MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
First it was Jessops, then Blockbuster, now the armed services, and HMV, closely followed today by Rolls Royce.
All prospective customers for our shops,and tradesmen, and all tax payers, just who is going to fund all these people now out of work.
Discuss.
Well it won't be Dave and his chums with their tax cuts come this April!
you need to check out the stats, benefits are relatively small part of govt spending....you wouldn't know it by all the right wing hysteria though..
The bigger affect will be loss of their wages in the economy and their taxes in HM's coffers.
Of the £695bn total spend, only £5b goes on Job seekers allowance (2011-2012 figures).
[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8512/8361851095_818227afbb.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/8361851095/ ]Benefit spending breakdown 2011-2012[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/brf/ ]brf[/url], on Flickr
The bigger affect will be loss of their wages in the economy and their taxes in HM's coffers.
The large increase in Housing benefit costs,free precriptions,free school meals, job centres, and lots more add to that the lack of customers for shops and trades like i said pushing more buissnesses into insolvency.
2013 should be intresting for al the wrong reasons.
I think the ONS are releasing new labour market stats tomorrow. No doubt the government will announce there are more people in work that ever, and ignore population increases and the amount of part time jobs people are having to do.
Except that behind the high profile high street headlines, official labour market stats are telling a different (if confusing) story....
Unfortunately I cannot see this trend changing.Irrespective of which government is in power.
Our export market has decreased significqantly. If we do not export, it is difficult to see how things will improve.
Opening supermarkets, macdonalds etc. while creating (low paid) jobs,will do little to help the long term UK economy.
We will never compete with overseas sweatshops used by manycompanies. So not sure how any government will change this trend.
Except that behind the high profile high street headlines, official labour market stats are telling a different (if confusing) story....
Let's not bring facts into a headline debate.
small businesses are fubar too, we have had 2 go pop on us since the new year.
Oops sorry mike!!!
Except that behind the high profile high street headlines, official labour market stats are telling a different (if confusing) story....
explain please
I think the ONS are releasing new labour market stats tomorrow. No doubt the government will announce there are more people in work that ever, and ignore population increases and the amount of part time jobs people are having to do.
Did you know that 214,000 people who are being counted as employed but are actually on government training and back-to-work schemes (unpaid)!
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jan/15/employment-figures-how-unpaid-get-counted
I think there should be two lots of figures - those with Full-time jobs and those with Part-time jobs
Ok - there are two surprises in the official statistic (at least to date). The first is the fact that the labour market has fared better than expected during this recession. Indeed in the last recorded quarter the ONS states that full-time employment increased, part-time employment fell and the number of unemployed fell.
Second, this is at odds with the weak output data (GDP). This is a puzzle for economists (go and read Stephanie Flanders on the BBC) and for the "Tories doing this deliberately to help their mates' margins" argument occassionally/frequently heard on here, since it suggests that productivity is going down - ie, employment is rising but output is falling. Edit, and that's not what the bosses want to hear!
Need to include those who want part time too rather than all in part time. How about who has a job vs who doesn't but wants one.
Part of the anomaly is that we classify a fair chunk of the unemployed as being employed - see my previous post!
I'd suggest that thm and the rest of the right will use the stats to tell one story, while the left will use them to tell a different one. While nobody actually does anything useful with them other than push his or her agenda.
The other reason the figures are miss-leading is that if you are part time / self employed and your hours have been cut from 40 a week to 1 hour a week, you still show up as employed rather than as 39/40 unemployed. So you can lose a huge amount of productivity without showing any rise in unemployment.
I'd suggest that thm and the rest of the right will use the stats to tell one story, while the left will use them to tell a different one. While nobody actually does anything useful with them other than push his or her agenda.
There is some political intervention, but also the way we collect stats pre-dates our current economic situation and harks back to a jobs-for-life era with one bread winner per family in full time employment or unemployed.
Odd comment DD - I am merely quoting ONS stats and pointing out the objective challenges that they present in interpretation. There are always challenges in data presentation but footflaps arguments do not hold water with most professional economists - hence the on-going debate and attempts to understand.
IMO, the OP makes a rather naive view on the economics of employment by only stating half the story. What must be considered is the number of jobs lots compared to the number of jobs created as this eventuallt determines if unemployment rises or falls. With regards to Blockbusters and HMV, they failed to evolve with an evolving market so in my opinion its, although sad, hardly surprising.
Perhaps we should start counting those who work and are registered tax payer, those who work and dont register for tax (a lot of them), and those who claim benefits including disability and maternity benefits.
Those on training schemes, and apprenticeships, and those on eduction courses.
add them all up and see wht the figures are then.
