Dole Queue
So the unemployment figures are out.
But can we trust the figures we’re given – probably not.
After all, this isn’t really the number of unemployed, it’s the number actively seeking work (or saying they are). It doesn’t include people on certain benefits or Government training schemes.
Surely a much more honest way to measure employment would be to release Employment figures.
Think about it – a breakdown of how many people are in full time employment and how many are in part time employment, add it together and you’ve got the total amount employed.
We could then see month on month how the labour market is really doing.
It’s not rocket science but of course it wouldn’t leave too much room for playing with the figures so I doubt if it will ever happen.
Aaaaargh! 
You can’t get away with just one figure to show the health of the labour market. You need about four.
How many in paid employment
How many workless
How many job vacancies
How many claiming Job Seekers Allowance
And its not even just these figures you need. Who’s to say that 7 million workless or 350,000 job vacancies is a good or bad thing? What you need to validate the health of the labour market is to see how these figures change from month to month, week to week, day to day.
LikeLike
How about the absolute and percentage of: [the population 16-65, minus those in full time long term education*] in work, seeking work, on various benefits laid out and also a figure “in work” to exclude those paid by the State. There is no point creating 900,000 new “jobs” in the pubic sector and talking about our vigourous economy when all it means is the taxes of the private sector have to pay for them.
*i.e. not allowing short term “employment training” to hide numbers.
LikeLike
Employment always goes up in the medium term, even if unemployment goes up, because the population continues to increase.
Hence employment numbers don’t really tell you anything.
LikeLike