Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Cost of living
Topic Started: Jan 13 2015, 02:08 PM (837 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

Misery Index - At lowest level since Jan-05

Quote:
 
This morning’s figures show that goods (i.e., the stuff we buy) were 1pc cheaper in Christmas 2014 than Christmas 2013. Factor in services and still, UK consumer price inflation was 0.5pc in December, the (joint) lowest since records began in 2004 (pdf).


Quote:
 
‘Falling food prices – a result of intense competition among UK supermarkets – have also played a major role in the low inflation figures. Disinflationary pressures look set to continue in the first half of 2015. Retailers are still in a phase of intense competition, petrol prices should fall back further in the first half of the year and utility companies are likely to cut prices given developments in wholesale markets.’



I wonder if the cost of living scare stories will find much traction with Joe Public who now sees every week cheaper food in the Supermarkets, Petrol nearly £1.00 per litre and energy prices falling. All due to the capitalist market and absolutely nothing to do with interventionist politics.

Yep wages beginning to grow faster than prices too. So who is Milliband going to scare other than those who are genetically always such?





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 19 2015, 10:31 PM
krugerman
Jan 19 2015, 09:56 PM
. . . In 2010 George Osborne told the British people that unless we followed his policies, we would lose our triple A credit rating, in February 2013 the UK lost its triple A credit rating. . . .
So much to challenge in your post but let's take them one at a time. And this one ^ so encompasses false logic thinking

Ask your self did Osborne say "Follow my policies and we will retain Triple A rating"

No he did not (because odious git he may be but he's not bleeding stupid). But you seem to think he said that and so lumber him with a false accusation. Now I can't prove this but had Ed Balls been chancellor with his "we must borrow more to pretend we are not in debt" policy and we would have been at junk status.

I also suggest that the reason our bonds did not fall so such in 2009 is because by then the market realised that Labour would not be in power much longer.

Do you know why the UK bond yields remained steady, even after borrowing shot up in the aftermath of the banking crisis and recession. ?

The reason is because the markets fully understand, and are aware that the UK has a long track record of borrowing and paying back, this happened in the recession of the early 1990s, it happened in the recession of the early 1980s, and it has happened over and over again throughout modern history.

Unlike Greece or Iceland, the UK has a robust and strong mixed economic base, and this fact is another key reason as to why the markets were not too concerned or worried at our deficit and borrowing, if they had of been, then our bond market would have been rubbished, but they were not.

When George Osborne warned that the UK may lose its triple A rating, he did so meaning that we were borrowing at dangerous or unsustainable / unacceptable levels, and this was not the case.
The reason we lost our triple A rating was not because of the level of borrowing, if was purely because of concerns at his economic and fiscal policies, the lack of growth, and the inability by this government to reduce the deficit as a share of GDP.

The best way to reduce the deficit as a share of GDP is growth - not huge budget cuts

No matter which way you wish to look at it, this government has missed every target, it has missed every forecast, the initial promise to close the deficit by 2014-15 is now a distant memory, and some of us knew in 2010 that this promise would never be kept.

You may argue as much as you wish, the bottom line is that Osborne is a failure, he suggested that by NOT following his policies, we would lose our top credit rating, we followed his policies and lost it anyway.

I cannot prove this final point, however I am certain that if the cuts had not been so savage and severe, so fast and deep, then growth would have been far stronger, and the deficit as a measure of GDP would now be much smaller.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 02:08 PM
I wonder if the cost of living scare stories will find much traction with Joe Public who now sees every week cheaper food in the Supermarkets,
Does he?

I know that my weekly shopping bill has barely changed over the last 6 months.

I know that if I have made any savings they have soon be snapped up by some other rising cost of living.

Wholesale gas has fallen 25-30%, it makes up approx 52% of the final bill, that means that upto 15% could have been knocked off the price of domestic gas, but only 5% was.

Has that 5% reduction, next month, offset the last 5 years of quarterly increases?

No, it hasn't.

Joe Public is still considerably worse off today than he was on 12/05/10 when the Coalition entered office.

A couple of months of minimal decreases to some areas of the cost of living will not, CAN not, offset the 5 years of near constant cost-of-living increases, increases more often than not driven by nothing more than crass profiteering.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 20 2015, 09:57 AM


I cannot prove this final point, however I am certain that if the cuts had not been so savage and severe, so fast and deep, then growth would have been far stronger, and the deficit as a measure of GDP would now be much smaller.