Barclays Bankare geting rid of a large number of staff now................ obviously they failed to adapt, or screw the governmnet for some cash like BOS, and northern rock etc etc.
For what I hear you all are asking to much money and should take an 10% pay cut
and be more realistic for your businesses to stay afloat in these unfortunate times
Or keep the same size profit margin but make/buy less
I dont get a f'in penny, times are hard and its not going get better any time soon, no mater what speil the government comes out with
What must be considered is the number of jobs lots compared to the number of jobs created as this eventuallt determines if unemployment rises or falls. With regards to Blockbusters and HMV, they failed to evolve with an evolving market so in my opinion its, although sad, hardly surprising.
Very true, but the answer isn't all good news. For example, the migration of media distribution from physical items in 100s of local shops to online downloads from remote server farms has created many well paid high tech SW jobs developing the tools etc (e.g. Apple employees). However, as online downloads scales much better and is less labour intensive that selling CDs in shops, the net results will be a loss in jobs.
hence the on-going debate and attempts to [s]understand[/s] massage.
Oh I'm only teasing really thm. 😉
tyger - Member
I think there should be two lots of figures - those with Full-time jobs and those with Part-time jobs
But what about those who work part-time but hAve no desire to work full time....
Although these firms were big names and it all sounds gloomy, the actual numbers who have lost their jobs is minuscule in the big picture of the 30m or so of working people in the UK.
Jessops didn't fail because of the recession, they failed because people have discovered that smart phones are a perfectly adequate replacement for a compact camera and that online businesses without a chain of expensive retail outlets can undercut them on all counts. I was surprised that they lasted so long given that electical/electronics chains closed nearly all of their small shops several years ago.
HMV failed because they were expensive compared to online etailers such as Amazon and many punters who demand instant gratification no longer buy material in hard copy.
HMV and Jessops were victims of the rise of the Internet and changing habits. Nothing else.
As for the armed forces, they are a big overhead to the tax payer and many services personnel know that they are only going to be signed up for a finite time. Sorry, I know there is a moral issue here - young men risking their necks in Afghanistan and other dangerous places, then coming home to join the dole queues. The plus side is that they are very highly trained disciplined people, so these top people should not have any difficulty getting hired in civvy street. The cost increased costs in paying benefits for servicemen in the short term will be a fraction of what we spent on them and their military units.
Rolls Royce cuts are pertaining to military hardware cuts. Another huge saving for the tax payer - all of us. Keeping that going purely for the benefit of the business and it's employees would be a prime example of loopy socialism at play.
Yes, public spending is way out of control and our economy is in a mess. The solution is making things for export, but we need to be competitive with the likes of China and India. Very difficult!
If we had strong exports and a burgeoning economy, we could afford to keep a larger military, but we don't, so the rational best thing to do is to cut spending.
It's a tough world, so you have to MTFU and adapt!
Some mates got briefed today that 5300 will be made redundant. In the next breath they were told to standby for a deployment to North Africa!
3 commando and 16 air assault taken off the rotation for afghan.
"Job Losses Increasing" - give us the official figures then!
teamhurtmore - MemberIndeed in the last recorded quarter the ONS states that full-time employment increased, part-time employment fell and the number of unemployed fell.
But then since 2012 was the all-time underemployment peak, following huge rises in 2009, a fall on last quarter isn't very informative by itself.
Spongebob, it might be useful if you lost your job and house etc so you can show us all how to MTFU.
You sound like a Tory.
Spongebob - MemberRolls Royce cuts are pertaining to military hardware cuts. Another huge saving for the tax payer - all of us. Keeping that going purely for the benefit of the business and it's employees would be a prime example of loopy socialism at play.
It needn't be "purely for the benefit of the business and it's employees". It could also be for the benefit of the country. Losing highly skilled jobs in an area in which Britain leads, whilst ignoring the long term consequences, would be a prime example of loopy Tory short-sightedness at play.
Spongebob - MemberIf we had strong exports......
We don't export much these days, other than defence related exports - most of them aviation related. Britain is still the second largest defence exporter in the world after the USA. But you don't think the government should consider throwing any sort of life line to the industry during the lean times. I detect a lack of joined up thinking.
spongebob-- are you trolling-- as your 'views/opinions seem to imply,if not then you are very drunk-
army/forces people have great problems adapting to civvy street, not least psychological issues after being trained to kill/and rewarded for it-- not many jobs in that line of work...
The plus side is that they are very highly trained disciplined people, so these top people should not have any difficulty getting hired in civvy street.
This is quite true, although it's certainly not good for all of those competing against them for jobs.
