Unemployment

[DimPrawn]

Economically inactive. People who aren't working because they are on long term sick, have given up looking or just don't claim the benefits.

They don't appear on the unemployment list, that's a separate number of people.

8.16 million economically inactive now represents a record 21.5% of the working population - the highest rate since 1996.

21.5% of the working population don't work.

[bobhope]

Economically inactive. People who aren't working because they are on long term sick, have given up looking or just don't claim the benefits.

They don't appear on the unemployment list, that's a separate number of people.

8.16 million economically inactive now represents a record 21.5% of the working population - the highest rate since 1996.

21.5% of the working population don't work.

I know it's a bit DailyMail-ish, but I'm always surprised when I take a morning or afternoon off during a weekday to see so many people shopping, etc. I expect it on a Saturday, of course, but it seems about as busy on a Wednesday.

I look at people incredulously and think "why aren't you all at work? What are you doing?"

[Spacecadet]

I look at people incredulously and think "why aren't you all at work? What are you doing?"

Same as you

[DimPrawn]

Latest unemployment figures being crowed by the Brown Broadcasting Corp, is unemployment falling.

There are unemployment figures, long term unemployment figures and economically inactive.

The unemployment figures are those claiming job seekers allowance, this has fallen, but it is only paid for 6 months then it is means tested.

Long term unemployment is all those who have been unemployed for 12 months or more.

So the number of long term unemployed and the number who could work but aren't has shot up, but honestly, unemployment is falling.

[Coalman]

Does my wife, who stays at home to give our kids the best possible start in life get tarred by the same brush?

There will always be economically inactive people and 21.5% does seem high, but I bet if you applied the same statistical methods to the working population 50 years ago (when fewer wives worked) I wonder what the percentage would be.

I still think that classifying some of these people as economically inactive (i.e. those that have given up looking for work) are still 'unemployed' and Labour are fiddling the figures.

[NotAllThere]

Does my wife, who stays at home to give our kids the best possible start in life get tarred by the same brush?...

I certainly wouldn't consider that to be economically inactive.

[norrahe]

I know it's a bit DailyMail-ish, but I'm always surprised when I take a morning or afternoon off during a weekday to see so many people shopping, etc. I expect it on a Saturday, of course, but it seems about as busy on a Wednesday.

I look at people incredulously and think "why aren't you all at work? What are you doing?"

and polishing the bench

[Coalman]

I certainly wouldn't consider that to be economically inactive.

The statisticians do.

[VectraMan]

Does my wife, who stays at home to give our kids the best possible start in life get tarred by the same brush?

Of course: she's not contributing to the economy, and is therefore a drain on society. Anybody who chooses not to work falls into that category, even if their reasons are good.

[Coalman]

Of course: she's not contributing to the economy, and is therefore a drain on society. Anybody who chooses not to work falls into that category, even if their reasons are good.

So I go back to my second point - are these figures really that bad compared to historical figures, i.e. say about 1950 ish.