No growth and Treasury tax returns falling, not keeping up with inflation, ....... means the deficit gets wider.
But I contend that 'no growth' is what Osborne aimed for, and so has not failed in his intention.

Sustaining growth is a difficult task, growth getting harder to achieve as prosperity keeps raising the bar. If the Chancellor had continued on the path of growth, deficit reduction, in 2010 he would after four years be struggling to deliver even more growth, the potential for which reduces as the economy expands .......... a dilemma for him (as Campaign coordinator) in Election year. He is if anything a Party first MP, and in the job where he does most harm.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Jan 20 2015, 10:48 AM
. .Joe Public is still considerably worse off today than he was on 12/05/10 when the Coalition entered office.

You sure?

Take a look at this chart:
Posted Image

So if wages are down in real terms by 2% but 6% more are earling those wages then Joe Public is actually earning 4% more in real terms aren't they.

Quote:
 
A couple of months of minimal decreases to some areas of the cost of living will not, CAN not, offset the 5 years of near constant cost-of-living increases, increases more often than not driven by nothing more than crass profiteering.

Perhaps you missed my recent challenge for anyone to find a company employing people in numbers that is making huge profits in the UK? No one could.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 20 2015, 09:57 AM
Do you know why the UK bond yields remained steady, even after borrowing shot up in the aftermath of the banking crisis and recession. ?

The reason is because the markets fully understand, and are aware that the UK has a long track record of borrowing and paying back, this happened in the recession of the early 1990s, it happened in the recession of the early 1980s, and it has happened over and over again throughout modern history.

Unlike Greece or Iceland, the UK has a robust and strong mixed economic base, and this fact is another key reason as to why the markets were not too concerned or worried at our deficit and borrowing, if they had of been, then our bond market would have been rubbished, but they were not.

When George Osborne warned that the UK may lose its triple A rating, he did so meaning that we were borrowing at dangerous or unsustainable / unacceptable levels, and this was not the case.
The reason we lost our triple A rating was not because of the level of borrowing, if was purely because of concerns at his economic and fiscal policies, the lack of growth, and the inability by this government to reduce the deficit as a share of GDP.

The best way to reduce the deficit as a share of GDP is growth - not huge budget cuts

No matter which way you wish to look at it, this government has missed every target, it has missed every forecast, the initial promise to close the deficit by 2014-15 is now a distant memory, and some of us knew in 2010 that this promise would never be kept.

You may argue as much as you wish, the bottom line is that Osborne is a failure, he suggested that by NOT following his policies, we would lose our top credit rating, we followed his policies and lost it anyway.

I cannot prove this final point, however I am certain that if the cuts had not been so savage and severe, so fast and deep, then growth would have been far stronger, and the deficit as a measure of GDP would now be much smaller.





Interesting post, well worth reading twice.

I'm only going to pick up on one point

"The best way to reduce the deficit as a share of GDP is growth - not huge budget cuts"

Have you ever heard of the phrase in business "revenue for vanity, cash for sanity"? It is well worth pondering at a national level too. There is only so much sustainable growth that can be achieved in a fixed period of time.

Another graph
Posted Image

That run to 2006/7 showed ever increasing growth rates in real terms. It should have been obvious it was unsustainable and in fact we now know it was only there because of world record levels of household debt and record levels of house price growth. It was vanity not sanity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
There are very few other developed countries that will allow you to extract equity from your house in quite the same reckless way as we do in Britain, almost all the increase in consumer spending is the result of this spunking of unearned income, wage growth or rather lack of is irrelevant, and as we all know if you need to sell in a fire sale you never quite get what you think you should.

Dumbfuck economics for a dumbfuck electorate who will simply blame whoever is in No 10 when it inevitably goes wrong, this never stops any government doing it though.

All rather depressing really.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 20 2015, 12:15 PM
There are very few other developed countries that will allow you to extract equity from your house in quite the same reckless way as we do in Britain, almost all the increase in consumer spending is the result of this spunking of unearned income, wage growth or rather lack of is irrelevant, and as we all know if you need to sell in a fire sale you never quite get what you think you should.

Dumbfuck economics for a dumbfuck electorate who will simply blame whoever is in No 10 when it inevitably goes wrong, this never stops any government doing it though.

