Who is influencing this government? -and who is funding that influence?

The real level of unemployment 2022: the myth of full employment across Britain

shura.shu.ac.uk/30252/

The above is an interesting read about (un)employment in the UK.

We are now officially in recession and unemployment is likely to increase. Unfortunately, the areas which already have the highest unemployment are likely to be hit hardest, thus exacerbating the issue of regional inequality. That's why government intervention is needed to encourage the creation of well-paid, secure jobs in certain areas.

This is a direct link:

www.shu.ac.uk/centre-regional-economic-social-research/publications/the-real-level-of-unemployment-2022

Sorry! This is the link:

shura.shu.ac.uk/30252/1/real-level-of-unemployment-2022.pdf

growstuff

Full employment is a myth. There are many areas of the country where unemployment is high (14% in Blackpool). Most of these areas are former industrial towns. The problem is that people can't just move for work because accommodation costs in high employment areas are much higher.

There is only "full employment" in the better-off parts of the country, as Growstuffs post implies. Those on incapacity benefits, are not counted in the unemployment figures. In places where there are labour shortages and help is available, some people claiming incapacity benefit can find suitable employment. No one offers such help in areas poor in work availability because the need doesn't exist. The people are not making fraudulent claims; it's just employers find it worth their while to offer help in better-off, low unemployment areas.

Sheffield Hallam University has been surveying this phenomenon every five years. The most recent report is their sixth. By adding in the hidden unemployed – people who are on incapacity benefits but who would be working in a truly full employment economy – the researchers come up with an unemployment total of 2.34 million – a million higher than the government’s preferred yardstick for joblessness. (Guardian, May 2022)

The answer is not to attack those who claim incapacity benefits but to ensure growth in those areas and spread the wealth, or at least an ability to survive with dignity, over the country.

Spreading the wealth/employment opportunities would also benefit the areas with "full employment" because it would relieve the pressure on the labour and housing markets.

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing, just throwing ideas around.

We have full employment in this area everyone is desperate for staff since EU workers left, the only jobless are unemployable, for whatever reason can’t or won’t hold down a job. All the migrants found accommodation somewhere and if more come the same will happen, many were not low paid and rented houses at the market rate, others lived in service accommodation

So at last Tufton Street has a fully on board team of believers in Truss and Kwarteng.

The issue I think is that neither of them appear to understand exactly what would happen judging by Truss’s replies on local radio this morning.

I suspect that her replies to the interviewers had her party holding their heads in disbelief, and it doesn’t bode well for QT if she ever turns up.

Katie59

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing, just throwing ideas around.

We have full employment in this area everyone is desperate for staff since EU workers left, the only jobless are unemployable, for whatever reason can’t or won’t hold down a job. All the migrants found accommodation somewhere and if more come the same will happen, many were not low paid and rented houses at the market rate, others lived in service accommodation

But, as growstuff points out. It's not always financially feasible (or practical) for people to move to other areas for work .

When Norman Tebbit's father (or was it his grandfather) got on his bike to find work in the '30s he wasn't going to be going far outside his home area, and moving from place to place was actually easier than now, more housing available and people had less to move!

When I did a study of community in my area of the Durham coalfield I found that people frequently moved for better jobs, but it was easy for them, houses usually went with the miners' jobs and they could load all their possessions on a small cart to move them a few miles... This was happening at least until the mid 20thC.

growstuff

Spreading the wealth/employment opportunities would also benefit the areas with "full employment" because it would relieve the pressure on the labour and housing markets.

Very true.

I would see the LP as the party more likely to do this than the ERG. I do get the idea of a "market economy", but that seems to ignore the influence of governments.

All governments influence what jobs are or aren't created. The middle ground parties seem to have little influence, although the Greens seem to have affected LP policy.

Listening to her replies, Truss clearly doesn’t understand how the price cap works.

Tbh listening to her replies on the different radio stations - she is clueless.

Truss it has become obvious has sold her soul to the Tufton Street free marketeers in order to become PM, without having a clear understanding of laissez faire economics on speed as the major economic event last Friday indicated they intend to pursue.

I won't be voting Tory next time!

Katie59

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing, just throwing ideas around.

We have full employment in this area everyone is desperate for staff since EU workers left, the only jobless are unemployable, for whatever reason can’t or won’t hold down a job. All the migrants found accommodation somewhere and if more come the same will happen, many were not low paid and rented houses at the market rate, others lived in service accommodation

Nationally, we have nothing like "full employment".

I live in an area with very low unemployment (1.9%), but that's not typical - neither is your area Katie59.

The attached shows the differences in various areas. It's from the report I linked to earlier.

I looked up some more details of my area. The latest income figures I could find were for 2016, but back then approximately 15% of the working population had household incomes over £100,000 - I would guess it's higher now. That's much higher than the national average and is an indication of the divided nation we have become.

Property prices are high and public transport is poor. Most of the high earners work in the City (London) or in Cambridge (biotech). There is low paid work available, but people quite simply can't afford to live here and can't even commute to the area unless they have their own transport because we have so few buses. Those who can afford to live here will no doubt benefit from the recent tax cuts.

It would benefit the area as a whole, if jobs were available elsewhere because we wouldn't have so much pressure on infrastructure. There are other areas like mine, just as there are those where there is little well-paid work and new jobs could be created. An example would be the North East, which has a history of engineering and could become a hub for renewable technology - if there were a will to invest.

DaisyAnne There isn't a country in the world (with the possible exception of North Korea) which doesn't have some form of market economy. The crucial factor is the interaction between the state and the economy, with some states opting to exercise greater control.