Re: Osborne's policy starting to bear fruit? : Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:45 am  

I wonder how much of that increase is down to seasonal work, e.g. agriculture and tourism?

Re: Osborne's policy starting to bear fruit? : Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:49 am  

east stander wrote:

Every sector can’t have gone down as the workforce has increased

Thats a stat that couldn't be answered by a so-called "expert" on the radio last night, was is clear is that a lot of job creation in the private sector (there is virtually nil in the public sector) is of short term contracts, temporary contracts or agency work, the company I work for has all of the large staff agencies in the country as customers and we have never been busier than we are now.

It may be a sign of the times and it doesn't always help the individual or the country as a whole when temporary contracts are the permanent state of affairs in large businesses, it certainly won't help the financial services sector.

Re: Osborne's policy starting to bear fruit? : Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:50 am  

Andy Gilder wrote:

I wonder how much of that increase is down to seasonal work, e.g. agriculture and tourism?

102,000 of the net increase represents permament, full-time jobs.

Re: Osborne's policy starting to bear fruit? : Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:53 am  

Is it bearing fruit ? No.

Re: Osborne's policy starting to bear fruit? : Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:17 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Thats a stat that couldn't be answered by a so-called "expert" on the radio last night, was is clear is that a lot of job creation in the private sector (there is virtually nil in the public sector) is of short term contracts, temporary contracts or agency work, the company I work for has all of the large staff agencies in the country as customers and we have never been busier than we are now.

It may be a sign of the times and it doesn't always help the individual or the country as a whole when temporary contracts are the permanent state of affairs in large businesses, it certainly won't help the financial services sector.

I was talking with some people last week for a piece, and there is apparently a vast increase in zero-hours contracts, short-term contracts (as you mention) and assorted other insecure forms of employment.

This was particularly in the context of young workers – and it was pointed out that such things make it pretty much impossible for people to be able to get housing, for instance.

It's not remotely long-term thinking.

Talking of which, did we mention, earlier this week, that the government's latest plans for boosting the economy, including a bank for small businesses, effectively admits that QE has simply given more money to the banks for no return?

[DaveO]

Re: Osborne's policy starting to bear fruit? : Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:49 pm  

I am sure I heard on the BBC that one of the reasons for the unemployment statistics falling was due to a huge number of part time and short term positions created by the Olympics.

Whatever, there is huge anomaly in that the economy is in recession when the unemployment figures are going down. The only explanation I can think of is the new jobs are mostly low paid and not very productive. Otherwise we would see the economy befitting from increased spending power of the larger working population and output increasing.

It is as if we have more people doing work that is far less productive than in the past so not earning enough to boost the retail side of the economy either.

If that is the result of "plan A" we still need a "plan B".

Re: Osborne's policy starting to bear fruit? : Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:55 pm  

I can't help but wonder if the increase in employed people is in anyway related to the reported increases in part time workers. I know of two local firms that have taken a lot of their employees off full time contracts and put them onto part time ones, making up the hours by employing others.
I don't see where the benefits of this are (Hopefully someone else may know), but I can see what it does to the figures.

Lies, damn lies, etc.

Re: Osborne's policy starting to bear fruit? : Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:50 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I am sure I heard on the BBC that one of the reasons for the unemployment statistics falling was due to a huge number of part time and short term positions created by the Olympics.

Except hasn't employment been rising continuously for months now? Seem to remember the BBC saying that ...

Re: Osborne's policy starting to bear fruit? : Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:35 pm  

Scooter Nik wrote:

I can't help but wonder if the increase in employed people is in anyway related to the reported increases in part time workers. I know of two local firms that have taken a lot of their employees off full time contracts and put them onto part time ones, making up the hours by employing others.

Put it down to the idiotic Labour government. They increased and increased employers NI, which is now at a ridiculously high 13.8% of earnings over £144 per week. So, as Miss Dally was informed by Tesco today they employ no one (at the branch she is applying to) for more than 20 hours. Now let's see why. 20 hours at £7 / hour (the offered rate) = £140 = no NI. This is the problem with market distortion arising from stepped taxation banding.

That's why when cleaners, etc get a small pay rise they tend to get their hours cut. As usual, most of the country's ills derive from incompetent politicians and their poor legislation.

Re: Osborne's policy starting to bear fruit? : Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:09 pm  

Dally wrote:

Put it down to the idiotic Labour government. They increased and increased employers NI, which is now at a ridiculously high 13.8% of earnings over £144 per week. So, as Miss Dally was informed by Tesco today they employ no one (at the branch she is applying to) for more than 20 hours. Now let's see why. 20 hours at £7 / hour (the offered rate) = £140 = no NI. This is the problem with market distortion arising from stepped taxation banding.

That's why when cleaners, etc get a small pay rise they tend to get their hours cut. As usual, most of the country's ills derive from incompetent politicians and their poor legislation.

Labour raised employers NI from 10% to 12.8% over 13 years and during growth. The coalition have raised it to 13.8% during a recessionary period.
It also means very little, if employers NI were abolished then that tax revenue would have to be found elsewhere. The fairest way of doing that is through income tax, so employers would have to pay their employees more to account for the higher income tax. Whether they pay it to the taxman in employers NI or the employee and its then taken in income tax is irrelevant.