The cost increased costs in paying benefits for [s]servicemen[/s] nurses, teachers, policemen, firemen etc etc in the short term will be a fraction of what we spent on them
Doesn't sound quite so good now, does it?
What the govt are doing with the forces is not only going to decimate the effectiveness of the forces, putting part time soldiers in huge numbers into harms way is negligent IMHO. Exactly how good are they going to be with 2 hours training on tuesday nights and a weekend away per month? (that's a rhetorical question, I know exactly how good they are)
Even the TA SAS are no match for a regular front line unit.
We have vacancies. Mechanical engineer company. Internal sales, project engineers. Production manager, welder fabricators. Email in profile.
ernie_lynch - Member
We don't export much these days, other than defence related exports - most of them aviation related.
Care to put some figures on that claim?
Can't quite reconcile "we don't export much" with the all time record high in exports last July / August. Aside from the obvious things like cars, a lot of our exports come from the like of Arm and Csr who export hundreds of millions a year in IP that is used to build billions of computer chips.
CJ easy enough to find ONS' latest (monthly) trade date. Page 70/77 gives breakdown on UK exports by sector. Not surprisingly we export quite a lot of varied goods and services.
Latest job data out this morning. Trends pretty much as before.
ernie_lynch - MemberWe don't export much these days, other than defence related exports - most of them aviation related.
Hands up anyone who thinks this is correct.
army/forces people have great problems adapting to civvy street, not least psychological issues after being trained to kill/and rewarded for it-- not many jobs in that line of work...
im sure they could get a job in a bank or supermarket, dealing with all those anoying people with bags of copper to be changed, or the ones who dont put down the divider after their shopping.
Flybe just announced 300 jobs going.
Hands up anyone who thinks this is correct.
Just contradict my comment Northwind, if that's what you want to do. It's probably the easiest solution.
Obviously I could have been more specific with my comment and mentioned how Britain was once referred to as the "workshop of the world" due to the global role it had as a manufacturing nation, and how this accolade had long ceased to be appropriate. Before I went on to emphasise that Britain still exported huge quantities of defence related exports, most of them in aviation, and that it makes no sense for Britain to risk the permanent loss of highly skilled jobs in this area due to short term considerations and a temporary lean period. "We don't export much these days" was in reference to manufacturing and relative to Britain's past performance. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. Please accept my apologies.
uk plc also used to export huge numbers of trains ,cars and lorries, sadly most sold of to foreign competitors and now made abroad.
All we seem to export now is violent drunk holiday makers.
Hands up anyone who thinks this is correct.
Not me, I think UK arms exports play a pretty minor role in overall exports
hmv and jessops failed because they werent using tax dodges like amazon/play (and camerons dad did to ensure our PM would have a cushy life)
as a current member of joblesstrackworld I can confirm that the jobs out there are few and far between and pretty sure I will have to take a 10-20% pay cut to get back into work
afaik im not listed as unemployed as Im not in need of any benefits at the moment, I wonder how many other jobless are under the radar, whether by choice or thanks to dwp forcing/fudging people off their books
Pilkingtons makeing a load redundant, closure of two factories, in next few months.
ernie_lynch - MemberJust contradict my comment Northwind, if that's what you want to do. It's probably the easiest solution.
OK then:
"We don't export much other than defence related exports - most of them aviation related."
UK defence exports were worth £5.6bn in 2011. Total UK exports in October 2011 alone were £34.6bn (an [i]all-time[/i] high, incidentally)
So it's not remotely true that we don't export much other than defence-related products. Just to throw a couple of examples, the petrochemical industry and nuclear industries are each 6 times greater, and the car industry 4 times greater.
But I'm sure you've got figures to support your argument and I eagerly await them.
The stats are readily available from the ONS as I said N'wind - cant be bothered to look up again but from memory the largest single sector accounts for @13% of total Xs, so the idea that one area dominates our Xs doesn't seem to be supported by official statistics.
Yup. But I thought Ernie might appreciate a bit more specific detail of why he's completely wrong.
But I'm sure you've got figures to contradict this?
No I haven't. So well done. I also recently said "I'm starving" although clearly I wasn't - I was just hungry. Yes my comment was an exaggeration, to emphasize a point, ie, that compared to past history when Britain led the world in exporting manufactured goods it is now way down the league. However an area that it still leads is in defence/aviation. Yes the car industry might export 4 times more, but Britain isn't number 2 in the world when it comes to car exports, it is number 2 when it comes to defence exports.
So having established you are right Northwind, would you now like to address the point I was making - that it makes no sense to permanently lose highly skilled jobs in an industrial sector in which Britain still leads the world, merely for narrow short term gain ?
