Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Boris is already driving the economy forward?

Lowest unemployment rates in 44 years
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50820280

Nice one boris keep up the good work.

Astounds me that no one ever questions the data. Do we not have proper journalists anymore?

They have manipulated the criteria which classifies someone as" unemployed " so much, that it is surprising that there is anyone still regarded as unemployed at all

spen666 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:30 am Boris is already driving the economy forward?

Lowest unemployment rates in 44 years
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50820280

Economic growth in 2019 was negligible and is forecast to be the same in 2020. God only knows what happens if we leave the EU in Dec 2020

As silly as it sounds, this article doesn’t provide a definition of what “employed” or “unemployed” actually is.

It’s an important distinction. “Employed” in 1975 might not necessarily be the same thing as “employed” in 2019. Therefore you might not be comparing apples with apples.

For example, somebody on a zero hours contract with no employee benefits (indeed, no guarantee of actually receiving paid work on a day to day basis) may well be considered “employed”.

Furthermore, I’d argue that the proportion of unemployed people lowering isn’t in and of itself necessarily a positive thing. It is equally important to consider aspects such as workers rights and employee benefits (paid holiday, sick leave, maternity leave, bonus scheme etc.) which are a bit more difficult to assess quantitively.

In layman’s terms, more people being “employed” isn’t automatically a good thing if they are “employed” under sh*tty conditions, no employee safety or benefits and minimal job security. We can’t really assess any of those in the data presented in the article.

Guess the main thing is they're not able to claim dole so aren't a burden on the state.

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:44 pm Guess the main thing is they're not able to claim dole so aren't a burden on the state.

You would think that was the case but because greedy employers pay such poor wages there are almost 4 million people in work who rely on state benefits to put a roof over their head and food on the table.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:15 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:44 pm Guess the main thing is they're not able to claim dole so aren't a burden on the state.

You would think that was the case but because greedy employers pay such poor wages there are almost 4 million people in work who rely on state benefits to put a roof over their head and food on the table.

Correct redo.

Successive governments have allowed it to happen. When Blair was in power Instead of telling companies that a min wage was due they introduced tax credits shifting the responsibility from the employer to the government. When the min wage came in it was at such a low amount as to be a support to the tax credit.

Let's not forget who took away the 10p starting rate of tax whilst we are at it.

I believe that tax credits should be abolished and the company needs to pay a fair wage for a fair job. Government should hold the business to account in that respect.

Thor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:15 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:15 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:44 pm Guess the main thing is they're not able to claim dole so aren't a burden on the state.

You would think that was the case but because greedy employers pay such poor wages there are almost 4 million people in work who rely on state benefits to put a roof over their head and food on the table.

Correct redo.

Successive governments have allowed it to happen. When Blair was in power Instead of telling companies that a min wage was due they introduced tax credits shifting the responsibility from the employer to the government. When the min wage came in it was at such a low amount as to be a support to the tax credit.

Let's not forget who took away the 10p starting rate of tax whilst we are at it.

I believe that tax credits should be abolished and the company needs to pay a fair wage for a fair job. Government should hold the business to account in that respect.

Don't forget tax credits were an attempt to reform the benefits system. Before tax credits the low paid were topped up with family income supplement.

Next thing you will be calling for everyone to be paid the same. You can't go bullying employers like that. It's pure communism.

Wage growth and manufacturing productivity down

Wage growth might be down 0.1% but it’s still out strips inflation.

Unemployment always goes down this time of the year, as firms recruit their Christmas staff. Just watch the figures rise around
the middle of January.

Thor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:15 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:15 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:44 pm Guess the main thing is they're not able to claim dole so aren't a burden on the state.

You would think that was the case but because greedy employers pay such poor wages there are almost 4 million people in work who rely on state benefits to put a roof over their head and food on the table.

Correct redo.

Successive governments have allowed it to happen. When Blair was in power Instead of telling companies that a min wage was due they introduced tax credits shifting the responsibility from the employer to the government. When the min wage came in it was at such a low amount as to be a support to the tax credit.

Let's not forget who took away the 10p starting rate of tax whilst we are at it.

I believe that tax credits should be abolished and the company needs to pay a fair wage for a fair job. Government should hold the business to account in that respect.

But if we do that, make these corporations pay their way, won’t they just up and leave?

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:16 pm

Thor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:15 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:15 pm

You would think that was the case but because greedy employers pay such poor wages there are almost 4 million people in work who rely on state benefits to put a roof over their head and food on the table.

Correct redo.

Successive governments have allowed it to happen. When Blair was in power Instead of telling companies that a min wage was due they introduced tax credits shifting the responsibility from the employer to the government. When the min wage came in it was at such a low amount as to be a support to the tax credit.

Let's not forget who took away the 10p starting rate of tax whilst we are at it.

I believe that tax credits should be abolished and the company needs to pay a fair wage for a fair job. Government should hold the business to account in that respect.

But if we do that, make these corporations pay their way, won’t they just up and leave?

Yes, to Scotland once the indyref2 is completed.

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:16 pm

Thor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:15 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:15 pm

You would think that was the case but because greedy employers pay such poor wages there are almost 4 million people in work who rely on state benefits to put a roof over their head and food on the table.