All rather depressing really.
seconded ^

We paid off all our loans incl mortgages before I was 45. It was tough at times to do that and people suggested we were unwise as we could have all sorts of fast cars and other luxuries instead. They don't think we're unwise now.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 20 2015, 12:18 PM
Tigger
Jan 20 2015, 12:15 PM
There are very few other developed countries that will allow you to extract equity from your house in quite the same reckless way as we do in Britain, almost all the increase in consumer spending is the result of this spunking of unearned income, wage growth or rather lack of is irrelevant, and as we all know if you need to sell in a fire sale you never quite get what you think you should.

Dumbfuck economics for a dumbfuck electorate who will simply blame whoever is in No 10 when it inevitably goes wrong, this never stops any government doing it though.

All rather depressing really.
seconded ^

We paid off all our loans incl mortgages before I was 45. It was tough at times to do that and people suggested we were unwise as we could have all sorts of fast cars and other luxuries instead. They don't think we're unwise now.

The trouble is people think it is perfectly normal to take out huge loans and waste the money, after all everyone is doing it the economy is growing so what could possibly go wrong?

The financial memory of millions of people in Britain is entirely dysfunctional.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 19 2015, 04:27 PM
RJD
Jan 19 2015, 04:12 PM

Relatively speaking the UK is a very generous country towards those that are doing less well than the average. It is not the shit-hole the lefties would love to paint.

What worries me RJD is you believe that. For at least 18 million people it is a shit-hole up from the 12 million since Cameron became PM.
Which is understandable because all the Tories represent is the 1% who own most of the wealth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30878840

Clearly you have not set foot outside of the UK and visited Spain or Italy or Portugal or elsewhere. Relatively speaking, that means relative to other countries in a similar economic situation, the EU if you like, then the UK is indeed a generous country. More chance of getting a job here to and we have proportionately significantly fewer young people out of work. Try France and the rest of the EU for a job, the UK even creates, proportionally, more jobs than Germany does.
Your firm belief that the Tories have engineered this misery you talk about and that it is within their gift to magic away is silly and simplistic. The didn't and they don't. Anyone who does not like this country and feels that he/she can suck on fatter tits elsewhere are free to leave and then report back which little corner of the EU it is where manna falls from the heavens.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 20 2015, 12:18 PM
Tigger
Jan 20 2015, 12:15 PM
There are very few other developed countries that will allow you to extract equity from your house in quite the same reckless way as we do in Britain, almost all the increase in consumer spending is the result of this spunking of unearned income, wage growth or rather lack of is irrelevant, and as we all know if you need to sell in a fire sale you never quite get what you think you should.

Dumbfuck economics for a dumbfuck electorate who will simply blame whoever is in No 10 when it inevitably goes wrong, this never stops any government doing it though.

All rather depressing really.
seconded ^

We paid off all our loans incl mortgages before I was 45. It was tough at times to do that and people suggested we were unwise as we could have all sorts of fast cars and other luxuries instead. They don't think we're unwise now.

My youngest son has just remortgaged his house at a variable rate of 0.99%.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 20 2015, 05:04 PM
Clearly you have not set foot outside of the UK and visited Spain or Italy or Portugal or elsewhere
Yes I have RJD and your continual use of the word generous is yet another instance of you suffering from cognitive dissonance.
I have several time referenced Fullfact in relation to the "generous" benefits compared to Europe issue. You obviously again have never bothered to read it.

Then there was this:-

http://www.westbriton.co.uk/Cornwall-officially-poorest-area-UK/story-21062714-detail/story.html

Cornwall is officially the poorest area in the UK


By DaveCDM | Posted: May 06, 2014

Cornwall is the UK's poorest region - and is now less wealthy than Poland, Lithuania and Hungary.

Statistics produced by Eurostat - the EU's equivalent of the office of national statistics - show average wages in the Duchy now stand at £14,300 a year.

The relative wealth of the area is then driven further down by the cost of living - meaning people here have less spending power than most of the rest of Europe.


Cornwall is ranked equally with the Welsh valleys as the poorest part of the UK, and is in the top ten most deprived areas in western Europe.


Average wages in Britain stand at £23,300 - just above the EU average of £20,750.

However, inner London is the richest part of the whole EU, with average wages standing at more than £71,000.






Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 19 2015, 10:31 PM
krugerman
Jan 19 2015, 09:56 PM
. . . In 2010 George Osborne told the British people that unless we followed his policies, we would lose our triple A credit rating, in February 2013 the UK lost its triple A credit rating. . . .
So much to challenge in your post but let's take them one at a time. And this one ^ so encompasses false logic thinking

Ask your self did Osborne say "Follow my policies and we will retain Triple A rating"

No he did not (because odious git he may be but he's not bleeding stupid). But you seem to think he said that and so lumber him with a false accusation. Now I can't prove this but had Ed Balls been chancellor with his "we must borrow more to pretend we are not in debt" policy and we would have been at junk status.

I also suggest that the reason our bonds did not fall so such in 2009 is because by then the market realised that Labour would not be in power much longer.

Giddie did imply such when the incompetent stated:

As far back as February 2010, he told an audience of Tory activists: "What investor is going to come to the UK when they fear a downgrade of our credit rating and a collapse of confidence?" In the Tory manifesto, published weeks later, he said: "We will safeguard Britain's credit rating with a credible plan to eliminate the bulk of the structural deficit over a parliament."

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/feb/23/george-osborne-britain-aaa
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yes but is it a sin to imply something? Have you never sold a car not even in part exchange without trying to have the buyer see the best possible value in it

Fact is he never promised we'd keep the AAA (in the end we didn't do bad) and I don't know any serious political observer who thinks we'd have kept the AAA with Labour's spend spend spend ideas,
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
HIGHWAY
Jan 13 2015, 08:37 PM
papasmurf
Jan 13 2015, 06:55 PM
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 02:08 PM


I wonder if the cost of living scare stories will find much traction with Joe Public who now sees every week cheaper food in the Supermarkets, Petrol nearly £1.00 per litre and energy prices falling. All due to the capitalist market and absolutely nothing to do with interventionist politics.

Yep wages beginning to grow faster than prices too. So who is Milliband going to scare other than those who are genetically always such?





RJD it will take a large amount of extra money coming in each week to even start to scratch the surface of the massive drop in living standards, a handful of peanuts does not make any difference.
What drop in living standards?
The majority of people gave never had it so good in this country
Lower inflation does not equal higher living standards, ONLY rising disposable incomes does that, NOT reducing income tax, which just increases the deficit & debt from more government debt that our children\grand children will end up paying.

In the first eighteen months of this government, 30 % inflation was the norm, yet the Bank of England failed to raise interest rates to counter that, regardless of economic activity, which subsequently rolled along with increasing debt inflating the housing market, a typical 'TORY' economic strategy to help it's 'own kind' only.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nonsense
Jan 21 2015, 01:00 AM
Lower inflation does not equal higher living standards, ONLY rising disposable incomes does that, NOT reducing income tax, which just increases the deficit & debt from more government debt that our children\grand children will end up paying.

In the first eighteen months of this government, 30 % inflation was the norm, yet the Bank of England failed to raise interest rates to counter that, regardless of economic activity, which subsequently rolled along with increasing debt inflating the housing market, a typical 'TORY' economic strategy to help it's 'own kind' only.
I would say your first point is a no brainer, the argument that inflation improves living standards requires that earnings, and crucially benefits, rise alongside, or preferably ahead of, the inflation tsunami. Inflation was a key driver in the mortgage endowment business and look where that got us.

Having lived and worked through the 70's and 80's with 17% mortgage rates which only the police, judges and those building the battlefield tactical nukes and chemical and biological weapons to stop the poles got pay rises to keep pace with (and guess which of those three groups I was in ?) I cans say categorically that in an inflation scenario the wages - of "the workers" anyway - NEVER keep pace.

But 30% inflation from May 2010 to Nov 2011 ?

In Zimbabwe, maybe

In the UK ? You jest, surely you jest. Or maybe that is a typo. 3% more like

http://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/uk-historical-inflation-rate
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Wage inflation usually accompanies full employment. Currently Economists consider that full employment is ~5% unemployment, they used to think it was ~3%. Currently we are heading for about 6% and it would have already been lower than this if the stats were not massaged upwards by the numbers, from abroad, seeking to work here. Truth is that had we directed those that can work into work and been allowed to control numbers coming from elsewhere then the UK would already been suffering the consequences of full employment.
The claim that the reduction in costs is of no benefit is about as stupid as claiming that a rise in wages would also be of such. Clearly price deflation, if maintained, will moderate claims for a pay increase.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:02 PM
Wage inflation usually accompanies full employment. Currently Economists consider that full employment is ~5% unemployment, they used to think it was ~3%. Currently we are heading for about 6% and it would have already been lower than this if the stats were not massaged upwards by the numbers, from abroad, seeking to work here. Truth is that had we directed those that can work into work and been allowed to control numbers coming from elsewhere then the UK would already been suffering the consequences of full employment.
The claim that the reduction in costs is of no benefit is about as stupid as claiming that a rise in wages would also be of such. Clearly price deflation, if maintained, will moderate claims for a pay increase.
Utter goal post moving drivel.

Full employment used to be considered a point where around 300,000 were unemployed and when this was first bandied about in the fifties it was claimed that a large percentage of that figure was between jobs, of course these has always been a very small core of work evading types. And of course it seems to have escaped your attention that most in business actually like cheap, plentiful and semi disposable labour, and that would especially apply to lovers of the blue team.

We cannot even consider such terms as full employment today with approx 1.9 million out of work, millions more underemployed and total nonsense such as zero hours and statistical fiddling that you lap up like the blue drone you are.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:02 PM
Wage inflation usually accompanies full employment.

And therein is the major reason we do not have full employment.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 21 2015, 01:54 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:02 PM
Wage inflation usually accompanies full employment.

And therein is the major reason we do not have full employment.

Not far off it and the Pundits expect us to achieve such, however, as long as we leave the doors open ensuring a constant supply of people looking for work that appears unlikely.
Truth is that in terms of jobs created and proportion of those that can work in work the UK is relatively speaking not in bad shape. If you want to see wages rise more rapidly than create a shortage of labour.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 03:04 PM

If you want to see wages rise more rapidly than create a shortage of labour.


Only if immigration policy is changed, if there is more investment in higher education, and business itself engages more in providing training for the skills they require, can the UK reverse this population boom and job shortage.
Otherwise, any idea of full-employment is a pipe dream.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 21 2015, 03:29 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 03:04 PM

If you want to see wages rise more rapidly than create a shortage of labour.


Only if immigration policy is changed, if there is more investment in higher education, and business itself engages more in providing training for the skills they require, can the UK reverse this population boom and job shortage.
Otherwise, any idea of full-employment is a pipe dream.

Plenty of investment in higher education. Industry does train but complains that many do not have the basic learning skills. Looks like there will be a lot more jobs in 2015 and no doubt sufficient numbers coming in and getting out early to grab them.

Economists claim that 5% unemployment in the UK is full employment.

Economists claim that we need a constant influx of economic migrants to feed the jobs miracle.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 03:39 PM
Affa
Jan 21 2015, 03:29 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 03:04 PM

If you want to see wages rise more rapidly than create a shortage of labour.


Only if immigration policy is changed, if there is more investment in higher education, and business itself engages more in providing training for the skills they require, can the UK reverse this population boom and job shortage.
Otherwise, any idea of full-employment is a pipe dream.

Plenty of investment in higher education. Industry does train but complains that many do not have the basic learning skills. Looks like there will be a lot more jobs in 2015 and no doubt sufficient numbers coming in and getting out early to grab them.

Economists claim that 5% unemployment in the UK is full employment.

Economists claim that we need a constant influx of economic migrants to feed the jobs miracle.



Quote:
 
The UK population in mid 2008 was 61.4 million. The working population (aged 16-59 for women and 16-64 for men) is just over 38 million. Over 21 million of the population are aged 50 years and over.
(2009 figures) Site is updated but does not have the current working age figures.
http://www.agediscrimination.info/statistics/Pages/CurrentUKpopulation.aspx

Based on those figures full employment is under 1.9 million (more today) ......... the 5% figure is BS, is politically motivated 'spin'.

You cannot use percentage as a guide to what is 'full employment' and declare it factual!






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 21 2015, 03:59 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 03:39 PM
Affa
Jan 21 2015, 03:29 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 03:04 PM

If you want to see wages rise more rapidly than create a shortage of labour.


Only if immigration policy is changed, if there is more investment in higher education, and business itself engages more in providing training for the skills they require, can the UK reverse this population boom and job shortage.
Otherwise, any idea of full-employment is a pipe dream.

Plenty of investment in higher education. Industry does train but complains that many do not have the basic learning skills. Looks like there will be a lot more jobs in 2015 and no doubt sufficient numbers coming in and getting out early to grab them.

Economists claim that 5% unemployment in the UK is full employment.

Economists claim that we need a constant influx of economic migrants to feed the jobs miracle.



Quote:
 
The UK population in mid 2008 was 61.4 million. The working population (aged 16-59 for women and 16-64 for men) is just over 38 million. Over 21 million of the population are aged 50 years and over.
(2009 figures) Site is updated but does not have the current working age figures.
http://www.agediscrimination.info/statistics/Pages/CurrentUKpopulation.aspx

Based on those figures full employment is under 1.9 million (more today) ......... the 5% figure is BS, is politically motivated 'spin'.

You cannot use percentage as a guide to what is 'full employment' and declare it factual!






Are you saying that the Economists definition is not acceptable if a single person is unemployed? If not then a line can be drawn, they draw theirs at ~5%. You are free to draw yours elsewhere. However, there are significantly more jobs in the UK economy than hitherto and the UK is creating proportionally more jobs than any other EU country. If there was zero inward migration then the pace at which the UK would achieve an Economists definition of full employment would be more rapid and at that time there would be more pressure for wage increases.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
ONS today:

Quote:
 
For September to November 2014, 73.0% of people aged from 16 to 64 were in work, up from 72.0% for a year earlier.

The unemployment rate for September to November 2014 was 5.8%, down from 7.1% for a year earlier.


5.8% is not that far from the 5% that Economists claim is full employment.

As for the 73% whilst it can still go higher when was it last so high?

The truth is that in relative EU terms there is a jobs miracle going on in the UK.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 04:05 PM
Are you saying that the Economists definition is not acceptable

I'm saying it is arbitrary ..... and cannot be used as a factual statement or true record.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 21 2015, 01:54 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:02 PM
Wage inflation usually accompanies full employment.

And therein is the major reason we do not have full employment.

^ This.

If there is one thing Capitalist economies simply will never allow it is full employment.

In fact I doubt they'd ever let unemployment fall below 3% for any length of time.

Unemployment is 100% necessary in capitalist economies.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Jan 21 2015, 06:11 PM
Affa
Jan 21 2015, 01:54 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:02 PM
Wage inflation usually accompanies full employment.

And therein is the major reason we do not have full employment.

^ This.

If there is one thing Capitalist economies simply will never allow it is full employment.

In fact I doubt they'd ever let unemployment fall below 3% for any length of time.

Unemployment is 100% necessary in capitalist economies.

All The Best
Travesty of the truth as Economists believe that when employment is >95%, full employment in their terms, then inflationary pressures build. Whilst 100% employment is unlikely and probably undesirable a Capitalist Economy will be a very happy and contented one with around just less that 95% a bit like today. For a long time now the target has been set to run the economy based on inflation not on the rate of employment. By the way look at the total number of jobs in the UK, the proportion of the population willing to work and in work and wonder when it was last this good?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Seeing as how no one in authority knows how many bods are in the country then it is all guesswork unless of course you go by the numbers and UK earnings conjured up by the EU wanting it's percentage of UK earnings including drugs and prostitution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 21 2015, 06:56 PM
Seeing as how no one in authority knows how many bods are in the country then it is all guesswork unless of course you go by the numbers and UK earnings conjured up by the EU wanting it's percentage of UK earnings including drugs and prostitution.
It's a cop out factoring in the black economy by including things like drug dealing and prostitution, as there is naturally no official tax returns or accounts filed by these "sectors" the temptation to goose the GDP figures by our politicians will be just too tempting, it makes a mockery of our economic statistics by even including them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
RJD "wonder when it was last this good?"

The answer is just after the beginning of the recession in 2008 when unemployment was 5.5%, below today s figure, and throughout most of 2004 and 2005 unemployment was actually below 5%
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 03:39 PM
. . .Economists claim that 5% unemployment in the UK is full employment. . .

Well that's bollocks isn't it. If you were served a pint minus 5% would you call it full? No. Does your football club claim full attendance when 5% of the seats are unsold? No. Would you accept 95p in the £ as full payment on an invoice? No

The line you quote is just idle spin, the sort an economist with an agenda might put out when he/she was not in the 5%.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 21 2015, 10:52 PM


The line you quote is just idle spin, the sort an economist with an agenda might put out when he/she was not in the 5%.