Or is proving that I'm [i]"completely wrong"[/i] the only thing which really interests you ?
ernie_lynch - MemberOr is proving that I'm "completely wrong" the only thing which really interests you ?
When people talk pish in an authoritative manner, I do think it's useful to shoot it down, yes. Otherwise people might go away actually thinking that we don't manufacture much, and that what we do is mostly defence. That's not exaggeration, that's just gibberish.
If you want to make a point, try making it rather than drowning it in fiction.
We shouldn't give away any succesful industry, but we also shouldn't get excited about a relatively small industry just because we're succesful at it, because being number 2 at defence is far less valuable than being number 12 at cars.
Oh, while I'm at it:
project - Memberuk plc also used to export huge numbers of trains ,cars and lorries, sadly most sold of to foreign competitors and now made abroad.
Automotive exports also at an all-time high in 2012.
afaik im not listed as unemployed as Im not in need of any benefits at the moment, I wonder how many other jobless are under the radar, whether by choice or thanks to dwp forcing/fudging people off their books
you are entitled to jsa non means tested for the first six months , regardless, provided you have been paying your stamp,it also puts you on the 'figures'--
Well I guess the bit about being way down the league is also "exaggerated for effect" then!! But I would agree that it does not make sense to lose jobs in sectors where we are globally competitive, But if the market isn't there (and given the mess made in MoD budgets over sustained periods, it's hardly surprising that the domestic market is shrinking) then jobs will be lost. Maybe Beatrice and the other one can help their Dad drum up a few more orders overseas 😉
as for manufactoring--whilst still producing large quantities of stuff, its share of the 'economy' has shrunk, thats dominated by the so called 'service sector' --yes all those IT jobs-- etc-- that will be transfered to a developing economy as is practicable-- life is fun !
mt - Member
We have vacancies. Mechanical engineer company. Internal sales, project engineers. Production manager, welder fabricators. Email in profile.
Same here in the next 3 to 4 months, we'll be looking for a Southern/Central sales rep type with an Engineering components/Fluid Power sales background
When people talk pish in an authoritative manner, I do think it's useful to shoot it down
In an authoritative manner ? ? I'm a carpenter/building worker ffs I don't claim to be an authority on anything ! ...... other than perhaps swinging a hammer 🙂
Something which you would be aware of if you read my posts more diligently.
So anyway ....... thank you for pointing out my over-exaggeration, now getting back to my point, does [i]"We shouldn't give away any succesful industry"[/i] mean you agree with me that saving highly skilled jobs in an area in which Britain leads the world, and not ignoring the long term consequences, can be good for the country, not just "the business and its employees" as previously claimed ? Or do you agree with the poster that's it's just an example of "loopy socialism at play" ?
Is there an 'ignore' button on STW?
Enjoy reading all the subjects. Hate reading a certain posters comments. It's a serious question
^ not you btw
Currently earning 40% less than the last 5 years after my last company I worked for went pop so no big redundancy either.
Over 45 and have found it amazingly difficult to get a new role even though there are jobs out there - I am a retail Manager with a good CV and 25 years of delivering great results but there is a lot more competition at the moment from younger more "Qualified" (degree of something irrelivant)
I'm surviving by topping up my income with savings and selling stuff , hopefully a better role will be mine soon but even so I dont see me earning my previous salary for a few years.
Its REALLY tough out there at the moment and even though I have had to suck it up I'm glad I at least am employed
ernie_lynch - Memberthank you for pointing out my over-exaggeration
Is this the new Edinburgh Defence? Well, I was only exaggerating when I said black is white 😉 But you are welcome.
now getting back to my point, does "We shouldn't give away any succesful industry" mean you agree with me that saving highly skilled jobs in an area in which Britain leads the world, and not ignoring the long term consequences, can be good for the country, not just "the business and its employees" as previously claimed ?
Of course. Should be clear from my post I thought, but I've only got an issue with the inaccuracy of the export claims.
Lots of people who are married or living with a partner are being forced off the unemployed list.
If you are one of these, after 6 months you are forced off the unemployment payments and the person you live with, however low paid, is supposed to keep you on their own income. This did not used to be the case as you were assessed as a person, not as an appendage.
This newer rule however, does not stop you being sent on 'work experience' where you are forced to work for companies for nothing. I know several people of 40 years plus with loads of work experience (such as admin) who are ashamed and embarrassed to be 'kept' or who now feel in a vulnerable position to their partners whims, or as if they are dragging their partner down.
