« The recrudescence of New Labour | Main | Heritability & the left »

February 18, 2015

Comments

TickyW

Approx 22% of inactive workers moved into employment in the quarter; a curious definition of "inactivity".

A cynic might conclude that the statistics have been manipulated (notwithstanding ILO definitions)

Luis Enrique

yes, this category of inactive but wanting a job really ought to be part of what's reported as "unemployed"

Matt Moore

"this of course understates job insecurity to the extent that many who lose a job find another in the same calendar quarter"

Losing your job and finding another. Otherwise called changing job (finding another and then leaving your job). Not a sign of insecurity at all. In fact, a highly beneficial option for all workers to have, since it keeps their current employer on the straight and narrow.

David Rose

For those not aware of the fact, 'socio-economic category' is another term for social class categories. The NS-SEC is a measure of social class. 'Routine occupations' equates to the 'unskilled' working class.

Bill Posters

Never mind the figures.

None of you boys are old enough to know what good economy for jobs was like. A good economy for jobs is when you can quit a job in the morning and start another one in the afternoon.

This economy is still shit for jobs.

Perspective is gained from being up a ladder.

Bruce

Unemployed is not the same as Claiming Job Seekers Allowance. Given that couples are mostly both working (or at least wanting to work), it's usually not possible or worth claiming Job Seekers Allowance if one loses their job (or struggles to get into employment post maternity etc). Hence the big "inactive" group who would rather be active but are not regarded as unemployed.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad