British employment at all-time high

[Surlethe]

The number of people working in Britain reached a new record at the end of 2012 despite the continued weakness of the economy, figures showed on Wednesday. In the three months to December, a period when national output fell by 0.3%, employment rose by 154,000 to 29.73m, the highest since modern records began in 1971.

Unemployment, under the internationally used Labour Force Survey measure, fell by 14,000 over the quarter as more people looked for work. The jobless total was 2.5 million people at the end of December, while the unemployment rate stood at 7.8%.

An alternative yardstick – the claimant count – was down by 12,500 to 1.54 million, the lowest since June 2011.

The figures from the Office for National Statistics showed wages and salaries remained under downward pressure. Pay, excluding bonuses, grew at an annual rate of 1.3% in the three months to November 2012.

Work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, pointed to a fall of 15,000 in the number of people out of work for over a year, to 879,000. He said: "The fall in long-term unemployment is particularly welcome and shows that the training and support we are offering is helping people move off benefits and into work."

Liam Byrne, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "Today's fall in the headline rate of unemployment is welcome but it is now clearer than ever that British workers are paying the price to get a job or keep a job." People had taken an average annual pay cut of £1,200 since the election, he added.

This is very interesting. The quick assessment is that wages are relatively flexible in the UK, so while income growth has remained below trend, employment has recovered. However, real income has stagnated. This suggests that productivity has fallen, that there are supply-side issues with the British economy.

[J]

See? Proof that austerity works!

[Admiral Valdemar]

My pay packet says fuck austerity.

[Surlethe]

Holy Christ, it's Valdemar.

[Crazy_Vasey]

I wonder if they're counting people on workfare placements as employed for that measure. I know they're not counting them in the unemployment figures despite their still being on welfare so it wouldn't surprise me.

Source: here

[tim31]

Holy Christ, it's Valdemar.

Dude he's been dropping in and out for the last few months. Mind you, in every thread someone reacts like that.

[Zaune]

I wonder if they're counting people on workfare placements as employed for that measure. I know they're not counting them in the unemployment figures despite their still being on welfare so it wouldn't surprise me.

Source: here

From the above link:

The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.

Letter from Glen Watson, dated October 2012

As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking whether the Office for National Statistics defines people in unpaid workfare-style programmes as being employed in its Labour Market Statistics. (124129)

The ONS collects information on people participating in government-supported employment and training programmes via the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The information includes the name of the programme and the type of activity being undertaken. Those participants whose activity comprises any form of work, work experience or work-related training are classified as in employment. This is regardless of whether the individual is paid or not.

This classification is in line with recommendations set down by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which the ONS uses in the LFS to classify individuals into different labour market statuses. Those in employment on government-supported employment and training programmes comprise one of the elements—alongside employees, the self-employed and unpaid family workers—that make up the total number in employment.

That would be a yes, then. Not that Labour-In-Name-Only weren't equally guilty of that sort of thing when they were in power.

[Minischoles]

What a surprise employment went up over Xmas when everyone is employing seasonal workers - watch as it crashes back down when all those people go straight back onto job seekers.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Holy Christ, it's Valdemar.

Dude he's been dropping in and out for the last few months. Mind you, in every thread someone reacts like that.

It's pretty amusing at this point.

I had an inkling that the figures would be skewed as the US labour ones are. If you're not actively seeking work and only working five hours a week or something, you're part of the workforce.

We've had redundancies at my lab, though none of the latest bout affecting my department personally. We've actually avoided such cuts because we had half our analyst workforce vanish to other places over a year, so we voluntarily reduced our numbers. Pay is, however, either frozen or going up far less than inflation is eating away at it.

[J]

Right. So the employment number is at a new high. I would like to know a)what the working age population is and b)what the total population is. It should make for some interesting numbers, I suspect the big picture will resemble that of the US where the alleged job growth isn't keeping up with population growth.

[madd0ct0r]

from here: