Be Excellent To Each Other

Excellent stuff! Crucially, can you reach the top of the octave in the second line of the 'Star-Spangled Banner'?

At the rate we're going, I may have to hum The Apprentice theme tune instead .

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... CMP=twt_gu

It's like the guardian read my beex posts yesterday or something.

They found out that we write treasury policy here.

Incidentally, I finally got round to looking at the employment figures vs zero hour contracts...



There were est. 31,420,000 people in employment in 2010, est. 31,850,000 based on the latest release - that's a difference of 430,000 extra people in employment. With the 700,000~ increase in zero hour contracts since 2010... I would say not only is it likely that a significant portion IS zero hour contracts, but it's possible that a portion of people who were previously on full time or part time contracts are now on zero hour jobbies instead.

(Figures from ONS)

I've never done a jobbie that's taken any longer than 10 minutes, max.

I'm saying nothing. I wouldn't want to embarrass you in front of your friends.

Nah, there's only us lot here

That ship long since sailed.

George Osborne is a sitting MP.

In addition to this he has (at least) two other jobs, as an academic fellow of John McCain's institute in the USA, and as an advisor to Blackrock (800k a year for one day a week. Nice work if you can get it).

Now he is also becoming editor of the London Evenig Standard. Initial reports are saying that he will still maintain his role as an MP.

1 - How the fuck are these not massive and obvious conflicts of interest?
2 - How easy is an MP's job if they can do it at full pay whilst holding down numerous other jobs?
3 - Seriously, how is this legal?

Bloody former Chancellors, coming over here, taking our jobs.

"Advisor" for Blackrock means "we're paying you to use your access and influence on our behalf", right?

To be fair, Tatton isn't exactly a taxing constituency

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -of-labour



Madness

"Formally joining forces with the super-union Unite"

I mean, was there a point where Labour wasn't meant to be the party of the unions? It's sort of in the name.

"Super-union".....? What, as in "super-turd"? Contradiction in terms, surely!

As for this latest SE development in the sorry tale that is the disintegration of Labour, is anyone honestly surprised? The nutters took over a good while back.

Unions, plural. It's not meant to be monopolised by one big single entity and operated as it's own political party.

And mainstream unions shouldn't have anything to do with Marxist goons like Momentum.

Heh! I missed this before, but, by crikey this caught my (bleary ) eye this morning.

So, let's take a closer look. Jem's assertions are essentially that:

1. There are only 430,000 more people in employment now, as compared to 2010.

2. By inference, given that there has only been a 430,000 increase in total employment since 2010, the number of non zero contract employments has actually FALLEN since 2010, by some 270,000

Lets take a look at the latest ONS data that I was originally referring to.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab ... et/mar2017



So, straight away, we see that fully 315,000 more people were in work than only ONE year ago, let alone 2010(!), but let's continue to analyse the various data.

It should also be noted that the ONS cites an employment rate of 74.6% (the highest since records began - which doesn't sound too bad, eh ), this equating to 31.85 million people in work. This means we can readily calculate the total working population, this being given by (31.85 million / 0.746 [74.6%] = 42.7 million.

Now, take a look at Figure 2 in that ONS data. You'll see that in Feb-Apr 2010, the employment rate was only 70.2% (and Figure 3 shows the massive increase since 2012 also).

Now, if we have 74.6% now, as compared to 70.2% back in 2010, this is a net increase of 4.4% in the proportion of people in jobs. That might not seem like much, but actually, for a total working population of 42.7 million, it is approximately equal to:

2010 people in work: 42.7 million x 0.702 = 29.98 million people in work

2017 people in work: 42.7 million x 0.746 = 31.85 million people in work

There for the ACTUAL number of extra people in employment is (31.85 million - 29.98 million) = ~2 MILLION, not 430,000, and most certainly not -270,000.