Correct redo.

Successive governments have allowed it to happen. When Blair was in power Instead of telling companies that a min wage was due they introduced tax credits shifting the responsibility from the employer to the government. When the min wage came in it was at such a low amount as to be a support to the tax credit.

Let's not forget who took away the 10p starting rate of tax whilst we are at it.

I believe that tax credits should be abolished and the company needs to pay a fair wage for a fair job. Government should hold the business to account in that respect.

But if we do that, make these corporations pay their way, won’t they just up and leave?

I personally don’t think so. They said that would happen when the minimum wage was brought in and again when it was raised. Didn’t see too many leaving then, likewise now. If the government says £26k is the minimum pay for example then that’s what each person should be paid as a minimum, now that may impact on further hiring in the short term, but as business re-adjusts so will the market it operates in.

To counter the increased costs associated to the businesses the government needs to enhance the infrastructure and markets so that the companies can thrive. With increased wages come increased tax take against people, maybe a slight offset against other business costs may help to normalise the increases incurred.

Employment

Universal Credit is available to people who are in work and on a low income, as well as to those who are out of work. Most claimants on low incomes will still be paid Universal Credit when they start a new job or increase their hours.

Figure 2 shows the number of people on Universal Credit that are in employment. Of the 2.3 million people on Universal Credit as of 11 July 2019, 760,000 (33%) were in employment, compared to 38% (380,000 out of 1.0 million) on 12 July 2018.

It is important to note that employment for July 2019 has been estimated using real time earnings information. Previous months use assessment period earnings data, which is not currently available for July 2019.

The revised employment percentage for July 2019 will be available in the next publication of People on Universal Credit on 10 September 2019.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -july-2019

I'm New here & thought i would pop this on as my 1st post .
Im involved with UC for work , indirectly admittedly,
But it clearly states on dotgov's own web page .

2.3 million were claiming UC

Figures from last year have increased dramatically as the full UC roll out is now completed.

This might give a slightly more balanced view, rather than one that says, we are not supporting those out of work.
It says we are supporting those in work as well.

This is a new phenomenon.

The gig economy has made this metric unreliable, a much more useful metric now is underemployment

But how do you measure that reliably?

I get a sense that the modern welfare system is now designed to assist any UK government in transitioning the state to a permanent low wage economy.

Thor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:42 am Nice one boris keep up the good work.

Presumably you are employed as his cheerleader?

Thor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:03 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:16 pm

Thor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:15 pm

Correct redo.

Successive governments have allowed it to happen. When Blair was in power Instead of telling companies that a min wage was due they introduced tax credits shifting the responsibility from the employer to the government. When the min wage came in it was at such a low amount as to be a support to the tax credit.

Let's not forget who took away the 10p starting rate of tax whilst we are at it.

I believe that tax credits should be abolished and the company needs to pay a fair wage for a fair job. Government should hold the business to account in that respect.

But if we do that, make these corporations pay their way, won’t they just up and leave?

I personally don’t think so. They said that would happen when the minimum wage was brought in and again when it was raised. Didn’t see too many leaving then, likewise now. If the government says £26k is the minimum pay for example then that’s what each person should be paid as a minimum, now that may impact on further hiring in the short term, but as business re-adjusts so will the market it operates in.

To counter the increased costs associated to the businesses the government needs to enhance the infrastructure and markets so that the companies can thrive. With increased wages come increased tax take against people, maybe a slight offset against other business costs may help to normalise the increases incurred.

Strange, thought you were one of those spouting that guff about capital fleeing the UK if corporations had to pay their way properly.

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:14 am

Thor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:42 am Nice one boris keep up the good work.

Presumably you are employed as his cheerleader?

No, Thor said he was voting Green.

Huxley wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:43 pm As silly as it sounds, this article doesn’t provide a definition of what “employed” or “unemployed” actually is.

It’s an important distinction. “Employed” in 1975 might not necessarily be the same thing as “employed” in 2019. Therefore you might not be comparing apples with apples.

For example, somebody on a zero hours contract with no employee benefits (indeed, no guarantee of actually receiving paid work on a day to day basis) may well be considered “employed”.

Furthermore, I’d argue that the proportion of unemployed people lowering isn’t in and of itself necessarily a positive thing. It is equally important to consider aspects such as workers rights and employee benefits (paid holiday, sick leave, maternity leave, bonus scheme etc.) which are a bit more difficult to assess quantitively.

In layman’s terms, more people being “employed” isn’t automatically a good thing if they are “employed” under sh*tty conditions, no employee safety or benefits and minimal job security. We can’t really assess any of those in the data presented in the article.

I have no idea what holiday pay and sick leave are. I will be unemployed over 2 weeks over Christmas, without receiving any benefit.

As for job security, I have none.

This is self employment in a nutshell.

But absolute freedom to work as and when you want. Stop bleating.

RedO wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 10:21 am But absolute freedom to work as and when you want. Stop bleating.

I am definitely not bleating. I would not work for myself if it was a problem.

The point I am making is that self employed who re struggling get no real help.