Employment At Record High!

[spathiphyllum]

... Claims May

However, BBC reality check asked the office for national statistics (ONS) whether working just one hour a week was all that was needed to be officially registered as employed.

The ONS confirmed that was the case.

[spathiphyllum]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46264291

[gulliver1]

Eh, 50,000 jobs were axed in the first half of 2018.
23,000 shops along with 170,000 jobs are forecast to be lost in 2019 ,
think the headline to this post" Employment At Record High " ?
Just More Tory Lies.

[spathiphyllum]

100% It's shambolic.

[-Talbot-]

1 answer


Best answer

[spathiphyllum]

looks like you've just sucked a lemon

[Sqad]

-Talbot is quite correct.....how can you have the BEST ANSWER when there is one only at the time and especially as it the ONLY answer.
BUT...we have been down this road before.
I have suggested to the management that it could well be organised that the Best Answer should only be allowed after one hour, but it fell on stoney ground.

[naomi24]

However figures are calculated, if there’s an increase there’s an increase.

[spathiphyllum]

"-Talbot is quite correct.....how can you have the BEST ANSWER when there is one only at the time and especially as it the ONLY answer. "

You've answered your only question.. if there is one answer, surely it must be the best answer? Also the worst..

[spathiphyllum]

Naomi not when the statistics are counting for zero hour contracts and 1 hour a week employment rates? Employment rate should only calculate those in employment earning a living wage.

[gulliver1]

You've done it now Spath " Best Answer" get your tin hat on, and keep your head down.

[New Judge]

It’s been known for ages that many people work far less than what is considered to be a “full” week. Some do this because there is nothing else for them. Many do it because it suits them. It also then allows them to claim Working Tax Credits if they work just sixteen hours per week (provided they have children). So, work just under half a week and the taxpayer pays you for the other half.

I wasn’t aware that working just one hour classes you as “employed” but it doesn’t surprise me. As well as that many professional people (doctors, lawyers, dentists, for example) are so well paid that they only need work half a week or less. My dentist works only two days a week and the last GP I saw only works one day a week. So it is no surprise that record numbers of people are “in employment”.

It is interesting to read of the person who was repeatedly sent home after reporting for work because there was nothing for him that day. This is really the modern day equivalent of the “docker’s call on” which was in place to a greater or lesser degree up until 1967. Dockers had to gather at the dock gates to be “called on” by the foremen for a day’s work. Many were left “on the cobbles” (i.e. without work) and ha to return home. The call on was undertaken two or even three times a day. It was the establishment of the National Dock Labour Board in 1947 that saw a decline in the practice but it continued to a lesser degree into the 1960s:

https://islandhistory.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/the-call-on/

[Sqad]

sapth....this has nothing to do with the worst answer, as we are defining BEST ANSWER and this invokes a plural concept.

[naomi24]

I expect he'll change it now he has more answers to choose from. ;o)

[New Judge]

For the comparative ("better") and superlative ("best") to be meaningful there has to more than one option to choose from. Otherwise it is meaningless. In fact I would say that the superlative really needs a minimum of three choices since the best of two options can be described as "the better of the two". But I appreciate that AB cannot have such a differentiation.

However, we digress somewhat.

[jno]

since the population seems to be at a record high, the fact that employment is likewise is neither surprising nor commendable. But the increase in part-time work (or almost-no-time work) does suggest a de facto moving of the goalposts.

[Khandro]

Why not have worst answer too?

[youngmafbog]

"But the increase in part-time work (or almost-no-time work) does suggest a de facto moving of the goalposts."

Like it's the first time in history that has ever happened.

[ludwig]

65% of statistics are ***.

It wouldn't surprise me if they count people that have two jobs as two people in employment.

[jno]

that's a point, ludwig; I wonder how they do count it.

[youngmafbog]

It's actually impossible to get an accurate figure, you can count those claiming unemployment but that misses those who dont claim (Like I didnt) or you can try and count those registered to work, again that misses many out.

Both also miss out those working but should not be in the country and those working without declaring it.

All you can do is pick one method and stick to it to get a comparison.