It appears that 38,000 new jobs have swallowed up the 27,000 lost through public sector redundancies.

I would have thought they’d all be enjoying their gold-plated, inflated tax-payer funded pensions…

Proof?

Well those shelves at Tesco’s were never going to stack themselves, were they? 🙄

No !, you stay there.
I’ll do it.
Allow me.

Someone put the kettle on.
Coffee, black, Ta.

Woppit, you old softie, you started this thread just for TJ.

That’s so sweet and thoughtful 🙂

Perhaps TJ will miss this for chowing down on his birthday muffin.

that will be why unemployment is still rising then

Unemployment is rising because of TJ’s muffin?! 😯

Woppit, you missed a crucial zero out: its 270,000 public sector jobs gone. Not quite so good news now…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/mar/14/osborne-austerity-270000-public-sector-jobs

part time versus full time
more people in labour market
young people figures scary
unemployment actually up

woppit was it for a joke or did you really think it was 27000?

Churlish to suggest that data was not good news (and better than expected/feared) but complacent to think that it marks anything other than a stabilisation of a sorry state for overall employment.

Not much to do with politicians in either case!

Actually I cannot get involved in these threads as its not been as apocalyptic as I predicted

🙂

Fair play, TJ, that’s quite some admission. You’re mellowing with age 🙂

The public sector apocalypse is just beginning. The NHS hasn’t seen a fraction of the impending job losses yet.

Data actually showed NHS employment rising. Public sector job lossess mainly in local government.

6% of the proposed cuts so far I read. (No proof so this may be completely incorrect)

EDIT – just remembered it was on Festina Girl’s twitter feed.

Actually I cannot get involved in these threads as its not been as apocalyptic as I predicted

You were wrong? 😯 You’re admitting it? 😯 😯 😯

What a rubbish birthday you must be having – I do hope it gets better soon 😉

teamhurtmore – Member

Data actually showed NHS employment rising. Public sector job lossess mainly in local government.

is that GPs taking on accountants to sort out their new funding role ? 😉

Ha! Didnt look that closely kimbers but judging from my mother’s dreadful experience in an eye hospital yesterday I doubt it is in front line service. Good subtle joke though 😉

What’s particularly good is the way that unemployment is disproportionstely impacting on black people and women, and that we are at a 17 year high for unemployment (hmm who was in charge 17 years ago?). High unemployment suits the Tories, it means they can drive down pay and workers rights more easily.

Yep, 17 year high for unemployment, 25 high for female unemployment. Great news!

kimbers – Member
woppit was it for a joke

No, it was for TJ…

High unemployment suits the Tories, it means they can drive down pay and workers rights more easily.

Grum, if you don’t put a smiley against that sort of comment, people will take you seriously. 😉

Why is female unemployment worse than human unemployment?

I seem to remember someone saying ‘we were all in this together’. However, it now appears that you’ll shoulder a larger burden if you’re daft enough to be

a) Female
b) Black
c) Young
d) Poor
e) Disabled

However, if you’re white, male, older and ****ing minted, then you’re laughing! Hurray for Call-me-Daves re-branded, not-nasty-any-more Tory Party!

Yep, obviously any politician worth his salt is going to deliberately target all of those categories binners. Third page in the Tory party manifesto along with lets screw all workers’ wages.

What is the opposite of the Daily Wail for LW nonsense?

Guessing that was a typo.

Yep, obviously any politician worth his salt is going to deliberately target all of those categories binners. Third page in the Tory party manifesto along with lets screw all workers’ wages.

What is the opposite of the Daily Wail for LW nonsense?

The Grauniad is getting like a lefty Daily Mail these days.

However, it’s a fact that all these groups are being disproportionately Impacted on. Why do you think that is? Are you comfortable with it?

They don’t target them, as such. They just accept that as a result of vehemently defending the interests of their friends, those are the people who will suffer. And they couldn’t care less

Exactly binners

Of course no-one is comfortable – read my first post about complacency – but to make sweeping comments suggesting that the Government is directly targeting those chosen segments to suffer is simply BS.

On the same logic go the ONS data published yesterday and draw other spurious correlations eg, the Tories are deliberately discriminating in favour of Bangladeshi and Pakistani born and US born citizens and against those born in SA. The data may suggest this, but it is similarly BS.

Politicians win popularity when things are going well. I am sure that CMD’s mates would be making more money and be happier if the econ was flying and the labour market was tighter. That is unless they can control their margins.

And they couldn’t care less

Blimey and I thought I had a low opinion of politicians. Hyperbole perhaps?

You guys are a bit mental. You honestly think people on the right think as they do out of some self interested class hatred.

You guys are a bit mental. You honestly think people on the right think as they do out of some self interested class hatred.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/wealthy-people-more-unethical-study/story-e6frg6so-1226283551936

The millionaires in the cabinet are the ultimate example.

teamhurtmore, straw man argument there – we’ve already established that we’re not arguing they’ve deliberately targeted them. Those are just the people they care least about. You don’t seem too bothered about the unfair impact on them either tbh. Pretty facetious to argue ‘it’s all just statistics’ or whatever.

i dont think the torries hate poor, young, black people, i just dont think they care about them very much

Not “class” exactly…

Yes, recent research shows that rich, right-wing people are more likely to be selfish and stupid. Hooray for the Cabinet!

There were a couple of industry types on channel 4 news yesterday claiming that the best thing to do to increase the number of employed people was to make it easier to sack people.

They claimed that companies would be willing to employ more people if they thought they could easily get rid of them again if things didn’t work out quite how they hoped.

Amazingly they managed to keep a straight face throughout the interview.

There were a couple of industry types on channel 4 news yesterday claiming that the best thing to do to increase the number of employed people was to make it easier to sack people.

They claimed that companies would be willing to employ more people if they thought they could easily get rid of them again if things didn’t work out quite how they hoped.

Amazingly they managed to keep a straight face throughout the interview.

Thats just a flexible versus managed employment market argument, you need to calm down. Have a look at Italy or France, even in the boom years before the recession unemployment was stuck at around 10% or more, has been that way for a long time. Companies wont invest and cant hire unless they are certain the new venture is going to succeed and they rarely are. There isn’t anything very controversial about that.

It’s really quite surprising that anyone is getting frothed up about 31,000 roles lost in the NHS on four counts:

1.It’s less than 2% of the workforce – hardly a massive cut compared to the 10-20% in year cuts that many organisations (public and private) have suffered in the last 4 years.

2. The cuts represent less than 6% of the NHS jobs added between 2002 and 2009.

3. As has already been pointed out, the NHS workforce continues to grow in some areas. The cycle of roles being removed can be found in each of the last 12 years – last year the losses were mainly in management, less managers being precisely the thing that clinicians say is required.

4. Against a backdrop of 8 consecutive years of 2-3% annual productivity declines in the NHS when the number of posts was rapidly increased it should be possible to take out many more roles just to restore the balance with where the NHS should be on productivity measures (see McKinsey report published in 2009 that details the potential improvements in great detail:

McKinsey’s 2009 report