of older data which shows how things were beforehand is that relevant.
Personally I am still sitting on the fence on how things are going to be economy-wise, but posting a bit of headline about older economic data without any explanation and calling it 'good news' smacks of someone who hasn't read beyond the headline.
4
In reply to Short&Savage:
Can we agree this is good news?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-18/u-k-retail-sales-surge-as...
Retail sales up 1.4% in July.
Can we agree this is good news?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-18/u-k-retail-sales-surge-as...
Retail sales up 1.4% in July.
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes this is good economic news.
But then can we agree this is bad news?:
https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/b68c3686a48c4019850...
Worst purchasing managers' index since the last economic crash.
Or...... how about this as an idea... We are going to keep having conflicting economic data some good, some bad till we have the actual GDP data in a few months time.
Clearly on summation of the presently available data people who's job it is to worry about these things are worried - e.g the Bank of England cutting rates.
But for the rest of us, can't we just accept that fundamentally we still don't know what's going to happen and stop either cherry picking or mis-representing data??!
> Can we agree this is good news?
> Retail sales up 1.4% in July.
Yes this is good economic news.
But then can we agree this is bad news?:
https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/b68c3686a48c4019850...
Worst purchasing managers' index since the last economic crash.
Or...... how about this as an idea... We are going to keep having conflicting economic data some good, some bad till we have the actual GDP data in a few months time.
Clearly on summation of the presently available data people who's job it is to worry about these things are worried - e.g the Bank of England cutting rates.
But for the rest of us, can't we just accept that fundamentally we still don't know what's going to happen and stop either cherry picking or mis-representing data??!
6
In reply to Postmanpat:
No. We can't. Because that very article links to THIS: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-04/boe-battles-brexit-with-r...
... and that is very definitely no good news.
Tourists roaming about of a sunny day, buying watches and jewellery on the back of the weak pound is not really sustainable change for the better.
No. We can't. Because that very article links to THIS: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-04/boe-battles-brexit-with-r...
... and that is very definitely no good news.
Tourists roaming about of a sunny day, buying watches and jewellery on the back of the weak pound is not really sustainable change for the better.
In reply to Short&Savage:
Of course, which of course doesnt mean that good data isnt good news and bad data bad nees.
> Yes this is good economic news.
> But then can we agree this is bad news?:
>
Of course.>
> But for the rest of us, can't we just accept that fundamentally we still don't know what's going to happen and stop either cherry picking or mis-representing data??!
Of course, which of course doesnt mean that good data isnt good news and bad data bad nees.
1
In reply to Xharlie:
>
> ... and that is very definitely no good news.
>
Nonsense. Finding a bit of "bad news" (which in this case is barely even mews) doesnt stop good news being good news.
2
In reply to Big Ger:
I would think people in Greece Spain Portugal ect would be happy to have our abysmal figures and our inhumane working practices, come to think of it a lot come here to work in this country makes you think why anyone would.... Btw I don't work lol
I would think people in Greece Spain Portugal ect would be happy to have our abysmal figures and our inhumane working practices, come to think of it a lot come here to work in this country makes you think why anyone would.... Btw I don't work lol
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Except that referring to a bit of older information or event, whilst ignoring the really big events happening afterwards and calling the older event 'good news' is really stupid.
If you now heard about chamberlain's appeasement to Germany, and Germany's invasion of Poland both at the same time, you're not going to be going around saying 'but good news is still good news' are you?
> Of course.
> Of course, which of course doesnt mean that good data isnt good news and bad data bad nees.
Except that referring to a bit of older information or event, whilst ignoring the really big events happening afterwards and calling the older event 'good news' is really stupid.
If you now heard about chamberlain's appeasement to Germany, and Germany's invasion of Poland both at the same time, you're not going to be going around saying 'but good news is still good news' are you?
3
In reply to Short&Savage:
But doing what you've done, which is taking a bit of old information and ignoring the more recent information isn't stupid?
Poor analogy. It's more like Team A going ahead 1-0 and then team B making it 1-1. That doesn't mean Team A's goal wasn't good news. Your analogy is more like Team A's goal being ruled invalid after the game, in which case, like the Munch agreement, it would have been false good news.
> Except that referring to a bit of older information or event, whilst ignoring the really big events happening afterwards and calling the older event 'good news' is really stupid.
>But doing what you've done, which is taking a bit of old information and ignoring the more recent information isn't stupid?
> If you now heard about chamberlain's appeasement to Germany, and Germany's invasion of Poland both at the same time, you're not going to be going around saying 'but good news is still good news' are you?