In addition to that, pressure from the job centre to take non paying placements is very high. So people stop signing on as they feel looked down on, powerless and also pursued by the job centre - so they give up on the job centre and go on searching for work on their own, as at least it takes one pressure off them.
Often the job centre 'help' is futile. Despite age discrimination being stopped, in the last few months a female friend over 50 was told
[i]by the job centre staff[/i] that she was unemployable because of her age. So then she felt even more humiliated as the people who were supposed to be helping her into work had told her she was too old to be worth bothering with.
Midnighthour - MemberOften the job centre 'help' is futile. Despite age discrimination being stopped, in the last few months a female friend over 50 was told
by the job centre staff that she was unemployable because of her age.
I didn't get that, but I was constantly pushed towards jobs that I was incredibly overqualified for- like, 10 years experience in banking and a degree, you sound ideal for a minumum wage call-centre job that requires no formal qualifications at all. So if that's where they push me, where do they push the folks who would normally be applying for that?
The "back to work sessions" were remarkable- take 20 people who've been out of work for 6 weeks, stick them in a room, share the misery. Tell them how hard it is to get a job and how 40 people apply for every vacancy. Tell them once you've been unemployed for 3 months it's far harder to find work. Get them to share their inspirational stories of why they don't have a job. Throw kids with no qualifications in with older folks who believe they're past it, and a scattering of highly qualified 30-somethings who expect to get a job as soon as they look seriously just to really mess people up. Oh and make it mandatory. Absolutely terrible.
I'm working my three month notice at the moment and it is rather disconcerting to hear some of these stories. I'm 50 years old now and I've been looking for work seriously for the last six weeks. I live in Essex and Jobs specs for which I believed I would be offered an interview for have returned 'no thank you' emails, so either there are lots of 'really' good people looking for work, my age is being held against me or there really is no work. I'm particularly not looking forward to the job centre experience, but I will be claiming despite a good redundancy package as I want my tick to go in the ONS box.
Northwind - MemberI've only got an issue with the inaccuracy of the export claims.
I don't think that's true, otherwise you would have simply contradicted me. Instead you chose to make a meal of it and post "hands up anyone who thinks this is correct". Which coupled with the bizarre claim that I talk in an "authoritative manner", suggests that you have more of an issue with me than the inaccuracy of my comment.
Ernie... CaptJon, Piemonster, Robdixon and THM also picked you up on that, yet you decided to take offence at me pointing it out, but not them. So I'm not sure why you think I have a problem with [i]you[/i].
As for "making a meal of it"- you asked me to contradict your comment, so I did. And you weren't happy with just being told it was wrong, so I provided evidence to prove it. Sorry about that.
you weren't happy with just being told it was wrong
I was perfectly happy with being told it was wrong. I grossly overstated and exaggerated the point I was attempting to make. I haven't disputed that and the facts are easy enough to check.
I don't provide some sort of free education service for STW you know. My comments should be taken as my personal opinion - not fact. If I want to emphasize the accuracy of a comment then I generally provide a link to back it up. Otherwise assume that it might be, and quite possibly is, complete bollox.
🙂
Nobody has explained how all these job loses are going to be soaked up, and how we are going to pay for peoples rent, mortgage intrest repaymnets and all the other benefits, those in work complain so much about ,until they have no job, and realise how low these benefits are.
But according to the Office of National Statistics, the last update (yesterday) stated that unemployment fell by 37,000 to around 2.5m!?
That's 37,000 reduction in unemployment!
That's 37,000 reduction in unemployment!
I think you'll find that that's just statistics. 🙁
So far in the past 12 months, via thrice redundancy, I have seen my salary travel from 12k to 19k to 0k P/A.
For two spells of that, I signed on. Declared myself unemployed. Subscribed to JSA.
I learned that the Job Centre is a vacuum void of hope & help and the only person dependable enough to secure employment is me, myself & I.
It's very paining in the arsing.
Haha Jobcentre, last year when I was out of work I used to look forward to my meetings to explain what I have been doing to find work , they give you a little booklet to fill out with jobs you have applied for with updates , so I used to take my file in with all the print outs of jobs I had applied for contact names etc etc- they looked at me gone out
I enjoyed a good argument with one women who looked down her nose at me so I proceeded to challenge everything she was saying just because she was an arse.
You could tell that the deadheads just used to put any old bullshoot down
Most .depressing .place .ever.
I learned that the Job Centre is a vacuum void of hope & help and the only person dependable enough to secure employment is me, myself & I.
THE job ente are the custodian to the keys to benefits their job is to make sure you comply with the rules not help you find work
This role has been transferred out to other agencies
Blame the ministers not the staff - they dont decide what their role