The problem is "full employment" is a much changed definition from the days of most people working 40 plus years for the same company. Few people these days are in the category.
With the massive churn in the number of jobs most people will do over what is to be from age 18-21 until age 66, 67 or more, I suspect full employment currently would be around one million unemployed each month.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
To me 1 million should be the maximum figure allowable before MPs get any pay rises. We should aim for under 500,000 with under 50,000 of the able long term unemployed

Unemployment is the big social divider and for so many in employment the big threat they consider every day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 21 2015, 11:04 PM
To me 1 million should be the maximum figure allowable before MPs get any pay rises.
With the number of different employers people now work for in a lifetime I suspect below a million just is not possible. As for long term unemployed that was down to 40000 just before the 2008 crash.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Wholesale gas prices have fallen by 30% in the past year, and this week the gas companies announced a 5% cut in prices to the consumer.......but not for a few weeks yet, but David Cameron thinks this is good.

The cost of living is coming down for some people, but this has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with either the government or government policies, it just so happens that there is a price war going on between the discount retailers and the traditional British supermarket giants.

The gas an oil prices are obviously as a result of the international market situation, nothing to do with either David Cameron or the government, the wholesale price of oil has halved, but petrol prices have not.

The cost of living crisis may be easing for many, but it was, and still is a real problem for many people because as their wages were frozen, energy prices soared, rail fares went up by more than inflation, as did water charges, and many other charges.

Many of Britain s least well off working people have not only had their pay frozen, they have also had working benefits taken off them, so yes there is a real cost of living crisis still for many people.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 21 2015, 11:14 PM
Steve K
Jan 21 2015, 11:04 PM
To me 1 million should be the maximum figure allowable before MPs get any pay rises.
With the number of different employers people now work for in a lifetime I suspect below a million just is not possible. As for long term unemployed that was down to 40000 just before the 2008 crash.
Not so sure. It got down to just under 1% in 2006 but that's still over 200,000

I will keep harping on about unemployment of the able and willing. As a country we accept it too easily without considering the misery it causes and somehow think that benefits solves all that. It does not. We accept way too easily the value and taxation systems that cause unemployment because for most of us we will never be long term unemployed.

It is our duty to do better, far better.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 21 2015, 10:28 PM
RJD "wonder when it was last this good?"

The answer is just after the beginning of the recession in 2008 when unemployment was 5.5%, below today s figure, and throughout most of 2004 and 2005 unemployment was actually below 5%
And when was it we had highs with proportion in work? Was it not in John Major's time in the early 1990s.

As an aside, based on a comment yesterday:
Quote:
 
The UK appears to have overtaken France this year to become the world’s 5th largest economy (but as the 2014 GDP figures are $2,828bn for the UK and $2,827bn for France, the gap is well within the margin of error)
- source cebr
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 21 2015, 11:19 PM
Wholesale gas prices have fallen by 30% in the past year, and this week the gas companies announced a 5% cut in prices to the consumer.......but not for a few weeks yet, but David Cameron thinks this is good.

The cost of living is coming down for some people, but this has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with either the government or government policies, it just so happens that there is a price war going on between the discount retailers and the traditional British supermarket giants.

The gas an oil prices are obviously as a result of the international market situation, nothing to do with either David Cameron or the government, the wholesale price of oil has halved, but petrol prices have not.

The cost of living crisis may be easing for many, but it was, and still is a real problem for many people because as their wages were frozen, energy prices soared, rail fares went up by more than inflation, as did water charges, and many other charges.

Many of Britain s least well off working people have not only had their pay frozen, they have also had working benefits taken off them, so yes there is a real cost of living crisis still for many people.





It may not be anything to do with Gov. that such prices are falling, but that is also true when they were increasing. Anyone who expects energy prices to fall in tandem with raw material cost reductions has absolutely no idea how the industry works, for a start the gas coming out of your hob today was probably bought at a spot price established many months ago. Truth is that if we had followed Milliband's Marxist line and frozen the prices at the time of his foolish pontifications we now would have to pay higher prices for longer and not have to suffer the market pricing cautions due to fears that we might soon have a Labour + SNP Gov. Trouble is that these wannabe Marxist Politicians have the ear of idiots who have no knowledge of how anything works, they are easily revved up by envy and spite and selfish pecuniary short-termism.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 22 2015, 08:58 AM
for a start the gas coming out of your hob today was probably bought at a spot price established many months ago.
So why when wholesale prices go up do we not see this lead-in time for increases?

The moment wholesale prices go up domestic prices go up, and I assume the price for gas sold that day was also bought at a spot price established months before the wholesale increase.

Your argument only works if there is comparable drag in price increases, and there isn't, so it doesn't.


All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 22 2015, 08:58 AM
the gas coming out of your hob today was probably bought at a spot price established many months ago.


In my case in could be over two years, I use bottled gas.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply