View Full Version : Has the Law of Conservation of People been violated?
secrets in symmetry
12-Dec-12, 23:44
According to the BBC
The number of people out of work fell by 82,000 between August and October, to 2.51 million, official figures have shown.
The Office for National Statistics also said that the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance fell 3,000 to 1.58 million in November.
Employment rose 40,000 to 29.6 million, which was the highest figure since records began in 1971.
If the number out of work fell by 82,000, why did employment rise by only 40,000?
Where did the other 42,000 people go?
Even worse....
If the number of people out of work fell by 82,000, why did the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance fall by only 3,000?
Are 79,000 of those who found work still claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, or have the DSS recruited 79,000 new Jobseeker's Allowance claimants from a hidden underclass?
No doubt some will make trite statements about lying with statistics, others will say worse.
I haven't looked at the source of the figures on this occasion, but in my experience it's the BBC that are at fault.Their economic copy writers are truly incompetent. They pick out numbers from press releases and surround them with rubbish explanations that make no sense.
The alternative explanation is that the Earth has been invaded by Cyberman - again!
secrets in symmetry
12-Dec-12, 23:59
PS there's a twist to the tale. I think I know where the apparent inconsistency lies. My criticism is that the authors of the BBC article either didn't work it out, or (perhaps even worse) didn't explain it.
According to the BBC
If the number out of work fell by 82,000, why did employment rise by only 40,000?
Where did the other 42,000 people go?
Even worse....
If the number of people out of work fell by 82,000, why did the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance fall by only 3,000?
Are 79,000 of those who found work still claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, or have the DSS recruited 79,000 new Jobseeker's Allowance claimants from a hidden underclass?
No doubt some will make trite statements about lying with statistics, others will say worse.
I haven't looked at the source of the figures on this occasion, but in my experience it's the BBC that are at fault.Their economic copy writers are truly incompetent. They pick out numbers from press releases and surround them with rubbish explanations that make no sense.
The alternative explanation is that the Earth has been invaded by Cyberman - again!
Things like.... Not all of those who are no longer "out of work" actually got jobs, they're just no longer classed as "out of work" by whatever obscure means the Government uses. Likewise not all jobs where taken by people claiming JSA.
ywindythesecond
13-Dec-12, 01:27
If the number out of work fell by 82,000, why did employment rise by only 40,000?
Where did the other 42,000 people go?...............Even worse....
According to the BBC...........I haven't looked at the source of the figures on this occasion, but in my experience it's the BBC that are at fault.
You blame the BBC without looking at the source of the figures? How scientific an approach is that?
ywindythesecond
13-Dec-12, 01:29
I do think Sis has a point, but who is actually fiddling the figures?
People go off benefits for all sorts of reasons. Not least because they are disallowed or found fit for work..... Hmmm hence the work that ATOS is doing......However I would expect that there have been an increase in the number of people finding work just now. In a difficult economic climate it is likely that employers will take on temporary staff for Christmas where they will not take on permanent staff. The question will be whether there are similar figures in the new year.
PS there's a twist to the tale. I think I know where the apparent inconsistency lies. My criticism is that the authors of the BBC article either didn't work it out, or (perhaps even worse) didn't explain it.. Can you explain to the rest of us then Please Secrets
If the number out of work fell by 82,000, why did employment rise by only 40,000?
Where did the other 42,000 people go?
The change in 'number of people unemployed' and change in 'number of people in work' are not joined by a single variable. The 'number of people in work' will also vary according to the overall population.
For example, if 100,000 school leavers all left school and all entered the job markets and got jobs then the number of people in employment goes up by 100,000.
Or if 100,000 people who were in work at the beginning of the year, died during the year, then the 'number of people in work' will go down by 100,000 without affecting the unemployment figures.
secrets in symmetry
15-Dec-12, 15:59
The change in 'number of people unemployed' and change in 'number of people in work' are not joined by a single variable. The 'number of people in work' will also vary according to the overall population.
For example, if 100,000 school leavers all left school and all entered the job markets and got jobs then the number of people in employment goes up by 100,000.
Or if 100,000 people who were in work at the beginning of the year, died during the year, then the 'number of people in work' will go down by 100,000 without affecting the unemployment figures.I doubt the overall population or death rate was the dominant contributor in a three month period, but the school leavers getting jobs might have been.
Were the headline figures "seasonally adjusted"?
billmoseley
15-Dec-12, 16:48
i have heard that bus loads of jobseekers have been ferried to Portgower but none have returned maybe this is the way the government is cutting numbers and keeping the vampires happy
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.