Poor analogy. It's more like Team A going ahead 1-0 and then team B making it 1-1. That doesn't mean Team A's goal wasn't good news. Your analogy is more like Team A's goal being ruled invalid after the game, in which case, like the Munch agreement, it would have been false good news.
Post edited at 14:22
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
Look! I've found some more good news!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansion
> Weird post. Presumably good economic data is good economic data whenever it happens, and so it is good news?
Look! I've found some more good news!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansion
2
In reply to SenzuBean:
Here, incidentally, is the FT's take on the numbers the OP linked to. They seem to think it was good news and relevant.
"The number of people in Britain claiming jobless benefits fell in July in a sign of the labour market’s resilience after June’s vote to leave the EU.
Official data show the numbers on benefits fell 8,600 between June and July to 763,600, confounding economists’ predictions that they would rise. The unemployment rate also held steady at an 11-year low of 4.9 per cent, though it was based on data covering only the three months ahead of the referendum. "
> Look! I've found some more good news!
>
Nah, doesn't workHere, incidentally, is the FT's take on the numbers the OP linked to. They seem to think it was good news and relevant.
"The number of people in Britain claiming jobless benefits fell in July in a sign of the labour market’s resilience after June’s vote to leave the EU.
Official data show the numbers on benefits fell 8,600 between June and July to 763,600, confounding economists’ predictions that they would rise. The unemployment rate also held steady at an 11-year low of 4.9 per cent, though it was based on data covering only the three months ahead of the referendum. "
Post edited at 14:38
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Sorry, my brain fog has returned. What are you talking about???
If you are still celebrating the first goal as good news when the game has moved on and the other team's equalised or won you are a weirdo. The first goal 'was' good news, quite a difference to saying it 'is' good news
> But doing what you've done, which is taking a bit of old information and ignoring the more recent information isn't stupid?
Sorry, my brain fog has returned. What are you talking about???
> Poor analogy. It's more like Team A going ahead 1-0 and then team B making it 1-1. That doesn't mean Team A's goal wasn't good news. Your analogy is more like Team A's goal being ruled invalid after the game, in which case, like the Munch agreement, it would have been false good news.
If you are still celebrating the first goal as good news when the game has moved on and the other team's equalised or won you are a weirdo. The first goal 'was' good news, quite a difference to saying it 'is' good news
1
In reply to Short&Savage:
Right, as the claimant count dropped by 8,600 in July and as we haven't got the figure for August yet (because we're still in it!), it IS good news. It will possibly be 'was' good news next month.
Right, as the claimant count dropped by 8,600 in July and as we haven't got the figure for August yet (because we're still in it!), it IS good news. It will possibly be 'was' good news next month.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes so, if you read my posts above I make it clear that there are conflicting information at the moment on how the economy is doing, I never said that there aren't some good indicators on the economy. My point is that it's still too early to pass judgement.
Also, notice in your quote from FT that the first bit of data concerns the month before and month after the referendum. The second bit concerns the three months prior to it - the quote seems to end by stating caution on interpreting this data for that reason. I still don't see how your 'new' evidence contradicts anything I've said.
> Nah, doesn't work
> Here, incidentally, is the FT's take on the numbers the OP linked to. They seem to think it was good news and relevant.
> "The number of people in Britain claiming jobless benefits fell in July in a sign of the labour market£s resilience after June£s vote to leave the EU.
> Official data show the numbers on benefits fell 8,600 between June and July to 763,600, confounding economists£ predictions that they would rise. The unemployment rate also held steady at an 11-year low of 4.9 per cent, though it was based on data covering only the three months ahead of the referendum. "
Yes so, if you read my posts above I make it clear that there are conflicting information at the moment on how the economy is doing, I never said that there aren't some good indicators on the economy. My point is that it's still too early to pass judgement.
Also, notice in your quote from FT that the first bit of data concerns the month before and month after the referendum. The second bit concerns the three months prior to it - the quote seems to end by stating caution on interpreting this data for that reason. I still don't see how your 'new' evidence contradicts anything I've said.
Post edited at 15:08
In reply to Short&Savage:
I still don't see how your 'new' evidence contradicts anything I've said.
>
I have agreed that it's too early to pass judgment and actually this post wasn't a reply to you. However, in a previous post you said "I don't see how this figure is an indication of how the economy is doing post-referendum." As the FT points out, the benefits numbers do.
> Yes so, if you read my posts above I make it clear that there are conflicting information at the moment on how the economy is doing, I never said that there aren't some good indicators on the economy. My point is that it's still too early to pass judgement.