[note the above simplistic calc assumes static population between 2010 and 2017, but actually it's gone up by ~2.5 million in that time, meaning that the 2010 people in work figure is lower than I've shown, meaning the Tories' performance is even better than I've suggested]

This is what I mean, though. Whatever you may or may not think about the Tories, they have created 2 million jobs from the economic "there's no money left1111!" wreckage of 2010. Instead of getting credit, though, stuff just gets made up and banded about as if fact ("post-truth" syndrome).

In terms of the zero hours contract thing, there were 200,000 of these throughout 2000-2010 so they're nothing new. Even if the 700,000 increase is viewed as entirely bad (which I certainly don't think it should be), that's still barely a third of the total jobs created, exposing the "it's all zero-hours contracts" myth for what it is. In actual fact, the number of non zero-hours contract employment has also risen sharply in this period, by some 1.3 million-odd.

I guess the question for me, Jem, is that now you know that actually the Tories have created 2 million, not 430k jobs since 2010, will you view their track record in any different light whatsoever?



/raises Roger Moore eyebrow

Even after us telling them more than a year ago, the ONS (and HMRC) continue sending letters to this residential address for a recruitment agency that doesn't exist here.

They can't even keep a list, I'm not sure I trust them to do anything with numbers.

Not relevant to this discussion, I just wanted a little whinge about all the post our glorious government agencies apparently can't stop sending here. Seriously, between the two of them it's about as much as we get in valid post.

Cavey, I can't find the 2010 data I did the maths from so I have no choice but to concede; I should have popped the links in my post.

No need to concede to me!
But, I am interested to know if, now that you know 2 million jobs have been created not 400k, and the majority of even these not zero hours contracts, does this change your view of the Tories' achievements in office in his respect?

I'm not sure it really makes a huge difference to the figures, but this is inaccurate - the ONS classes the "employment rate" as those aged between 16-64, whereas the "people in work" statistic is people aged 16+.

</pedant>

I doubt it.

Not really. I was not particularly impressed with the Tory "achievement" way before I found the 2010 numbers I based my last post on. Even if we assume your maths is correct (I'll be honest, I haven't checked) there's still a 700k increase in zero hour contracts which is a huge chunk of people in insecure jobs.

Can the zero hours thing be double counted, if Jimmy Smith, 68, Knaresborough, works for Dirty Distribution and Weasel Warehousing?

No idea. It's all estimates, innit (as with all ONS figures AFAIK)

No, because AFAIK they're counting people not on contracts, not the other way round

ONS reckons 1.19 million in work over 65 - not a massive amount but enough to change that figure by half a percent or so.

FWIW Cavey, my criticisms are not Tory-centered. I identify less and less with any particular party as time goes on (and in part because of the shitstorm that is UK politics at the minute) so this isn't an attempt at "post-truth" / bashing any one particular party. If May called an election tomorrow (incidentally, rumours about an early election?!) I literally have no idea who I'd vote for.

My concerns re: zero hour contracts (just like my concerns in the sharp rise of self-employment in particular for women, for reasons I detailed previously) are based off genuine lived experience and the impact of zero hour / self employment on young / less well off families. Trying to e.g. claim tax credits on a zero hour contract is an absolute bloody nightmare.

Now see, it's this sentiment I just don't get. Those 700k people had NO job before, so even accepting your "insecure jobs" blanket definition for all zero-hours contracts (which I don't), an insecure job is better than NO job, and in any case, vastly more NON ZERO HOURS jobs have been created (to the tune of 1.3 million), which you're simply ignoring.

As for "checking my maths", the calculations could be done by a 10 year old TBH but feel free to check them if you don't believe 'em.

Not necessarily, if your goal is to secure some sort of financial support for your family. No job would mean that you are eligible to claim various benefits etc. whereas a zero-hour contract with insecure hours would potentially stop you from claiming various benefits, despite it being entirely possible that you could work zero hours some weeks, and thus not have any income.

