Reasons for unemployment

[dave50]

As far as i can see the reasons for unemployment and why it will never be brought back under control are:
1. The rocketing house prices in the last ten years, meaning families need both partners to work to pay for a roof over their heads. Thirty years ago it took only one main wage earner to pay the mortgage.
2. People are now being made to work to an older age to recieve their state pension and paying off debts partly due to point 1, thus there are less employment opportunities for younger people to step on the employment ladder if fewer are retiring.
3. Lastly, the huge rise in immigration.

[B00]

you forgot the benefit system...for some people it's more profitable to sit on their bums all day popping out kids than it is to get a job and financially support themselves.

[sandyRoe]

The benefits system has little to do with it. There are now more than 2.5 million unemployed. Are there that number of vacancies in the UK?
I read an article recently about a shop opening in Belfast. There were 60 jobs on offer. Thousands of people applied for them.

[dzug2]

You forgot the minimum wage, which is too high and therefore causes unemployment........

And redundancy legislation, which discourages employers from taking on employees for fear of not being able to get rid of them.....

Somehow I don't think you've thought this through fully

[B00]

And you're reading too many articles Sandy ;-)

I live in the real world and serve these people where I work all day long.

I've told this tale before, but i'll tell it again as I think it's relevant. A little while ago we were advertising for store cleaners. I was serving this particular young gentleman who was bemoaning that "there's no jobs out there- nuffin", when i pointed out our store vacancy he replied " ewwww no, im not doing that"

[DrFilth]

>> advertising for store cleaners <<

were they full time jobs or part time BOO ?

[DrFilth]

same in manchester eddie itchys mate can't get anything because his wife works

[jno]

"Thirty years ago it took only one main wage earner to pay the mortgage."

Not in our family, we needed two, and that was for a titchy one-floor flat in a terrace.

Of course in our grandparents' day it was different: "What shall I buy, box of matches or a mansion?" The good old days.

[RATTER15]

£6.08 - the main rate for workers aged 21 and over
£4.98 - the 18-20 rate
£3.68 - the 16-17 rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18
£2.60 - the apprentice rate, for apprentices under 19 or 19 or over and in the first year of their apprenticeship

[RATTER15]

dzug2 ^^^^Minimum wage too high!! are you mad!!!? get real mate, people struggle like hell to survive on this pittance!

I get paid just over minimum rate as I have a Senior position, I have to work six day a week just to keep my head above water.

[Old_Geezer]

All your points show a increased demand for jobs but I'm unconvinced that they cover the whole picture.

House prices go up and then stagnate until inflation catches up or drop. And prices have to go with the market. When there is high demand they can rise, so opting for 2 incomes allows the purchasers to offer more and so prices rise. If instead of trying for 2 incomes folk simply went for 1 and bought affordable accommodation then prices would fall with no rise in job demand.

A percentage of folk have always reached retirement age with debt. Working longer is more of a problem due to the blinkered view of government who insist on treating pensions as separate from other government spending. They prefer to keep younger unemployed folk on welfare and force those who have already contributed their share to carry on & on working. It's government policy to cause the problem, but I believe can have only a limited affect on the economy as a whole.

It's not the rise so much but that there is a continuous influx of folk into these overcrowded islands that creates a continually growing problem. I'm unsure the size of the affect, but it is clearly not helping. Up to a point more people creates more demand and so more jobs, but it is clear if we haven't solved the problem of those already here being employed, adding to the number isn't going to change the situation. It's insanity to keep the influx going.

I feel the whole situation and thus any solution has not been captured here. There must be more to it.

[Davethedog]

The reason for unemployment.

Simple our banks screwed up therefore they now won't lend because they won't lend, business cannot either expand or cover short falls, therefore they shed jobs to keep keep thier businesses alive,

No only that to "cover" the deficit the government cuts funding to councils and services losing yet more jobs all the time telling you (supported by the tory press) that this is essential, despite every economist in the world saying the are killing the economy. This then destroys the quality of life for ordinary people who spend less, causing businesses to cut costs therefore losing more jobs.

Meanwhile they are borrowing more money that the last government did, but Dave says hes "dissapointed" hes not doing anything but hes dissapointed.

[ichkeria]

"I feel the whole situation and thus any solution has not been captured here. There must be more to it. "

You are so right!

[dzug2]

<,dzug2 ^^^^Minimum wage too high!! are you mad!!!? get real mate, people struggle like hell to survive on this pittance!>>

No not mad - trying to be ironic and point out to OP that well if you believe some of that maybe you should believe this as well - but sounds like it misfired.

But it certainly is the mantra of right wing economists and I'm sure believed by at least part of the present government and their advisors

[dzug2]

<<,2. People are now being made to work to an older age to recieve their state pension and paying off debts partly due to point 1, thus there are less employment opportunities for younger people to step on the employment ladder if fewer are retiring.>>

Well not necessarily. Those people still at work will be creating more demand in the economy than if they were retired and therefore creating rather than blocking jobs

[RATTER15]

Eddie51, Well we kind of got it all sorted and I am now happy to stay there and they are not pursuing anything further. However they yesterday offered me a new contract with increased hours and recognising my Senior position. The trouble with this new contract is the wording "Your employment with the company commenced on 1st December 2010, No previous employment counts toward your period of continuous employment with the Company" I have actually worked for the company for four and a half years. If I sign this new contract stating that my employment began 1st December 2010 they can sack me without giving me a reason as I will be within my 12 month term.

What do you reckon on it?

[LazyGun]

Social trends are always complex in cause.
Just one observation really - The Western world follows a broadly capitalist agenda, one that presupposes an increase in productivity and economic activity, year after year. Is this model sustainable in the long term? And if not, how can any society expect to be able to offer full employment?

Looking at the UK, given the population increase of the last few decades, is it realistic to suppose we can develop an economy that will offer employment for everyone? I must admit to feeling somewhat pessimistic that we can.........

[Old_Geezer]

"Those people still at work will be creating more demand in the economy"

That would be true if they were in newly created jobs. But keeping an older person, in preference to employing a younger person, in an existing job, isn't going to have much of an affect.

[Old_Geezer]

No one can reasonably expect productivity to increase towards infinity. Although the figures on the spreadsheet might. At some point any economy has to learn to cope with a plateaux, where the wealth created has to cover the needs of society.