I still don't see how your 'new' evidence contradicts anything I've said.
>
I have agreed that it's too early to pass judgment and actually this post wasn't a reply to you. However, in a previous post you said "I don't see how this figure is an indication of how the economy is doing post-referendum." As the FT points out, the benefits numbers do.
In reply to Postmanpat:
It can be good news but still be amongst an economic setting which is generally bad. If you read the FT more generally, it's pretty clear that they don't think the UK economy is currently in a great place, and are very aware of the damage caused by Brexit already (as well as that which is likely still to come). However as you say, this doesn't detract from the fact that the figure quoted above is a ray of light amongst the gloom, though.
It can be good news but still be amongst an economic setting which is generally bad. If you read the FT more generally, it's pretty clear that they don't think the UK economy is currently in a great place, and are very aware of the damage caused by Brexit already (as well as that which is likely still to come). However as you say, this doesn't detract from the fact that the figure quoted above is a ray of light amongst the gloom, though.
1
In reply to Short&Savage:
You have used the PMI numbers issued ages ago as if they offset the employment numbers issued yesterday. On your basis the PMI numbers are not bad news because some more recent data suggests something more positive.
The Employment numbers were issued yesterday. Hardly old news!
> Sorry, my brain fog has returned. What are you talking about???
>You have used the PMI numbers issued ages ago as if they offset the employment numbers issued yesterday. On your basis the PMI numbers are not bad news because some more recent data suggests something more positive.
> If you are still celebrating the first goal as good news when the game has moved on and the other team's equalised or won you are a weirdo. The first goal 'was' good news, quite a difference to saying it 'is' good news.
The Employment numbers were issued yesterday. Hardly old news!
Post edited at 15:22
2
In reply to andyfallsoff:
Agreed on both counts, having said that the FT is intensely pro EU so not a very objective commentator.
> It can be good news but still be amongst an economic setting which is generally bad. If you read the FT more generally, it's pretty clear that they don't think the UK economy is currently in a great place, and are very aware of the damage caused by Brexit already (as well as that which is likely still to come). However as you say, this doesn't detract from the fact that the figure quoted above is a ray of light amongst the gloom, though.
Agreed on both counts, having said that the FT is intensely pro EU so not a very objective commentator.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Actually the manufacturing PMI is available for July as well:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/manufacturing-pmi
Still looks pretty crappy to me
Yeah it might have been issued yesterday but they are based on older stats from pre-referendum. I really find it hard to understand how you can't understand this simple distinction.
> You have used the PMI numbers issued ages ago as if they offset the employment numbers issued yesterday. On your basis the PMI numbers are not bad news because some more recent data suggests something more positive.
Actually the manufacturing PMI is available for July as well:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/manufacturing-pmi
Still looks pretty crappy to me
> The Employment numbers were issued yesterday. Hardly old news!
Yeah it might have been issued yesterday but they are based on older stats from pre-referendum. I really find it hard to understand how you can't understand this simple distinction.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I guess it's a conspiracy between the BOE, WTO, FT is it? Are you sure NASA isn't in on it as well?
> Agreed on both counts, having said that the FT is intensely pro EU so not a very objective commentator.
I guess it's a conspiracy between the BOE, WTO, FT is it? Are you sure NASA isn't in on it as well?
In reply to Short&Savage:
Sheesh, the claimants number is for July (ie post referendum), (as the FT makes clear, hence the quote). The employment numbers are March-June (ie pre referendum). I really find it hard to understand how you can't understand this simple distinction.
> Actually the manufacturing PMI is available for July as well:
>
They were announed on 22nd July for July. Pretty crappy but old news so on your basis not bad news > Yeah it might have been issued yesterday but they are based on older stats from pre-referendum. I really find it hard to understand how you can't understand this simple distinction.
Sheesh, the claimants number is for July (ie post referendum), (as the FT makes clear, hence the quote). The employment numbers are March-June (ie pre referendum). I really find it hard to understand how you can't understand this simple distinction.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Do you think there is any objective news outlet when it comes to Brexit? Genuine question, I can't think of one that hasn't declared a view.
Do you think there is any objective news outlet when it comes to Brexit? Genuine question, I can't think of one that hasn't declared a view.
In reply to andyfallsoff:
Probably not.
I do find the FT particularly irritating because it should be the "journal of record". It's fine to have an editorial position but not so fine for it to influence its news reporting. It should be better than the DM.
> Do you think there is any objective news outlet when it comes to Brexit? Genuine question, I can't think of one that hasn't declared a view.
Probably not.