I seriously doubt it is the case that having a zero-hours contract employment precludes you from having full, due access to welfare state provisions.

They do it on averages. So if you have a good month where you're earning over the minimum, your benefit will be stopped. Then if you have a bad month, you have to go through the claim process again. For people on the breadline that will guaranteed mean weeks of no cash at all.

So technically you're right - but it presents an enormous cash flow problem for those least able to manage it.

I'm not saying I can't see issues with zero-hours contract employment, or even that I like it, merely that at the very least, it's better than having no job at all. Which it demonstrably is.

Besides which, far more jobs have been created which are not zero hours contracts, so the whole thing's largely a red herring anyway, as I've said (and demonstrated) previously.

If it would hardly make any difference then they should just ban them altogether.

Speaking of great employment practices.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... 800-pounds

How is have ZERO money from employment and ZERO money from state benefits for weeks on end a good thing? Only for either your hours or benefits to pick up again, cancelling each other out and then having to start the process again? And finding out several months down the line that because you worked an hour too many one week, that your benefit claim was too high and you have to pay £X back with interest even though you have no money in the first place?

And worse, when you're stuck in this situation you can't just leave the job, because you then end up disqualified from certain benefits for even longer - because you voluntarily gave up your non-job.

It is the worst of all solutions, and telling 700k people that it's OK they're being shafted because 1.3 million people have proper jobs is a kick in the teeth.

You might well be right, but that's a totally different point.

ANECDOTE WARNING: My cousin is on a zero-hour contract for a staging company (he puts up stages for concerts and the like). He works 37.5 hours a week (plus overtime most weekends if he wants it), and has for six months or so. He's just out of school, so he's got no responsibilities so won't be in any kind of trouble if his job suddenly vanishes.

Oh yeah, there were loads of those sorts of anecdotes wheeled out about minimum wage too. I still think it's a good idea, though.

Again, I'm not suggesting zero-hours contracts are great and/or have no issues associated with them, merely that they're demonstrably better than nothing at all.

I'm also pointing out that there have been significantly more non zero hours employments created in the same period (which is inarguably a good thing), and that in this latter case, these c.1.3 million new "conventional" jobs vastly outweigh the 400k that was being claimed.

That's about the extent and scope of what I'm saying/claiming, no more, no less.

+ for e.g. working tax credits you have to work a minimum number of hours (it used to be 16, no idea what it is now) which obviously a zero hour contract cannot guarantee by its very definition.

How?

I think Cras has covered it? You can't be paid less by working vs. not working. Cashflow is another argument but doesn't change the basic fact of being paid equal or greater (cumulatively) by working.

You're assuming, of course, that all zero-hours contracts are so marginally paid as to be on a par with unemployment benefit or whatever, whereas this seems unlikely; I'm sure that some are significantly better paid than that.

Look, I don't want this turned into me somehow being the champion of zero hours contracts or something. The point for me, Jem, was that your numbers were totally wrong, which you have graciously conceded (thank you). I was genuinely interested to know if the revelation that even ignoring zero hours contracts, the Tories have created *three times* as many jobs as the 430k you were claiming actually changed any of your views or appraisal of them, but you have confirmed it does not.

Cashflow is often the only argument that matters for those on the breadline.

So, turning that argument on its head, you're saying you're better off being paid LESS, but at regular intervals. Can't say I agree, but fair enough.

Well, probably yes, as at the moments that's what the benefits system is designed to cope with. Plus it allows you to budget and plan with a bit more certainty.

The fact that low earners with varying incomes week-to-week can get screwed is a problem of the benefits system as much as the employment itself.

Except he didn't - he barely scratched the surface of the "inconvenience" of zero hour contracts and the impact on family finances.

The cumulative value of receiving e.g. housing benefit, council tax benefit etc while sitting on jobseekers or similar VS losing that and spending weeks with no money while each separate benefit application is assessed & processed and then redone on a regular basis... it's no contest.