I do find the FT particularly irritating because it should be the "journal of record". It's fine to have an editorial position but not so fine for it to influence its news reporting. It should be better than the DM.
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
A bit of a severe assessment, of all the newspaper the FT is probably one of the few reporting most of the significant economic news without cherry picking whatever comfirm their editorial bias. (as opposed to all the tabloids).
As a general rule - and even more so for the British press - there are no objective news outlets.
> Probably not.
> I do find the FT particularly irritating because it should be the "journal of record". It's fine to have an editorial position but not so fine for it to influence its news reporting. It should be better than the DM.
A bit of a severe assessment, of all the newspaper the FT is probably one of the few reporting most of the significant economic news without cherry picking whatever comfirm their editorial bias. (as opposed to all the tabloids).
As a general rule - and even more so for the British press - there are no objective news outlets.
Post edited at 17:17
2
In reply to Big Ger:
It didn't take long for the baseless insults to come. Q.E.D.
> Oh that's right, your are the little liar who accused me of posting links "mainly from hard right wing magazines", when anyone who cared to look will see the majority of my links are from the BBC and Guardian websites.
It didn't take long for the baseless insults to come. Q.E.D.
Post edited at 23:41
3
In reply to Short&Savage:
Not necessarily, it does set a benchmark however, for seeing how unemployment trends as we progress through Brexit.
> Even so, I still don't see how a bit of economic data showing that things were going ok BEFORE the country made the biggest decision on economic policy in decades is 'good news'.
> Surely whether it is 'good news' or not we will only know in a few months time, no??
Not necessarily, it does set a benchmark however, for seeing how unemployment trends as we progress through Brexit.
4
In reply to RomTheBear:
Yes, and yet again, it was you who started it.
Here's your post;
Oh, BTW are you denying that you claimed my links were from "hard-right-wing magazines" now? If not, why is it "baseless"?
It's not baseless is it, it's based on your actual words.
> It didn't take long for the baseless insults to come. Q.E.D.
Yes, and yet again, it was you who started it.
Here's your post;
> His threads are mostly all the same, a one liner with a random link. There is no point, he's just a waiting for someone to try to make sense of it, and then have a go at them for doing so.
Oh, BTW are you denying that you claimed my links were from "hard-right-wing magazines" now? If not, why is it "baseless"?
It's not baseless is it, it's based on your actual words.
Post edited at 23:53
5
In reply to andyfallsoff:
I'm still holding my breath - if you look at the treasury analysis they predicted that consumption would not change much in Q32016, but investment would drop, with the drop in consumption growing shapely in 2017.
Given the very few indicators we have - the main one being the value of the pound - it seems we are somewhere between the "shock" and "severe shock" scenario of the treasury analysis.
Whether it happens as predicted remains to be seen, quarter on quarter GDP predictions are pretty accurate (around 89/90%) so I'd watch these first.
> It can be good news but still be amongst an economic setting which is generally bad. If you read the FT more generally, it's pretty clear that they don't think the UK economy is currently in a great place, and are very aware of the damage caused by Brexit already (as well as that which is likely still to come). However as you say, this doesn't detract from the fact that the figure quoted above is a ray of light amongst the gloom, though.
I'm still holding my breath - if you look at the treasury analysis they predicted that consumption would not change much in Q32016, but investment would drop, with the drop in consumption growing shapely in 2017.
Given the very few indicators we have - the main one being the value of the pound - it seems we are somewhere between the "shock" and "severe shock" scenario of the treasury analysis.
Whether it happens as predicted remains to be seen, quarter on quarter GDP predictions are pretty accurate (around 89/90%) so I'd watch these first.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
What was your sacred rule again ? "If you make a claim, then it is up to you to back it up with facts."
> Oh, BTW are you denying that you claimed my links were from "hard-right-wing magazines" now? If not, why is it "baseless"?
> It's not baseless is it, it's based on your actual words.
What was your sacred rule again ? "If you make a claim, then it is up to you to back it up with facts."
5
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Let me quote your own rule again : ""If you make a claim, then it is up to you to back it up with facts."
> So you are denying it? Wow, your gall is astounding!!
Let me quote your own rule again : ""If you make a claim, then it is up to you to back it up with facts."
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
You know damn well that threads in the pub are not readable after a certain time.
Please answer "yes" or "no"?
Did you accuse me of posting from "hard-right wing" sources, or words to that effect.
You know damn well that threads in the pub are not readable after a certain time.
Please answer "yes" or "no"?
Did you accuse me of posting from "hard-right wing" sources, or words to that effect.
4
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...